American Indian and Alaska Native Education

Background

The Executive Order's Objectives and Implementation

Before its revocation, the 1998 directive issued by President Clinton sought to address the unique educational and cultural needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students by establishing clear objectives focused on improving academic outcomes. Federal agencies were directed to enhance interagency cooperation, streamline services, and focus on educational strategies that considered the cultural context of these communities. Specifically, it mandated improvements in literacy, mathematics proficiencies, and high school completion rates. The objective was also to enhance safe, drug-free learning environments and deploy educational technology.

Interagency Collaboration and Resource Allocation

The executive order facilitated the creation of an Interagency Task Force designed to coordinate efforts across federal departments, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive federal Indian education policy. This task force, co-chaired by the Departments of Education and the Interior, was instrumental in aligning programs, identifying resources, and strategizing federal support for tribal educational needs. Participating agencies were required to tailor strategies aimed at maximizing their resources and ensuring participation in education-related consultation with tribal governments.

Operational Adjustments in Federal Agencies

Directive measures within the order led to operational changes in several federal agencies, prioritizing educational support for Native communities. Agencies such as the Department of Education devised a research agenda to establish baseline data on academic achievement among Native students, evaluating practices and native language strategies. The aim was to generate empirical data guiding future policies. Furthermore, pilot sites, primarily schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, received targeted technical assistance, fostering environments that could serve as educational models for broader adoption.

Reason for Revocation

Shift in Policy Priorities

The revocation by President George W. Bush in 2004 coincided with a reevaluation of federal educational strategies emphasizing accountability, standardization, and state-level policy autonomy, captured in initiatives like No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This legislative framework prioritizes performance benchmarks and standardized testing as mechanisms to ensure educational progress, a paradigm that may not have been entirely compatible with the culturally nuanced approach proposed in the original executive order.

Ideological Reorientation

The Bush administration's broader ideological stance favored reducing federal oversight in favor of local and state control, consistent with conservative principles advocating for smaller government. The emphasis was on market principles and accountability, suggesting that the federal interagency task force and its centralized coordination might have been seen as contrary to this vision. Government-to-government interaction, as outlined in the executive order, was limited in scope within such ideological confines.

Rationalization through Policy Efficiency

The Bush administration argued for streamlining federal involvement in areas where overlapping functions could be reduced. The intention was likely to eliminate redundancies and simplify federal engagements in Native education sectors. The belief was that local agencies, possibly in collaboration with state governments, could more effectively address educational needs without the layered federal oversight envisioned in the earlier order.

Push towards Broader Educational Policies

Another potential motivation for revocation was the administration's focus on broader educational policies that applied universally across all demographic groups. There was an inclination to dilute specificity in favor of policies like NCLB that ostensibly aimed to ensure equal educational opportunities, even if such policies did not directly address cultural specifics pertinent to Native American education.

Winners

State Governments and Educational Agencies

With the revocation, state governments potentially gained more control over the education systems within their jurisdictions. By limiting federal intervention and central oversight, states could exert greater influence over funding distributions and educational priorities, aligning them with local objectives that may not necessarily prioritize Native-specific educational goals. State agencies, long proponents of educational autonomy, stood to benefit by administering education policies without extensive federal mandates.

Proponents of Standardized Educational Policies

Advocates of education systems that emphasized accountability and standardized benchmarks found the revocation aligned with their goals. Broad educational reforms aimed at achieving widespread literacy and mathematical competencies, devoid of specialized cultural adaptation, resonated with stakeholders promoting universal metrics and educational outcomes across different demographics.

Privatization Interests

Entities favoring the privatization and charter school movements, which were gaining momentum during the Bush administration, might have seen the revocation as an opportunity. Without the constraints of targeted federal policies for Native education, the private sector could position itself as a viable alternative for meeting diverse educational needs, offering more florid curriculum and administration modalities facilitated by reduced federal mandates.

Losers

Native Communities and Educational Institutions

Native American tribes and educational institutions explicitly serving these communities experienced a setback due to the order's revocation. The original order's unique focus on cultural preservation and tailored education processes lost prominence, potentially affecting initiatives that aimed at integrating tribal culture with modern educational methodologies, hence impacting community vitality and student retention.

Federal Agencies Focused on Cultural Education

Agencies and organizations that sought to bolster educational outcomes through cultural integration, such as the National Indian Education Association, encountered challenges as interagency cooperation efforts saw a dissolution. Key collaborative efforts among federal departments were integral in pioneering research and strategies that might have been stymied by the revocation, restricting a federalized approach to cultural education policy development.

Students Dependent on Federal Support Programs

The students most reliant on the comprehensive federal programs envisioned by the executive order faced obstacles with its withdrawal. Programs designed to provide technical assistance, resource allocation, and comprehensive service delivery in areas with high Native American populations became fragmented. This diminished coordinated educational support that was tailored specifically to the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students.