Building upon Unique Indian Learning and Development Act
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-192.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 9, 2015
Building upon Unique Indian Learning and Development Act
Directs the Department of the Interior to establish a contest to encourage institutions of higher education (IHEs) to consider how to improve Indian school facilities.
Requires the Department of Education (ED) and Interior to establish a Joint Oversight Board to coordinate Indian education policies and assistance.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to award grants to create or expand pipelines for teachers and administrators of Native American students.
Requires states receiving grants under part A of title I of the ESEA (Education for the Disadvantaged) to develop standards-based assessments and classroom lessons that accommodate diverse learning styles.
Expands programs for Native American school children to support learning in the children's Native language and culture and provide English language instruction.
Exempts Native language teachers from qualification requirement. Requires states to develop an alternative licensure or certification process for those teachers.
Amends the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to extend through FY2019 the grant program to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages.
Requires ED to: (1) improve school environments and student skill development for Native American students, (2) establish a program for school dropout prevention for Native American students, and (3) collaborate with the Department of Agriculture to establish tribal-school specific gardens and nutrition programs.
Extends through FY2018 and appropriates funds for the Impact Aid program.
Extends through FY2016: (1) the tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions program, (2) the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, (3) grants for the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, and (4) scholarships under the Snyder Act.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.410 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.410 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.410 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.410 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.