"Teaching Against Systemic Oppression": A Short On Native Education
This article discusses the history and relevance of the Indian Education Act.
An article from Native News Online, May 6, caught my attention. The issues of Indian education have been on my radar for nearly three decades. Writing, researching, and lecturing on the incumbent issues never tires. Even after all these years, the ongoing struggle for accurate representation of Native history, cultures, socio-political issues, and sovereignty remains ever-present.
What critical methodologies can be employed to counter systemic pedagogical racism against Native tribes? The proverbial question has been a rhetorical staple for generations. I argue that 21st-century academic institutions move to advance and update the discourse of Native education. If nothing else, such an ambitious claim points out to state and federal agencies that Indian education laws have been passed, are to be included in each state of the union, require ongoing federal funding, and be accurate, updated, and contemporary in scope. The horror is the recognition that each of these principles has been nearly erased not only at the local and state levels, but also at the federal level.
Montana Strong
“A group of Montana students, families and tribes recently reached a settlement agreement with the Montana Board of Public Education — a major development in a years-long class action lawsuit regarding the implementation of Indian Education for All” (Montana Free Press, May 5).
At a glance, the question would come as to why such a lawsuit was necessary from the tribal and allied plaintiffs. A further reading of the history of how this law came to inception addresses this question.
“Montana is the only state that constitutionally requires a commitment in K-12 public education to recognize the “distinct and unique cultural heritage of American Indians.” In 1999, the state Legislature enacted the Indian Education for All (IEFA) Act to implement that constitutional mandate, requiring public schools to teach Native American history and culture. And since 2007, the Legislature has appropriated about $3.5 million annually to Montana school districts for implementing IEFA. Schools, according to the original legislation, are supposed to use the funds for curriculum development, class materials and teacher training” (Montana Free Press, May 5).
California has similar legislation specifically addressing California tribes, the California Indian Education Act (last updated September 2024). What the Montana IEFA articulates is the earmark of funding, hiring, course materials, and teacher training; a model for other states to incorporate into teaching and funding. In the last few months, the dismantling of the Department of Education (DOE) and direct funding to tribal agencies nationwide will have an immediate impact on rural tribal communities and urban Indian education centers. The domino effect of this closure and the removal of federal funding will further cripple Indian education programs, schools, and centers which many communities, rural and urban, rely on for more than just education. These education centers serve as after-school care, cultural exchange centers, tutoring facilities, year-round food banks, and entry-level employment for some. With federal funding being removed, the few Indian education centers still operating will need to rely on grants, wealthy tribal and private donors, along with any other ways to secure some merger operating budget income.
In Montana, a collective of tribes filed a lawsuit against the Office of Public Instruction and the Montana Board of Public Education, alleging that funding between 2019–2020 could only account for 15% of the required allocated funding. Evidence proved that the missing funds were used to pay for non-related expenses statewide, including salaries and non-related books and education materials.
The Montana Board of Public Education unanimously voted to uphold the IEFA, encouraged statewide agencies to comply with and enact the IEFA, and repay tribal plaintiffs with the missing funds. The tribes acknowledged this settlement to help resolve the matter out of court. A spokesperson for the tribal plaintiffs said they are “pleased to reach this settlement” (Montana Free Press, May 5).
This settlement proves the possibility of the accurate implementation of tribal education in statewide educational centers, thus recapturing the intent of the IEA. What is alarming to note is the settlement of the Montana lawsuit, which comes as an exception to the norm concerning accurate Indian education. There is accountability and a system of checks and balances, now, concerning the IEFA. In a perfect environment, such action would take place nationwide, led by local tribal action groups with non-Native partners, donors, and supporting agencies. Absent the majority of these tools, tribes are left doing what they can with what expendable funds are available if they are interested in addressing this and similar issues. Such limited fiscal access is another facet of the historic termination and assimilation policies, established to reduce the ongoing image, icon, and identity of American Indians. Montana is a case study, proving the possibility for positive Native change. The necessary funds to promote these actions elsewhere are the all-too-realistic roadblock.
Indian Education Act
A breakdown of the Indian Education Act (1972–73):
Provided funding for tribal colleges and universities, allowing Indigenous peoples greater access to higher education opportunities.
Aims to reduce high dropout rates among Native American students by addressing cultural relevancy in curricula and educational practices.
Establishes the Office of Indian Education and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education.
Provides federal funds for American Indian and Alaska Native education at all grade levels.
Authorized funding for special bilingual and bicultural programs, culturally relevant teaching materials, and appropriate training and hiring of counselors.
Created an Office of Indian Education in the US Department of Education.
“The Indian Education Act authorized funding for special bilingual and bicultural programs, culturally relevant teaching materials,and appropriate training and hiring of counselors. It also created an Office of Indian Education in the US Department of Education.”
“Today [2024–2025] the mission of the Office of Indian Education [OIE] is to support the efforts of local educational agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives so that these students can achieve to the same challenging state standards as all students” (Mehhrin Kauwets’ A Ka).
The Indian Education Act (IEA), on face value, has plenty of teeth and traction. The accurate implementation of the IEA has proven to be less successful. Coming out of the Red Power Movement (aka, the American Indian Civil Rights Movement, c. 1970s), the IEA was a demand from tribes to articulate the importance, relevance, and contemporary nature of tribal communities. Identity is core to the IEA, as is incorporating tribal voices through hiring, education, and cooperation in the updating of the law throughout the country at the federal and state levels. The question to ask is, “How many received an accurate education on local and/or national tribal history and culture?”
While most may recall some memory of learning about the Trail of Tears, this point in American Indian history has become a stereotyped moment to define “all” tribal histories. What is the basis for this educational approach? Simple: America did “bad things” to “the” Native American (read: a singular codified identity and history), and to teach this point in time satisfies the need for teaching about Native American history. Such a limited approach to the complexities of American Indian histories (read: plural histories) is the pop cultural stereotyped, racialized historical segregational norm. In addition, retaining this seismic moment in Indian history as the “singular articulating episode” for American Indian history goes against the IEA. But, how many educational institutions are going to put forth the effort to comply with what appears to be an antiquated act established to satisfy a very limited segment of the U.S. population? Therefore, administrations can continue to provide limited funding to Indian education centers and look away from regulating the IEA.
Call To Action, NCAI on the Boarding School History
NCAI Condemns Trump Administration’s Elimination of Boarding School Truth and Preservation Funding
“The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) on Monday condemned the Trump administration’s decision to rescind critical federal funding for Native American boarding school research, education, and preservation announced last month. The rescission resulted in more than $1.6 million in grants, primarily from the National Endowment for the Humanities” (Native News Online, May 6).
The boarding schools hold a psychological massacre for Native generations. The “missionized mind” is one marker used by California tribes to articulate the psychological devastation and oppression from this history. Qualifying the boarding school issues as a historic-contemporary psychological massacre places a stronger emphasis on the realities of this traumatic time. Though there are no more boarding schools active in North America, the history lingers. Even those who may not have attended one of these incarceration centers, the realities of what this oppressive structure has done for tribal communities, repeated the trauma now well beyond a minor clinical evaluation. For equity and responsibility to be acquired for Native Peoples, the psychological massacre of the boarding school era needs to be understood by the non-Native communities and lawmakers, that the term “massacre” is not an over-exaggeration. The term highlights the surface realities while underscoring the institutionalized racist ideology contextualized as hegemonic oppression against Native Peoples.
A Note For Relatives
“We have a lot more work to do” (Alaska’s News Source, May 5).
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW/MMIG/MMIP/MMIW2S+) remains an issue mostly under the radar in non-Native communities. May 5 is marked as the “Day of Remembrance” for the MMIW/MMIG/MMIP/MMIW2S+ issue throughout Native country (Canada and the U.S.). However, how many continue to challenge this form of institutionalized racism? There is a need for the visibility of this matter, and not only on one day a year. Communication is key. Solid evidence and letting the community know, even though May provides one day a year to give undivided attention to this matter. There is a need to continue voicing the complexity of the MMIW/MMIG/MMIP/MMIW2S+ issue, and their collaboration across multiple gender and racial pop cultural limits. The acknowledgement by the collective tribal agencies in Alaska that there is “still much to be done” is a bold statement. If the change does not start in tribal Nations and communities, both rural and urban, then tribes will be, once again, subject to the dominant society’s disenfranchisement techniques.
The compiled information emphasizes the timeless necessity for accurate, contemporary, relevant, and tribe-centered education. The U.S. has allowed these points to be excluded from modern teaching and educational institutions. For a country to thrive, not simply survive, it must recognize and cooperate with the First Peoples of the land. If not, the holistic erosion of land, economics, culture, and civil balance will result. The U.S. flirts with this limit. If this remains the status quo, at some point, the bow will break and the cradle will fall.
Alan Lechusza
Indigenous Hip Hop Business Association (IHHBA)