American Indian and Alaska Native Education

Background

Impact on Law and Regulation

Executive Order 13336 emphasized a tailored approach within federal agencies towards the education of American Indian and Alaska Native students. The establishment of an Interagency Working Group required collaboration across key departments, including Education, Interior, and Health and Human Services, to create innovative solutions without the need for formal rulemaking. This encouraged a more cohesive federal strategy directly impacting educational programming, funding decisions, and policy implementation specific to tribal contexts, which often bypassed typical bureaucratic slowdowns associated with new regulations.

Operational adjustments under this mandate included initiatives geared towards data collection and research, focusing on the academic performance and progress of Indigenous students. This task was directed predominantly at the Department of Education, which influenced its data analysis methodologies. These adjustments aimed at identifying obstacles these students faced within the educational system, facilitating the development of evidence-based interventions. Additionally, federal attention was drawn towards leveraging native languages and cultural practices in formulating educational strategies, thereby promoting a culturally respectful learning environment.

Social policy was notably impacted by promoting tribal sovereignty and self-determination within educational contexts. This directive necessitated that educational policies and programs respect and incorporate tribal traditions and customs, aligning with federal trust responsibilities. Consequently, there was an incentivization for educational institutions to engage in proactive, respectful partnerships with tribal entities, thereby adjusting curricula and teaching methods to better fit the cultural narratives and educational aspirations of Native populations. This executive order acted as a catalyst for educational institutions and governments to reassess and redesign educational programs to be more inclusive and culturally adept.

Reason for Revocation

Contextual Shifts Under Obama Administration

The Obama Administration’s decision to revoke the order reflected a broader strategic realignment concerning Indigenous education policies. Central to this shift was a move away from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) framework, which had been criticized for its one-size-fits-all approach, towards policies that afforded more flexibility and localized control. Obama's educational policy favored broader inclusivity and multifaceted support systems, rather than singular executive directives, suggesting a departure from the rigid accountability systems established under previous policies.

The administration sought to integrate Native education policy into a larger framework focused on diversity and overcoming systemic educational barriers. This ideology underscored the re-evaluation of existing executive orders to harmonize them with new educational initiatives aimed at equitable resource allocation and cross-cultural empowerment. The revocation was possibly seen as a necessity to streamline these policies to enhance their efficacy and alignment with contemporary educational goals.

Additionally, the ideological shift under Obama was towards increased respect for tribal authority, recognizing those institutions’ capability to set their educational agendas. By revoking Bush’s order, the administration acknowledged the potency of direct tribal governance over education in eliminating federal overreach. This move resonated with Obama’s broader agenda on civil rights and indigenous recognition, embodied in newer initiatives that promoted self-determination while providing structural support beyond education.

Symbolically, the revocation marked a decisive shift away from prescriptive executive orders. Instead, there was a repositioning towards collaborative partnerships with Indigenous governments and agencies at the national level. It was part of embracing a more participatory framework, acknowledging that Indigenous educational success hinged more critically on cooperative federalism and trust-based partnerships as opposed to unilateral mandates.

Winners

Communities and Governmental Agencies Benefitting from Revocation

Tribal communities were significant beneficiaries of the revocation. The change facilitated increased autonomy and decision-making power in educational policy. By removing the constraints imposed by the previous executive order, tribal institutions gained greater freedom to innovate and implement educational strategies that were culturally attuned and more aligned with the needs of their populations. This autonomy empowered tribes to prioritize educational reforms that directly addressed their specific cultural and linguistic contexts.

The educational policy-shift potentially benefited those governmental agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of the Interior, which saw reduced federal oversight and were encouraged to adopt broader, inclusive policies. This provided these agencies with increased latitude to focus resources more strategically, targeting a wider array of tribal educational challenges without the restrictions of narrowly focused directives.

Non-tribal educational institutions and research organizations collaborating with tribal colleges and universities could also benefit. With the focus shifting to enabling tribal entities to build capacity, these external bodies stood to gain through partnerships that involved skill and resource sharing. The move allowed for broader research dissemination and cooperative efforts leading to enhanced educational outcomes, thereby promoting innovation through collective expertise rather than federal mandate.

Losers

Groups Potentially Disadvantaged by the Revocation

Specific sections of federal bureaucracy that were directly involved in managing and implementing the original interagency initiatives could perceive this change as diminishing their influence over Indigenous educational matters. The structured coordination that EO 13336 demanded supported interagency collaboration, translating into political clout and operational authority that were effectively circumscribed post-revocation.

Some educational advocacy groups that favored a national, standardized approach to educational improvement and accountability perceived the revocation as a setback. These groups, which relied on clear federal mandates to push for improvement in Indigenous education, could have seen the removal of explicit federal directives as a weakening of reform-minded pressure that visibly held educational entities accountable for Indigenous student outcomes.

Additionally, individuals and policymakers who supported the original directive as part of the NCLB framework may have viewed the revocation as a dismissive move away from stringent federal oversight needed to ensure educational equity. These stakeholders may have argued that relinquishment of a strong federal stance risks downplaying the urgency and importance of reform efforts, potentially opening the door to disparate state or local implementation frameworks with varying degrees of commitment and effectiveness.