Toward an Ideal Democracy

Abstract

This article explores the impact of standardization policies of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 on the American Indian/Alaska Native community and the ability of educational policy to promote sovereignty, liberty and equity within indigenous communities. Examining current research and data generated from the National Indian Education Study (NIES) of 2009, we argue that the English-only assessments of NCLB devalue indigenous social and cultural capital through the salient measure of language revitalization efforts. Consequently, by virtue of a narrowing effect on the curriculum, school-community relations are strained by standards-based reforms, as representative of current educational policy. We examine educational policy within a historical interpretation of Federal Indian policies in its capacity to promote language revitalization and student achievement. Federal Indian policies have both hurt and helped Indian education exist as a vehicle towardsmaintaining sovereignty, liberty, and equity. The concept of social capital is explored further as a recommendation to strengthen school-community relations. Ultimately, educational policy that unites the concepts of sovereignty, liberty, and equity is integral toward revitalizing indigenous language without sacrificing a focus of raising student achievement; thus, emblematic of responsive Indian educational policy.

Linguicism and Racism in Massachusetts Educational Policy

“…According to state law, the standards established at each grade level should "set high expectations of student performance," be similar to the "competencies and knowledge possessed by typical students in the most educationally advanc ed nations," and "be expressed in terms which lend themselves to objective measurement" (M.G.L.c.69 §1D). Because most state standards limit the representation of the knowledge and traditions of minority groups and promote white normativity, the use of standards themselves often promotes assimilationist ideals for multilingual learners (Cohen & Allen, 2012). The use of standards is particularly problematic for multilingual learners because of their multicultur al and linguistic backgrounds.…”

Indigenous Students and English Learner Identification: A Fifty-State Policy Review

“…This led to the loss of ancestral cultures and languages, as well as deaths and intergenerational trauma, among Indigenous communities (Adams, 2020;Child, 2018;Hirshberg, 2008;Reyhner, 2018;Vitale, 2020). However, Indigenous peoples' activism along with legislation, such as the Indian Education Act of 1972 and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975, strengthened Indigenous educational sovereignty, expanding Indigenous language revitalization/bilingual programs and culturally responsive curriculums across the country (Carjuzaa et al, 2010;Cohen & Allen, 2013). Under current federal education law, ESSA Title VI provides funding for programs that aim to address Indigenous students' unique educational and cultural interests (ESSA, 2015).…”

The presidential platform on twenty-first century education goals

“…Politicians may use ambiguous symbolic language to create a "fog" of consensus around issues (e.g., accountability), but this can result in policies that provide "tangible benefits to the few but only symbolic benefits for the many" (Smith, 2004, p. 12;Stone, 1988). For example, numerous studies have pointed to how No Child Left Behind, though framed as a measure to produce greater educational equality for low-income, African-American, and indigenous students, actually exacerbated inequities (e.g., Anyon and Greene, 2007;Cohen & Allen, 2013;Darling-Hammond, 2007). Politicians' rhetoric is sometimes meant to persuade others that their propositions are truth, and not necessarily to describe the reality of policies and policy proposals.…”