The ESSA in Indian Country: Problematizing Self-Determination Through the Relationships Between Federal, State, and Tribal Governments

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to (a) analyze the potential effects of the new relationship between state and federal governments on tribal sovereignty and self-determination and (b) problematize the devolution of power back to the states as they are entrusted to use the guiding frameworks of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to ensure educational equity for American Indian and Alaska Native students. Research Methods/ Approach: The primary data source is the ESSA supplemented by public reports and resolutions, and recent press releases collected online. The ESSA policy was analyzed through a postcolonial interpretive policy analysis framework informed by Tribal Critical Race Theory. Findings: ESSA amendments improve opportunities in several areas, including State Tribal Education Partnerships and Cooperative Agreements, tribal consultation, Impact Aid, Native language immersion, the Bureau of Indian Education, and Alaska Native education, but these are limited by the lack of tribal selfdetermination as the law is written. States' interests are prioritized over

Safe Zones, Dangerous Leadership: Decolonial Leadership in Settler-Colonial School Contexts

“…Conquest and colonization are no longer the explicit educational policy aims in the lands currently referred to as the United States. Yet, the subjugation of Indigenous histories, lived experiences, and cultural ways of knowing remain a regular feature of public schooling in the U.S. (Benally, 2017; Brayboy et al, 2015; Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2013; Mackey, 2017; Reyes, 2019). 1 1 Following Brayboy et al (2015), we use the term Indigenous and Native interchangeably with reference to Indigenous, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native American, and Native Hawaiian peoples. The enduring dominance of white and European curricula and tokenized integration of Indigenous pedagogies in formal classrooms (Cuauhtin et al, 2019; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; San Pedro, 2019) reflect institutional legacies of settler colonialism: a political project and social structure in which colonizers encroach on, inhabit, and seek to eliminate Native peoples as well as Native ontologies and epistemologies (Byrd, 2011; Trask, 1999).…”

“…The diversity of Indigenous experiences of and resistance to public schooling across 574 federally recognized tribes further belies any singular narrative of conquest (Child et al, 2014; Faircloth, 2018). Recent scholars aiming to extend projects of decolonial resistance in U.S. public schools have turned to the role of educational leaders as powerful organizational agents for reconstituting schools as sites that might affirm and expand Indigenous ways of knowing and being (Bird et al, 2013; Faircloth, 2018; Hohepa, 2013; Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al, 2019; Mackey, 2017). Faircloth and Tippeconnic (2013, p. 484) understand decolonizing school leadership as a process of “reforming the educational system from one that privileges western beliefs, practices, and priorities into one that recognizes and respect the role of Indigenous ways of knowing and doing in the education of Indigenous students.” Khalifa et al (2019) similarly elaborate the decolonial aims of educational leadership and posit a framework they term, Indigenous, Decolonizing School Leadership (IDSL).…”

Liberating Sovereign Potential: A Working Education Capacity Building Model for Native Nations

“…While these gains should be celebrated, there is still significant room for ongoing improvement as new laws and policies are born, such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) mandate for tribal consultation for Title VI funds intended to help meet the unique learning needs of American Indian children (Mackey, 2017). While federal and state jurisdictions create substantial boundaries, it is clear that Native nations are seeing enhanced opportunities to have an administrative voice in education.…”

Considerations for Building a Prosperous and Self-Determining Osage Nation Through Education

“…However, in this era of rapid change, Osage educational leaders are in a complex capacity building environment. Eager to build on this momentum and to enact their rights to educational sovereignty as a Native nation, these leaders must (a) balance the need to serve both on- and off-reservations citizens and allocate resources with this in mind; (b) engage in ongoing partnership building and consultation with public-school systems to reach their students (NIEA, 2016, 2017) and advocate in a way that protects and asserts their sovereign rights (Mackey, 2017); (c) consider short- and long-term capacity building needs in terms of ongoing teacher and leadership development (RedCorn, 2016), ongoing data collection and school improvement planning (Bernhardt, 2009), quality professional development (Learning Forward, 2018), development of professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), curriculum development strategies (McTighe & Wiggins, 2012), and alignment with outside systems, particularly when trying to create an Osage-centered version of such a system. Leaders also must (d) always be critically aware of the need to balance a dependence on non-Osage institutions, while prioritizing localized Osage knowledges passed through educational environments outside of settler-colonial systems; and (e) there is a need to constantly reflect and evaluate how our own educational upbringing in settler-colonial systems might be affecting the way they conceptualize educational leadership in an Indigenous setting.…”