Tribal Education

This article summarizes the past and present of Native American education. It begins with a brief demographic description of the American Indian population, and gives the essential facts about tribal education at present. The article gives a concise history of government policy toward Native Americans from the early 1800's up to the present, examines the basic issues in tribal education today, explores cultural issues between Native Americans and mainstream American society, and describes a current movement in tribal education toward requiring that the assessment and evaluation of tribal education include criteria that is socially and culturally relevant to Native American education.

Keywords Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Cultural relevance; Indian Child Welfare Act; Indian Reorganization Act (IRA); Meriam Report; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); National Indian Education Association (NIEA); No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act; Reservation; Tribal schools; Tribal colleges; Urban Indian Relocation Program

Overview

Snapshot of Current Native American Demographics

According to the 2010 U.S. census, 5.2 million people identified as at least part American Indian or Alaska Native; of this population, 2.9 million identified only as American Indian or Alaska Native. In January 2012 the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior issued a news release affirming that there are 566 Native American Indian Tribes recognized by and eligible to receive services from by the United State Bureau of Indian Affairs.The largest nations and tribes are: Cherokee, 819,105 (up from 729,533 as reported in the U.S. Census, 2004-1005) members; Navajo, 332,129 (up from 298,197) members; Choctaw, 195,764 (up from 158,774) members; Chippewa, 170,742 (up from 149,669) members; and Sioux, 170,110 (up from 153,360) members (U.S. Census, 2010; U.S. Census, 2004-2005).

Between 2000 and 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Native American population grew almost twice as fast as that of the total U.S. population, with a 18% increase for Native Americans versus 9.7% for the U.S. population as a whole. According to the 2010 census, 78% of persons identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native lived outside of tribal areas such as reservations. Of the 4.6 million people living in tribal areas, 3.5 million (or 77%) did not identify as Native American. Native Americans as a group are younger and poorer than the average for the U.S. population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2011, the median age for native Americans was 31 years, as compared to 37 years for the U.S. population as a whole. The median household income for Native Americans was $35,192 in 2011, according to the Census Bureau, and 30% of Native Americans live in poverty; in comparison, the median household income for the U.S. as a whole was $50,502, with 16% of the population living in poverty.

Facts on Native American Education

According to the Bureau of Indian Education, in the 2010-2011 school year, 49,152 students were enrolled in Bureau of Indian Education Schools. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in the U.S. public school system for the 2010-2011 school year, there were 378,000 American Indian/Alaska Native students enrolled; this is 7% of the total public school population. The number of Native Americans/Alaska natives reported enrolled in public school by the National Center for Educational Statistics is lower than in previous years because of a change in data collection procedures: in 2010-2011, only students who were American Indian/Alaska Native (not mixed race) were counted.

The federal agency responsible for overseeing Native American education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), allocates $3,075 annually for each student. This should be compared to U.S. public schools where there is an average allocation / expenditure of $6,400 per student.

The school achievement of Native American students lags behind that of the general U.S. population in many aspects, according to the National Indian Education Association. For instance, only 82% of Native Americans age 18 to 24 years have completed high school, as compared to 94% of White Americans and 90% of all Americans. In addition, the average freshman graduation rate in 2009-2010, meaning the percentage of entering freshmen who received a high school diploma within four years was 69% for Native Americans, as compared to 83% for White students and 78% for all students. Native American students were also disadvantaged by poverty, and by attending high-poverty schools: according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 2011, one third of Native American students lived bellowed the poverty threshold, and 31% attended high-poverty schools; in comparison, only 12% of White students were living in poverty in 2011, and only 6% attended a high-poverty school.

According to a 2012 report, Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study by the National Center for Education Statistics, Native American students also lag behind the general U.S. population in higher education achievement. In 2011, only 10% of female and 14% of male Native American students exceeded the college readiness score in English, mathematics, reading, and science on the ACT, as compared to 22% of females and 28% of males in the entire high school population. In 2010, only 33% of female and 24% of male Native Americans age 18 to 24 were enrolled in college or graduate school, as compared to 47% of females and 39% of males in the entire population. Of students who enrolled in a four-year institution of higher education in 2004, only 41% of female and 37% of male Native Americans completed a bachelor's degree within 6 years, as compared to 61% of females and 56% of males in the population as a whole.

A Concise History of U.S. Government Policies Regarding Native Americans

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) - also referred to as the "Office of Indian Affairs" or the "Indian Office" until 1947 - is one of the oldest agencies within the U.S. government; it was established by the U.S. secretary of war, John C. Calhoun, in 1824. The BIA was originally under the auspices of the U.S. War Department, and during this period there were a lot of forced tribal relocations. Congress transferred the BIA to the newly created Department of the Interior in 1849 (Henson, 1996, p 10-11).

In the 1840's, after being moved from their traditional lands, the Choctaw and the Cherokee operated successful schools with complete tribal autonomy, and were teaching students in both Native languages and in English. At that time, the Cherokee population was about 90% literate in its own language, and their English literacy rate was higher than the non-Native populations in Texas or Arkansas. There were more than 200 schools and academies, and graduates often went on to study at colleges in the East (Williams, 2006, p 9).

During the 1880's, the BIA took over the tribal schools. This period is often referred to as the "assimilation era," in which the BIA's presence on reservations - and overall BIA administration of reservations - increased significantly. "Indian agents became responsible for operating the schools, overseeing justice, distributing supplies, leasing contracts, etc. By 1900, BIA representatives had in effect, become the tribal governments of the reservations" (Henson, 1996, p 12).

In this period, federal policy created boarding schools that forcibly separated the children from their families. In 1885, there were 114 American Indian boarding schools with a total attendance of about 6,000 students. On reservations throughout the U.S., there were also 86 day schools which did permit students to remain living with their families. However, the mandatory system of boarding schools held 75% of the Native American students, and by 1895 the number of boarding schools grew to 157, with about 15,000 students attending, and the number of day schools increased to 125, with about 3,000 students attending. The educational decline of Native Americans may have been related to the federal government's attempt to assimilate American Indians into mainstream culture as the expense of supporting Indian culture that had thrived long before White men ever came to North America. Watras (2004) writes that during this fifty year period of assimilation (from 1875 to 1928) the schools for Native Americans promoted … "education for extinction" (Watras, 2004, p. 82).

In 1928, Hubert Work (then U.S. Secretary of the Interior), commissioned a comprehensive study that came to be known as the Meriam Report. The study detailed the living conditions of Native Americans, and the findings justified the report's demand that the U.S. government deal with the educational needs of Native Americans. The report concluded that "the real choice before the government is between doing a mediocre job and thereby piling up for the future serious problems in poverty, disease, and crime, or spending more for an acceptable social and educational program" (Williams, 2006, p 12).

The Meriam Report issued some very disturbing news: most Native Americans were extremely poor, they were not at all adjusted or connected to the larger American society, they suffered much more from diseases than did the general population, and they could not earn money to alleviate their problems. The report said that the federal government had contributed to the poor health of the Indians by providing inadequate food, and supplying housing that was appallingly unsanitary (Watras, 2004, p. 83).

In January 1934, John Collier, who was appointed as Commissioner of Indian Affairs by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, began a campaign to obtain passage of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). Submitted as the Wheeler-Howard Act, this act was the basis of what came to be known as the "Indian New Deal" because it was designed to radically change the situation for Native Americans. Although Collier could not win congressional backing for his most extreme proposals, Congress did pass the Indian Reorganization Act, and the IRA dramatically changed federal policy by allowing tribal self-government and consolidating individual land allotments back into tribal hands. The IRA managed to improve conditions for Native Americans and, from 1929 to 1945, Native American education policy attempted to support traditional Indian culture; the directors of education in the office of Indian affairs turned the schools toward the principles of progressive education (Watras, 2004, p. 83).

But the era of progressive education ended in 1949 when the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, chaired by former U.S. President Herbert Hoover, recommended that the Bureau of Indian Affairs adopt as its aim the integration of Native Americans into mainstream American society (Watras, 2004, p. 99); by 1950, the federal government had reversed the direction of its policies, and many of the progressive innovations in Native American schools disappeared (Watras, 2004, p. 101).

The BIA also created the Urban Indian Relocation Program in 1952, which severed Indian federal trust status. The Relocation Program operated on the belief that assimilating Native Americans would ultimately improve their livelihood. Statements such as the one made by the BIA Great Lakes Agency, in 1957, clearly demonstrate the ideological philosophy of the BIA at that time: "The conclusion which must be drawn then, is that many of the people [American Indians] do not have adequate opportunities on the reservation and the surrounding areas, and from this standpoint it is felt that the Program of Relocation Services is indeed a boon to the needy group" (Laukaitis, 2005, p. 143).

But by 1957, urban decline was taking its toll. For example, in Chicago there was a significant loss of manufacturing jobs, an increasing size and number of "slums," and an overall decline for the population of the city. Indians found that the big problems on their reservations - few employment opportunities, poor housing conditions, and failing school programs - were even worse problems for them as residents of America's large cities (Laukaitis, 2005 p.143). For most Native Americans, the Relocation Program did not turn out to be a "boon" at all. By 1969, when a U.S. Senate hearing on Indian education took place, congressmen discovered that the median number of school years completed by the adult Cherokee was only 5.5, drop-out rates at public schools were at about 75%, and the level of Cherokee education was far below the average of Oklahoma's general population (Williams, 2006, p 10).

This information was essentially the same for Native Americans throughout the country. In 1969, Senator Edward Kennedy and a Subcommittee on Indian Education released the Kennedy Report, which stated that, "[the federal government's] failure to provide an effective education for the American Indian has condemned him to a life of poverty and despair. The educational status of American Indians is nothing less than a national tragedy and a national disgrace" (as cited in Williams, 2006, p 13). The Kennedy Report also said that the nation's public schools were quite ineffective for Indian children: "the classroom and school building are a kind of battleground where the Indian child attempts to protect his integrity and identity as an individual by defeating the purposes of the school" (as cited in Daschle, 2000, p 31). It continued with, the "cold, hard statistics … demonstrate that the First American has become the Last American in terms of opportunity for employment, education, a decent income, and the chance for a full and rewarding life" (as cited in Daschle, 2000, p 30).

The Kennedy Report changed the direction that the 1950's Urban Indian Relocation Program had taken Native Americans; in the 1970's, a new policy of self-determination was established and, along with the new policy, once again respect for Indian culture and autonomous tribal government made a comeback. Congress passed a series of laws, including the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Health Care Improvement Act, which tried to improve the quality of reservation life and support tribal governments (Henson, 1996, p 15).

Recent Government Policies

In the 1990's, American Indian leaders hailed as "historic" an executive order by President Bill Clinton which crafted a comprehensive federal policy on Indian education (Schnaiberg, 1998, p 2). At that time, education programs and resources for Indian and Native Alaskan students were spread among various federal agencies and critics had complained that those agencies rarely solved problems or cooperated efficiently. Yvonne C. Novack, president of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), said Clinton's executive order was a welcomed departure from bureaucratic trends, that it was an affirmation of the unique educational needs of American Indian students, and it emphasized the unique political relationship between the federal government and tribes (cited in Schnaiberg, 1998, p 3-4). Under Clinton, the Department of Education was also charged with drawing up a federal research agenda on Indian education; it would establish baseline data on achievement, evaluate promising practices with Indian students, and address Indian languages and culture (Schnaiberg, 1998, p 10).

President Clinton signed three executive orders; the first, officially acknowledging the unique relationship between the tribes and the federal government. It required all federal agencies to coordinate and consult with Indian people on matters affecting them. The second strengthened tribal colleges and their role in tribal communities, and the third executive order strengthened the schools for Indian children; it also gave Native Americans a lot of control over deciding how their schools are run (Daschle, 2000, p 17). The three executive orders redefined the federal-tribal relationship in fundamental ways, and were an important step in addressing long-standing wrongs (Daschle, 2000, p 18).

Current Educational Problems

For many Native American students, the schools they attend are under-funded, either because they live in high poverty urban or rural areas, or because they are attending schools under Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) operation. Native American students do not find schools to be a source of inspiration, and schools are not a source of stability in many of these students' lives. As a result of these circumstances, students are not engaged, and they are not achieving (National Science Foundation, 2002, p. 16). Another problem is that there are generally very high teacher and education staff turnover rates, and this prevents schools from accomplishing their instructional purposes, and also retards the school's ability to improve or retain positive developments that have been accomplished (National Science Foundation, 2002, p. 51).

Another problem is the high-school dropout rate. For example, in one plains Indian group, there was a situation in which 90-95% of their youth were completing school through the eighth grade, and then dropout rates jumped precisely when these students entered high school. By the twelfth grade, only 15% of those students from the Indian community were graduating. After deeper investigation, however, the answer became apparent: through the eighth grade, the students had attended a school within their own small Community. Throughout their first eight years of schooling, the students were surrounded by elders and other tribal members, and they felt security and support from their community. Then the students started the ninth grade in a school located off the reservation. In that school, they were treated like "misfits and outcasts." Many fellow students and teachers gave the native American students a clear message that they were inferior to others. Also, the high school teachers also set lower expectations for their Native American students (National Science Foundation, 2002, p. 56).

Cultural Context

There have been periods in American history in which the American government had leaders who understood and respected the need for supporting Native American culture, and there have been other periods where leaders neither understood nor respected this. H. Scudder Mekeel warned that teachers could "throw children into serious conflicts if they seek to impart values that differ considerably from the prevailing community norms." (cited in Watras, 2004, p. 94). For example, mainstream society promotes thrift and the idea that each individual should succeed on his or her own, but the Sioux tribe expects everyone to share their resources, and the tribe even considers the accumulation of personal wealth to be selfish and anti-social. A value such as this may conflict with the principles of capitalism and free enterprise, but that does not mean this Sioux belief is wrong. Because of the Sioux's cultural values, Mekeel advised that white officials should try to "enlist the values expressed in the lifestyles of the Native American children's parents and friends, rather than seek to impose the values of the mainstream culture" (Watras, 2004, p. 94). Another example of these cultural differences is that most history texts of the past disparaged Native Americans and glorified the victories of white settlers over what the texts called "savages" (Watras, 2004, p. 94).

The NSF made a key point about cultural awareness: it is very important to understand that every student will bring to the classroom and to the learning experience "a cultural knowledge that needs to be recognized and connected in effective ways to the learning of science and math, and the use of technology." They then argue that traditional approaches to evaluation may not be aware of this at all (National Science Foundation, 2002, p. 8), and that is why evaluation in Indian schools has become one of the most important issues in tribal education today.

Evaluating Tribal Schools

The issue of how to properly evaluate Indian schools has been acknowledged for many years, but only recently have there emerged opportunities to develop more appropriate approaches to evaluation. Through support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), tribal colleges are now systematically developing strategies for culturally based assessment of programs and services managed by tribal colleges (Boyer, 2006, p 17).

Another important distinction should be made between research and evaluation. As Nichols points out, "recent discussions have highlighted the history of research exploitation in Indian Country, which raises issues for evaluation. Evaluation is different from research in that it should respond to programs and not the Western notion of empiricism, which is the goal of research" (Nichols, 2006, p 14). Evaluation in Indian Country should allow community ownership and participation, as well as traditional protocols and codes of ethics. At present, developing a team of Native American evaluators is only in its beginning stages, and there is a need for continued support from federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) to keep up the momentum (Nichols, 2006, p 15).

According to Nichols, when used on Native Americans, Western research practices should be challenged, and there should be ongoing development and use of indigenous research methodologies that are more inclusive of indigenous cultures, values and behaviors. He emphasizes neither research nor evaluation is an innocent or distant academic exercise; these things occur within specific political and social conditions (Nichols, 2006, p 17). A culturally based approach has begun to gain influence, but there are some important questions that Boyer (2006) poses. He asks, "Will the culturally based approach play in Washington D.C., where federal agencies are based, or in the nation's major foundations? Are bureaucrats and grant-makers willing to embrace this fundamentally different approach to the evaluation of projects they finance?" (Boyer, 2006, p 33).

Boyer also points out that there is the present danger that tribal colleges will be discouraged from taking control of evaluation, and sidetracked from their long-term goal of gaining sovereignty over their tribes and communities, because they might spend too much effort and energy in meeting funding requirements - assessment criteria that narrowly and summarily defines schools as successes or failures (Boyer, 2006, p 38). However, many in the tribal educational community are convinced, as is Boyer, that "by taking control of evaluation, tribes are also taking control of their futures and, in this way, advancing the larger goal of tribal sovereignty" (Boyer, 2006, p 27).

Further Insights

Tribal colleges in the U.S. have been slowly making a difference in their communities, and will continue to do so; in fact, according to a 2007 study by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, tribal colleges impact their communities in direct as well as indirect ways and, according to the findings, tribal colleges are very good at making all their developmental efforts culturally relevant in a community because "tribal traditions and values permeate the curricula and learning styles of the colleges" (Fogarty, 2007, p 7).

Also, the study says that tribal colleges are particularly responsible for helping local communities understand more clearly the choices between "different types of economic growth, given the specific history of economic development on reservations" (Fogarty, 2007, p 7). The schools also provide employment to the communities directly, and raise the economics of their communities as a whole since "Educating the people and providing them a good quality education raises the economics of the whole community" (Fogarty, 2007, p 7).

Government and other organizations have also seen the efficacy in donating to tribal colleges. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has made 43 awards to tribal colleges to stimulate Native participation in science, the environment, and natural resources since 2001 (Fogarty, 2007, p 26). The U.S. government's Small Business Administration (SBA) administers Tribal Business Initiative Centers (TBIC) in eight of the tribal colleges, although Native funding has been under pressure at SBA in recent years as the overall agency's budget has been cut by a third (Fogarty, 2007, p 28).

In short, tribal colleges are acting as a bridge between communities and the larger surrounding communities. The schools provide basic services to local residents, businesses and tribal governments. This includes continuing education and GED courses, health and counseling clinics, library services, cultural programs, and the managing of public housing and provision of catering services (Fogarty, 2007, p 28). The tribal colleges do give hope to the Native American communities, and they are having a continuing positive affect on the current and future generations of Native Americans.

Terms & Concepts

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Also referred to in the past as the "Office of Indian Affairs" or the "Indian Office," is an agency of the federal U.S. government within the Department of the Interior and is responsible for the administration and management of 66 million acres of land held in trust by the United States for American Indian, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. The BIA also provides education services to Native Americans.

Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Enacted in 1976, and administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services through Indian Health Services. Provides the funding for American Indian and Alaska Native health care.

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA): This federal law regulates foster care and adoption placement proceedings involving Native American children. If a child is a member of a tribe or eligible for membership in a tribe, the family has the right to certain protections under the ICWA such as tribal involvement in court proceedings.

Indian Self-Determination Act: Signed in 1975, this law gave tribes the authority to contract with the Federal government to operate education and social service programs and provided grants to do so. The Act was further amended by the Technical Assistance Act and other Acts.

Kennedy Report: Of 1969, formally known as Senate Report 91-501 was published by the Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Titled "Indian Education: A National Tragedy, a National Challenge."

Meriam Report: Commissioned in 1926 by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Hubert Work, who hired a team of investigators to inspect and report back on the conditions of Indian communities. Its findings and recommendations on education, economic development, family and community life, and other social concerns were the basis for the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act that redirected federal Indian policy.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): The only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various academic subjects. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, and other subjects (www.wested.org).

National Indian Education Association (NIEA): A membership-based organization committed to increasing educational opportunities and resources for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students while protecting native cultural and linguistic traditions (www.niea.org).

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): A 2001 educational reform law that emphasizes mandatory standardized tests in public schools, and a voucher system that allows money for student education to be paid to private schools, including religious schools.

Urban Indian Relocation Program: Of 1952 was designed to entice reservation dwellers to seven major urban cities where employment was believed to be plentiful.

Bibliography

Boyer, P. (2006, Dec.). Should expediency always trump tradition?: AIHEC/NSF project develops indigenous evaluation methods. Tribal College, 18 , 12-15. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23195332&site=ehost-live

Daschle, T. (2000, Nov.). Federal government in the Indian nation. Vital Speeches of the Day, 67 . Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3803552&site=ehost-live

Fogarty, M. (2007, Apr.). Commitment to building prosperous nations. Tribal College, 18 , p. 12-17. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24095605&site=ehost-live

Gentry, C. (2012, Aug.). Gifted Native American students: Underperforming, under-identified, and overlooked. Psychology in the Schools, 49 , p. 631Ð646. Retrieved December 22, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77604908&site=ehost-live

Henson, C. (1996). From war to self-determination: A history of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. American Studies Today, Online. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/indians.htm

Laukaitis, J. (2005, Nov.). Relocation and urbanization: An educational history of the American Indian experience in Chicago, 1952-1972. American Educational History Journal, 32 , p. 139-144. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19856978&site=ehost-live

Lopez, F. (2013, Aug.). A story within a story: Responsive schooling and American Indian and Alaska Native achievement in the National Indian Education Study. American Journal of Education, 119 , p. 513-538. Retrieved December 22, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=89394435&site=ehost-live

Nichols, R. (2006, Dec.). Indigenous evaluation: respecting and empowering indigenous knowledge. Tribal College, 18 . Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23195338&site=ehost-live

Olsen, M. (2005, Nov.). Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Notice. Federal Register, 70 . Retrieved April 15, 2007 from http://factfinder.census.gov/home/aian/indian_entities_11-25.pdf

National Science Foundation. (2002). NSF two-day conference: The Cultural Context of Educational Evaluation: A Native American Perspective. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf03032

Postsecondary education for American Indian and Alaska Natives (2012). ASHE Higher Education Report 37, p.1-140. Retrieved December 22, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=79793007&site=ehost-live

Schnaiberg, L. (1998, Sept.). Presidential order on Indian education calls for comprehensive federal policy. Education Week, 18 . Retrieved April 16, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1083637&site=ehost-live

Starnes, B. (2006). What we don't know can hurt them: White teachers, Indian children. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 p. 384-392. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19387389&site=ehost-live

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). American Indian, Alaska Native tables from the statistical abstract of the United States: 2004-2005, 1-32. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from http://www.census.gov/statab/www/sa04aian.pdf

Watras, J. (2004, July). Progressive education and Native American schools, 1929-1950. Educational Foundations, 18 p. 81-104. Retrieved April 16, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17965930&site=ehost-live

Williams, R. (2006, July). Real Genius: 'We could become best educated people in America'. Tribal College, 17 , 52-53. Retrieved April 16, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20990851&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Deschenie, T. (2006 Dec.). Indigenous evaluation can decolonize us. Tribal College, 18 , 8-9. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23195331&site=ehost-live

Wright, S. (1998). Tribal college role in alleviating unemployment. Black Issues in Higher Education, 17 . Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3278575&site=ehost-live