RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 1

No Child Left Behind and

Native American Education
How Was Native American Education Impacted by NCLB?

Taylor Hoey
Findlay Fellow Scholar
December 8, 2017
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 2

Introduction

For over a century, the United States government has been in control of Indian education.

For the majority of these decades, the U.S. Department of Education has made every attempt to

wipe out Indian culture and way of life in order to assimilate them into the American

mainstream. In the process of this, Native culture and language has been decimated, and to add

insult to injury, many Native people also face extreme poverty, alcoholism, poor education, and

overall they are typically ignored by the country and government. In an attempt to improve

education all over the country, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law, however, it is

well-known today that this law only created further problems and turmoil within the education

system. The Native American community is no exception in this. In fact, No Child Left Behind

completely failed Indian education in several ways, such as the further destruction of funding

initiatives and cultural and language programs in schools, and the widening of the achievement

gap between Indians and their peers nationally.

What is No Child Left Behind?

No Child Left Behind was not the first governmental attempt to improve the educational

system in America. In creating No Child Left Behind (NCLB), President George W. Bush added

on to the already existing Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Alyson

Klein of Education Week states in her article, “No Child Left Behind: An Overview,” that

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed ESEA into effect in the year of 1965 as part of his Great

Society campaign (Klein, 2015). This act increased the federal government’s role in K-12

education. The most famous part of this act is its implementation of Title I, which in that year

offered $1 billion in aid to help fund the education of “disadvantaged students” (Klein). Since

1965, ESEA has been updated, amended, and changed more than half a dozen times, all of which
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 3

upped the role of federal government in the education realm. No Child Left Behind, signed into

effect in 2002, is the most recent update of ESEA and significantly increased the government’s

role in education more than any other change to ESEA (Klein, 2015). No Child Left Behind,

which was passed through congress with unprecedented bipartisan support, was created “out of

concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive” (Klein,

2015). Monty Neill, the author of “Leaving Children Behind: How No Child Left Behind Will

Fail Our Children,” declares that the Statement of Purpose of this act is for all children to reach

the “challenging standards” of reading and math, as well as to close the achievement gap that

separates those by class and race (Neill, 2003, pg. 1). The main purpose of NCLB is for the

federal government to play a major role in holding schools accountable for students’ progress

and academic success, with a special focus on “subgroups” of students which include English as

a Second Language learners, special education students, minorities, and low-income students

(Klein, 2015). The purpose and goal for NCLB is an honorable one, but its policies and the

outcomes say otherwise.

The requirements and mandates of NCLB are copious and come with severe

consequences if not met appropriately. NCLB requires schools to test grades three through eight,

and then once in high school. The results then have to be reported on the overall population of

the students, as well as broken down into the subgroups, in order to see if there is progress within

the school as a whole and if the achievement gap is narrowing (Klein, 2015). This emphasis on

testing has created a high-stakes environment in schools and has been the basis of much criticism

on NCLB. Furthermore, No Child Left Behind makes a declaration that all schools must be

“proficient” by the 2013-2014 school year, however, each state gets to decide what “proficient”

looks like (Klein, 2015). In order to make this unattainable goal seem reachable, the law also
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 4

issues a requirement called the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which is supposed to keep

schools on track by having to meet certain goals and making a determined level of progress

across the state each year. If a school misses their AYP, then they get sentenced with sanctions

implemented by the state. These sanctions’ severity increases if more and more AYP goals have

fallen short. Starting with missing two AYP years in a row, schools must allow students the

option to transfer to a better performing school. Schools that miss three years in a row, must

allow free tutoring for all students, and if schools continue to miss their AYP they face

intervention by the state which could mean transforming them into charter schools, shutting them

down, or hiring a new set of staff (Klein, 2015). The AYP and its sanctions are a source of

contention on whether punishing schools is an effective strategy in boosting performance. On top

of testing and the AYP, teachers are also required under law to be “highly qualified,” meaning a

bachelor’s degree and a certification in teaching. Paraprofessionals have to have at least

completed two years of college or passed an evaluation that demonstrates knowledge and ability

by the 2005-2006 school year (Klein, 2015). The requirements and regulations of No Child Left

Behind, and their lack of success, has earned itself condemnation and contempt that seems

unlikely of disappearing for years to come.

Over the years, No Child Left Behind has faced harsh criticism from educators, parents,

experts, and politicians alike. The main denunciation of this law largely revolves around funding,

the negative environment created in schools, and the lack of successfulness of closing the

achievement gap. In 2003, just one year after NCLB was enacted, there were already complaints

about the poor funding of this statute. In his article, Neill (2003) argues that the law “does not

provide funding that is even remotely adequate” for states to work so closely with schools and

provide the support that is needed, especially when schools do not make their AYP goal and
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 5

intervention is necessary (Neill, 2003, p. 2). Neill goes on to say that in order for all schools in

the nation to reach proficiency, the per capita spending has to at least double for low-income

students (pg. 3). Despite what is clearly needed for NCLB to be successful, the lofty expenditure

increases the legislation called for that would offset the cost for student achievement were never

reached. Klein (2015) provides the example that in 2007, the Title I funding was supposed to rise

to $25 billion, yet by 2015 the funding had only received $14.5 billion. Because of this lack of

funding, states have had to spend more money than the NCLB provides in order to meet the

law’s requirements (Neill, 2003, p. 3). While funding is an important and key component of the

success or failure of a piece of legislation, it is not the only complaint of No Child Left Behind.

The amount of testing that has sky-rocketed in the wake of No Child Left Behind has attracted

the criticism of an entire nation.

No Child Left Behind perhaps might be best known for emphasizing high-stakes and

standardized testing that focus on reading and math only. The route on testing that NCLB has

taken has been a sure-fire way to create a classroom environment that is forced to teach to the

test, as well as deal with the side-effects of test taking, according to Theoni Soublis Smyth,

author of “Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?” (2008, p. 134). Moreover, the high-

stakes testing in schools leads to “high levels of anxiety, concern, and angst” in all of those

involved (Smyth, 2008, pg. 134). In addition to this new negative school culture, the sanctions

put on schools after missing AYP—which is determined by test scores—also cause a negative

atmosphere in schools by providing punishments rather than support from the government.

significant criticism of No Child Left Behind is how it has failed to achieve its most

important goal: to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers.

Diane Ravitch in her article, “Time to Kill ‘No Child Left Behind’” (2009), claims that the gap
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 6

between white and minority students has barely changed since the enactment of NCLB (pg. 4).

The sanctions that are supposed to be a remedy for failing schools—school choice and free

tutoring—have showed no signs of success. Ravitch (2009) states that “fewer than five percent

of eligible students choose to leave their schools” and that “fewer than twenty percent of eligible

students sign up for tutoring” (p. 5-6). Across the board, gains in achievement under No Child

Left Behind legislation have been small, nonexistent, or worse than before the law came to be.

This piece of legislation has failed this nation, our schools, teachers, and students instead of

uplifting and supporting the educational system. However, no persons were affected more from

this law than our Native American community.

What about Native Americans and Their Education?

Although many Native American parents, educators, and citizens were initially hopeful

about the prospects of No Child Left Behind, it quickly became apparent that the unintended

consequences of the law were to come down harshly upon the Native American community

across the nation.

The Annual Yearly Progress

One of these unintended consequences is the crippling effect of the Annual Yearly

Progress (AYP) and standardized testing on Native American education. The AYP has caused

numerous unnecessary challenges within the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The BIE

operates a federal school system for Native American students and holds jurisdiction across

twenty-three states to 183 schools on sixty-four reservations, as well as two postsecondary

schools, all-encompassing a total of 42,000 students (Senate Hearing, p. 8). One of the main

reasons that the AYP is so difficult to achieve for Indian schools is because the BIE is forced to
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 7

follow individual state’s plans instead of following their own. Every state in the country, as well

as the BIE, was required to make an accountability plan to submit to the federal government

when NCLB was first enacted, however, the Secretary of the Interior at that time decided that it

was best for BIE-run schools to follow the state’s plans that each school falls under (Senate

Hearing, p. 10). This makes it incredibly difficult for the BIE to track, compare, judge, and

assess their students if they are being held accountable to twenty-three different state standards

and standardized tests.

On top if this, not only does the BIE have extreme difficulty in tracking and assessing

their students, but the students themselves are getting the short end of the stick with the

standardized tests. A report done by the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) in 2005

is a creation of hearings, facilitated discussions, panels, and statements from Tribal leaders,

administrators, parents, educators, and community members from eleven areas around the

country with a high population of Indian students. The report covers various aspects of No Child

Left Behind, such as funding, parental involvement, governmental cooperation, and culture-

based education. In this report, members discussed their blatant dismay at how rigid the

standardized tests are for their Native American children and how the “one size fits all approach”

is detrimental to the Native communities and the unique needs of their children (NIEA, p. 15).

The AYP and the ability of Native American students, and the schools that house high

populations of Native students, to make these goals does not take into account these students’

unique circumstances and lifestyle that the Native American community face.

A unique circumstance of Native Americans that is not well-known to the public is the

high mobility that individuals and families face. In her article, “Mobility of Native America

Students Can Pose Challenges to Achievement,” Mary Ann Zehr (2007) articulates that this high
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 8

mobility is an obstacle to achievement for many Native students (p. 1). Zehr (2007) explains that

the high mobility of students is caused by either the children’s parents following jobs, or they are

jumping from relative to relative because their parents do not have the resources to care for them

(p. 3). Although statistics are limited on this aspect of Native life, it is known that the percentage

of Native students who move is far greater than their White or Asian counterparts—about 15.7

percent compared to 7 and 8.5 percent, respectively (Zehr, 2007, p. 2). This instability not only

effects the students individually, but the schools that educate them as well. The mobility is a

large contributor in why schools may fail to make AYP continuously, especially BIE schools or

public schools where the Native population is greater than ten percent (Zehr, 2007, p. 2). This is

a huge factor that the federal government did not take into consideration when forming No Child

Left Behind, and unfortunately, was not the only thing not fully thought out when developing

this law.

To make matters worse for the Native American students, the AYP regulations and

remedies for failing schools usually indirectly do not apply to Indian schools. The provision of

school choice in the AYP sanctions that is supposed to support and aid students does not work

for the majority of Native students. According to Richard B. Williams (2003) in his article,

“Voices,” in remote areas where there is only one school on the reservation or around for several

miles, there are no other options for the students. They have no choice but to remain at their

failing school. In addition to this, the AYP sanction that requires teachers to be removed and

replaced is equally ineffective due to poor teacher retention and turnover rates at Indian schools.

Williams states that it is simply unrealistic for schools to replace teachers when there are already

so few resources (p. 2). Additionally, the required training and education that paraprofessionals

are required to have is also problematic. Under the law, paraprofessionals must have an
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 9

associate’s degree by the 2005-2006 school year, however, many of these workers lack access to

a nearby college or university or do not have the time or money to accomplish this task while

still being employed full-time (Williams, 2003, p. 2). What is worse is that the block grants that

went out to states to help cover the tuition or training fees of those filling the requirements of

NCLB were not given to tribal schools because they were ineligible. Being ineligible for grants

is just one of the many funding issues the Native community encountered with No Child Left

Behind; there were several more monetary difficulties that were forced upon them.

Funding

One of the main obstacles that Indian schools face under NCLB is the lack of funding

that schools received from the federal government. While this issue of unfunded mandates is not

localized to just Indian schools, rather it is a national problem, Indian schools had previously

been low-funded and centered in poverty-stricken areas and therefore were hit the hardest.

Nationally, the government has been unsuccessful in providing funding or resources for schools

to carry out No Child Left Behind’s requirements, and Indian schools are no exception.

Comments from Williams (2003) and the NIEA report (2005) include “…the biggest problem is

that the government has not even made a pretense of fully funding this initiative. We [Indian

schools] simply cannot achieve these results without resources” and “they gave us high

expectations to meet with no resources” (p. 2 and p. 15). This has been one of the biggest

complaints from Indian Country and to make up for these monetary expenses needed to reach

AYP and satisfy NCLB requirements of remedial reading and math, Indian schools have had to

make huge cuts mainly to programs that provide cultural and language education (NIEA, 2005,

p. 15).
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 10

In order to combat these expenses and attempt to keep up with NCLB law, most schools

can apply for grants to help cover the cost. Unfortunately, Indian schools have not been included

in this. An example is the Race to the Top initiative signed into action by the Obama

administration. Race to the Top has states compete for funding to help support their educational

goals, however, this program did not benefit Indian schools in two ways, according to “No Child

Left Behind: A Bust in Indian Country,” by Tanya H. Lee (2012). First, the states that were

awarded Race to the Top funding were not required to include tribal or BIE schools in their

allocations of those funds. Secondly, BIE or tribal schools could not directly win Race to the Top

awards because they were not in the pool of eligibility (Lee, 2012). This lack of funding has not

only decreased the level of education for Native students in general, but has led to a tremendous

decrease in the amount of cultural educational programs that schools can provide for their

students.

Cultural Education

One of the most severe and unfortunate consequences of No Child Left Behind on Native

American education is the negative impact it has had on their culture and language opportunities

in school. Written into the NCLB law is Title VII, a specific section dedicated to Indian, Native

Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education. As stated by the United States Department of Education

under Title VII of the No Child Left Behind law, the Statement of Policy of this section is:

To fulfill the Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and

responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children. The Federal

Government will continue to work with local educational agencies, Indian tribes and

organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities toward the goal of ensuring

that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 11

the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and

culturally related academic needs of these children. (U.S. Dept. of Education., 2004)

However, this policy has seemingly been ignored and unenforced. In nearly every article written

about No Child Left Behind and its effect on Native education, it is stated and voiced by Native

Americans that their culture and language programs have suffered drastically. For example, in

the NIEA report, many educators and community members state that Native children “see and

order their world differently from most other children” and that schools have “so many children

that come from traditional families and they live this way, this is their way of life, and it needs to

be continued to be taught every day of their life” (2005, p. 15-17). Nevertheless, this is no longer

happening in schools. The NIEA (2005) has reported that funds meant for Title VII are being

diverted to Title I needs or to prepare students for standardized tests, only focusing on reading

and math instruction (p. 3 & 15). This is taking place even though it is a known fact that

including culture and language instruction in Native American’s education is extremely

beneficial. Lee (2012) asserts that a 2011 policy brief published by the Center for Indian

Education at Arizona State University concluded that, “there is compelling empirical evidence

that strong, additive, academically rigorous Native language and culture programs have salutary

effects on both Native language and culture maintenance and revitalization as well as student

achievement.” In other words, the cultural education that Native children receive not only helps

them to know who they are and maintain that vital aspect in their lives, but it also correlates with

how well the children do in school all-around. Lee (2012) makes the argument that the effort to

meet the standards set by NCLB “rejects the need to provide culturally competent instructions.”

Subsequently, many Natives, as told in the NIEA report (2005), see this behavior from

the government and the results of the law as “aggressive, forced assimilation of our Indian
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 12

children into a white middle class culture.” Since the beginning of Indian education in the United

States, there has been a strong and scrupulous initiative by the federal government to assimilate

Indian children into the American mainstream by destroying and replacing Native culture.

Although Native Americans received self-determination from the government with the passage

of the 1975 Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, No Child Left Behind

seems to be unintentionally reversing the progress made (Reyhner, 2013). A comparison can be

made with assimilation and the environment in Indian schools today. As a participant in the

NIEA report (2005) put it, “Native languages and cultures are no longer taught because Indian

children are drilled all day long in reading and math in preparation for the state standardized

assessments” (p. 17). David Beaulieu, a Chippewa Tribe member, professor of educational

policy and community studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and former director of

the Office of Indian Education at the Department of Education and former president of the

NIEA, also sees strong similarities in Indian education today and assimilation. In an interview

with Indian Country Today, Beaulieu suggests that the “imposing common federal standards and

assessments is reminiscent of the boarding school era” (Lee, 2012). The nation’s American

Indians are experiencing the worst of NCLB. No Child Left Behind has effected this entire

country negatively and many students have had electives such as art and music—known for

being beneficial for student growth—taken away. But for Native Americans, it is their culture

and livelihood being stripped away. This country has been systemically engaging in this for over

a century and the victims of it have suffered significantly. When it is known that cultural and

language education benefits students, that Native Americans have had their culture already cut

down to almost nothing, that this group of people are already facing poverty, drug and alcohol
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 13

abuse, low government assistance, and poor education more than any other group in this nation,

it is time—and has been time—for the government to step up and take care of its people.

Consequences

So, what toll does the AYP, lack of funding, and loss of culture and language school

environment take on Native American students? All of these elements have led to the widening

of the achievement gap and the growing failure of Indian students—the exact opposite purpose

of No Child Left Behind. Perhaps the one valuable result of NCLB is that it provided the country

with statistics and data of the nation’s students, even if the data was not the outcome desired. In

the United States Senate Hearing of 2010, the North Dakota Senator, Byron L. Dorgan,

announced that “less than half of all Indian students graduate high school” compared to the 76

percent of their White counterparts that do graduate (p. 1). Lee (2012) posted in her article the

results collected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the years 2003

and 2011 and how they compare to each other. The first testing done by the NAEP in 2003

showed “negative trends” for the Native American community and in the 2011 testing showed

these negative trends are getting worse (Lee, 2012). The NAEP scores display that for fourth

grade American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students, the reading scores from 2011 were

the same as in 2003 and the math scores rose two points in 2011 from 2003. For fourth graders,

the gap between these scores and their White counterparts increased in both subjects, one point

in reading and four points in math (Lee, 2012). Eighth graders were also tested, and their scores

show similar results. Eighth grade scores for reading and math both increased in 2011 from

2003, however, the point gap between AI/AN and their White peers increased three points in

math. Only the eighth-grade reading scores show an improvement in scores and a shrinking of

the gap—with a four-point decrease—out of all of the scores (Lee, 2012). Despite whatever
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 14

improvement or success is shown by these scores, it came at the expense of the students’

cultural, language, and other necessary programs at their schools, which proves to be no success

at all.

Why did this widening of the achievement gap happen? How could No Child Left Behind

have let down Indian Country so badly? It is because the Indian voice was not included in

creating or administering the policy. Since the early days of NCLB, it has been known that

Native Americans were not involved in making this law. In William’s article “Voices,” which

was published in 2003, just a year after the implementation of NCLB, he wrote that the

“legislation without Indian consultation further illustrates the systemic failure of the federal

government to uphold its responsibility to provide education to Indian tribes” (p. 1). Much like

with the complaint of the loss of cultural education in Indian schools, the NIEA report (2005)

participants also repeatedly mention how they had hoped for more involvement with the federal

government in developing the law, but that sadly did not happen. Many Native Americans feel

that this lack of communication and cooperation fully violates the trust relationship between the

government and Indian Country (NIEA, 2005). Over the course of No Child Left Behind years,

the Native American community has loudly voiced their opinions on how and why the law has

failed their children, and what the federal government requires in order to improve for the next

education policy.

What’s Next?

The era of No Child Left Behind has come to an end. Former President Obama signed the

replacement of NCLB, now called Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), into law on December

10, 2015 (Lee, 2016). This law is designed to shift most of the responsibility of elementary and

secondary schools from the federal government to the states, and Indian Country is considering
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 15

this law to be a big win for them (Lee, 2016). There are nine new additions to this law that have

the Native American community hopeful and anticipating positive change in the way that Indian

Country will be included in policy making and intervention to truly close the achievement gap.

Lee (2016), in her article, “9 Ways the New Education Law is a Win for Indian Country,” lists

the ways in which ESSA should improve the quality of Native American education. The first

way is tribal consultation; states and local education agencies (LEAs) are required to consult

with tribes in the “development of state plans for Title I grants” and before making any decisions

that effects Native American programs. The second way is native language immersion programs

in which funds are awarded under a new Title VI grant where monies are used for cultural

education in public schools. Third, new cooperative agreements allows for tribes to enter into

these agreements with states and LEAs to operate Title VI programs on tribal lands, as well as

allows for tribes to implement programs in public schools located on tribal lands. Fourth,

accountability plans are to be submitted by states to the federal government, but it looks like

individual schools will be able to set their own goals, measuring tools, and decide what to do if

they do not meet the goals. The fifth way Indian Country gets a win is that the reporting of

standardized test results must be disaggregated to individual subgroups, instead of all minorities

being lumped together, which will make it immensely easier to track the progress of Native

students. Sixth, the treatment of teachers is improving, with these educators no longer being

evaluated based on their students’ progress, as well as the requirement of “highly qualified

teachers” has been eliminated putting less pressure on tribal schools trying to retain their

teachers. Seven, states must identify and intervene in the lowest-achieving five percent of

schools and in high schools where the graduation rate is less than sixty-seven percent Eighth, for

special education, only one percent of students overall can be given alternative achievement
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 16

tests, which benefits the Native American population because they are typically overrepresented

in special education. Lastly, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is now eligible to apply for all

discretionary funding within ESSA. These nine provisions of the new law are a huge success for

Indian Country. Overall, it includes Native Americans in the education dialogue, supports

cultural education, creates better assessment data on Native American students, encourages more

teachers to enter and stay in the profession, and allows numerous more opportunities for funding.

It seems that the federal government has finally heard and listened to the needs of the Native

American community and what they require from the government in order to receive the quality

education they deserve.

Conclusion

Indian Country has been fighting a battle with the federal government over the education of their

children for over one hundred years. They have endured a history assimilation of the worst kind,

as well as the unintended assimilation of NCLB. With the enactment of No Child Left Behind,

the entire nation suffered under the stifling consequences of the law. None, however, were

effected quite as drastically as the Native American students and people. The worst of what they

faced was the incredibly low funding they received in the aftermath of increased standards and

requirements, the inability for most to make the AYP and therefore be sentenced to harsh

sanctions that only put those schools further behind, the loss of the opportunity to maintain their

unique and valuable culture and language programs, and overall the inexplicable widening of the

achievement gap between the Native Americans and the rest of their peers. Nonetheless, the

Native American people had never given up and persisted to make their voices heard. With the

passage of the new educational law, Every Student Succeeds Act, there is hopefully a brighter

horizon for the Native Americans and the rest of the nation. Only time will tell if ESSA will
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 17

bring what it offers, but one thing is for sure: Indian Country will never stop fighting for their

rights to equal opportunity and education that should have been theirs from the beginning.
RUNNING HEAD: No Child Left Behind and Indian Education Hoey 18

References
Beaulieu, D., Sparks, L., Alonzo, M. (2005). Preliminary Report on No Child Left Behind in
Indian Country. National Indian Education Association. Retrieved from:
https://www.narf.org/nill/resources/education/reports/29.23.NIEANCLBreport_final2.pdf
.
Indian Education: Did the No Child Left Behind Act Leave Indian Students Behind? Hearing
before the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, 111 Congress (2010). Retrieved from:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg62197/pdf/CHRG-111shrg62197.pdf.
Klein, A. (2015, April 10). No Child Left Behind: An Overview. Education Week, 34(27).
Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-
overview-definition-summary.html/.
Lee, T. H. (2012). No Child Left Behind: A Bust in Indian Country. Indian Country Today.
Retrieved from: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/no-child-left-behind-act-a-
bust-in-indian-country/.
Lee, T. H. (2016). 9 Ways the New Indian Education Law is a Win for Indian Country. Indian
Country Today. Retrieved from:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/education/native-education/9-ways-the-new-
education-law-is-a-win-for-indian-country/.
Neill, M. (2003). Leaving Children Behind: How No Child Left Behind Will Fail Our Children.
Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 225-228.
Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to Kill 'No Child Left Behind'. Education Digest, 75(1), 4-6.
Reyhner, J. (2013). A History of American Indian Education. Education Week. Retrieved from:
https://www.edweek.org/ew/projects/2013/native-american-education/history-of-
american-indian-education.html.
Smyth, T. S. (2008). Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?. Clearing House, 81(3),
133-137.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Title VII—Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native
Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg98.html.
Williams, R. B. (2003). VOICES: Will Indian Education Be Left Behind?. Tribal College
Journal, 15(1), 54.
Zehr, M. A. (2007). Mobility of Native American Students Can Pose Challenges to
Achievement. Education Week, 27(7), 1-14.
(2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). National Indian Education Association.
Retrieved from: http://www.niea.org/for-advocates/education-priorities/elementary-and-
secondary-education-act-esea-and-every-students-succeeds-act-essa/.