Volume 20 Number 1
May 1981

Jackson M. Drake and Margaret A. Mangini

Education is playing an important role as Native Americans are gaining control of their economic and cultural destiny. A number of factors have contributed to the education of American Indians, but perhaps the most significant is the self-determination by the separate Indian tribes and communities for the education of their own children, based on tribal culture and tradition. The official policy of self-determination was introduced in President Richard Nixon’s message to Congress in July of 1970 which suggested that Indian tribes should have self-determination over their own affairs without termination of their reservation status and their tribal unity. A key concept in the self-determination thrust suggested that Indian tribes should have the right to control and operate federal programs, including schools.

The College of Education at Arizona State University has long recognized that it has responsibilities to the many different publics of the state that it serves. These responsibilities are often outside the regular academic disciplines of the University. Such services are often referred to as university field services. If a university is to accomplish its broad scope of responsibilities, its services, influence, and leadership must be made available to a wider constituency than just the students in the academic classroom.

An interesting and exciting example of such service and leadership was recently demonstrated as the College’s Office of Field Services assisted the Board of Trustees of the Blackwater Community School at the Gila River Indian Community in a process of school board training institutes.

Consultants from ASU and the Principal and Board of Trustees of the Blackwater school teamed together as partners and engaged in a process of school board training institutes endorsed by Public Law 95-561 which resulted in a practical product—a policies and procedures manual for the operation of the school.

Motivated by the language of Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, and Public Law 95-561 which allows for training and guidance of school boards, Albert Joseph, Director of Education for the Gila River Indian Community, contacted the Office of Field Services, requesting school board membership training for the elected Blackwater Board of Trustees. The Request for Proposal (RFP) indicated that board members desired training in the area of legal aspects of school board membership, i.e., the responsibility, authority, and liability of board members as they relate to community, state, and federal regulations and statutes. In conjunction with this training, they were interested in developing a School Board Policies and Procedures Manual.

The Gila River Indian Community was established in 1859 and has a present population of approximately 7,000 Pima and Maricopa Indians. It is about 40 miles southeast of Phoenix, Arizona. Governed by a Tribal Council under the leadership of Governor Alexander Lewis, the community encompasses three elementary schools, one of which is the Blackwater Community School. Of these three schools, only Blackwater is a contract school; the other two, Gila Crossing and Casa Blanca, are operated directly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA schools are bound to follow Bureau standards. It is only in the past year that school boards have been required, by law, in BIA schools. As a contract school, Blackwater enjoys a degree of flexibility in staffing and curriculum development and has been governed by a Board of Trustees for many years.

While serving only a small constituency of Pima and Maricopa Indians residing within Districts 1 and 2 of the larger community, the five-member board, composed of Vincent Thomas, Dan Jackson, Cornelia Eschief, Armida Nathan, and Cecilia Mallow, has complete responsibility for the education of about 70 students from pre-school through the first grade. Having enjoyed autonomy since the establishment as a contract school in 1967, the board members were eager to partake of school board training to raise their awareness level. They also realized the worth of a Policies and Procedures Manual for standardized operation of their school.

The Office of Field Services and its director, Dr. Jackson M. Drake, assembled a team of consultants to complete field work requirements: Dr. Robert Ashe, professor emeritus of the College of Education and authority in school law and finance; Dr. Van Miller, retired professor from the University of Illinois and noted author in the field of educational administration; Dr. Paul W. Briggs, nationally recognized leader in educational administration; and Margaret Mangini, doctoral candidate in educational administration and supervision. The team, well-versed in topics of concern for school board members, accepted the challenge by preparing a contract to conduct school board institutes and to assist the Board of Trustees in the development of the document.

The first step in the process involved responding via proposal as authorized by Public Law 95-561, section 1129 (d) Subpart G - School Board Training. Training funds under 31h.92 had been approved for training in 17 areas touching upon educational philosophy, fiscal management, and personnel matters and ending with "other training activities school boards deem appropriate and applicable to their situation. . . ." At the initial meeting, the team of consultants in discussion with the principal and board members delineated seven phases of school board training which encompassed the 17 topics specified in the law. These phases were as follows:

Phase 1: Authority and Responsibilities of a Board

Phase 2: How a Board Operates

Phase 3: Community Involvement in the School

Phase 4: Legal Problems of School Boards

Phase 5: How a Board Evaluates Its School

Phase 6: Financing the School

Phase 7: Selecting and Training School Employees

The second meeting was designed to present an overview of the training sessions and to establish parameters and procedural guidelines. The principal and board members provided the consultants with access to all pertinent documents and information so that they might ascertain present written policies and procedures as well as past practices which may be unwritten policy. These documents included the minutes of meetings of the Board of Trustees over the past five years, the Constitution and By-laws for the Blackwater Community School, copies of Public Laws 95-561 and 93-638 Contracts, the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual for the Gila River Indian Community, position descriptions, and copies of various forms used in current practice. The principal and board members expressed a desire to review and revise their Constitution and By-laws.

At the third meeting on the ASU campus, Al Joseph and Clyde Peacock, Gila River education director and deputy director respectively, sat in with the principal, board members, and consultants. Dr. Leonard Cahen, COE associate dean, joined the group at lunch.

The main topic for the session included discussion of current personnel policies. Since the board members have traditionally interviewed potential employees, they found the role-playing exercise in interviewing a candidate to fill the principal’s position very practical. The consultants critiqued the board members’ interview strategies and made some suggestions to use in actual interviewing situations. The Constitution and By-laws were considered in a line-by-line analysis. The consultants noted desired changes, additions, and deletions and promised a revised copy to be delivered at the next meeting (June 2, 1980) at the Blackwater Community School. It was decided to meet in the afternoon preceding an actual Board of Trustees meeting. The consultants planned to stay for the board meeting, after which a critique would be offered.

The meeting began with a discussion of the revised Constitution and By-laws. Again, the consultants made careful notes on further revisions. The discussion among board members and the principal, in the presence of and with interjections from the consultants, allowed the school board training sessions to proceed pragmatically in a non-lecturing atmosphere. Previous to the meeting, the consultants, who had reviewed the documents and other pertinent information, developed a table of contents for a policies and procedures manual to operate an entire school district. Keeping in mind the size of the Blackwater Community School and its then-existing procedures, the consultants listed items deemed necessary for a manual tailor-made to the specific needs of the school. At this meeting, the table of contents was presented to the principal and board members.

The formal evening meeting of the Board of Trustees followed. After the meeting, the board members were complimented on the conduct of the meeting. The consultants especially remarked on the earnestness and concern exhibited by each member of the board.

The next meeting was held two weeks later at ASU. Finalized copies of the Constitution and By-laws were presented; these were subsequently adopted by the Board of Trustees at its regular meeting July 9. The consultants in the two-week interim had matched items from the table of contents for the policies and procedures manual with extracts from the carefully-revised Constitution and By-laws. The consultants had then written the policies and procedures for Section A, the School District, using the classification system of the table of contents and citing the source of the policy from the By-laws, Constitution, impinging federal laws, and/or tribal policies and procedures, when applicable. The policy and procedure statements for Section A were discussed at length. For the next meeting on August 9, the consultants agreed to deliver a first draft copy of a complete policies and procedures manual to each board member at least five days prior to the meeting. Board members and the principal could then make notes on possible areas for questions and/or discussion.

At this, the sixth session, the board members, principal and consultants discussed the final product. The principal wished to add more information on evaluation of personnel. For this addition, the principal agreed to meet with one of the consultants at the university. Other areas of the completed manual, in addition to Section A--The School District, included the following:

Section B: School Administration

Section C: Instructional Services

Section D: Financial Management

Section E: Physical Plant Management

Section F: Staff Personnel

Section G: Students

Section H: Instructional Support Services

Section 1: Community Relations

After six sessions, the final copies of the Policies and Procedures Manual for the Blackwater Community School were delivered to Principal Anderson for presentation and final adoption by the Board of Trustees.

As the effects of Public Law 95-561 become increasingly more evident in the training of school boards, it is well to remember that Blackwater experience. The goal--to provide the quantity and quality of educational services and opportunities which will permit Indian children to compete and excel in the life areas of their choice and to achieve the measure of self-determination essential to their social and economic well being has an excellent chance of being realized if it is nurtured in a program of education that is based upon sound administrative and management techniques.

The path to self-sufficiency need not be lonely; help can be sought from consultants along the way. The path to self-sufficiency need not meander; it can lead to a destination as demonstrated by the process/ product at Blackwater. School board training can, indeed, be a process with a product.

Foster, Carl G. and Boloz, Sigmund. "The BIA School Administrator and Effective Leadership." Journal of American Indian Education, May 1980, 19, pp. 24-28.

Havighurst, Robert J. "Indian Education: Accomplishments of the Last Decade." Phi Delta Kappan, January 1981, pp. 329-331.

Thompson, Hildegard. "The Education of American Indians." The Education Digest, May 1964, XXIX (9), pp. 48-50.

Winters, John A. "Pimas Seek Path to Self Sufficiency." The Arizona Republic, July 26, 1980, p. A-14.

Jackson M. Drake is Assistant Professor of Education in the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision at Arizona State University. He is also director of the Arizona Educational Information System and the Office of Field Services. He received his B.S. degree in political science and his M.S. degree in administration and guidance at Southern Illinois University, and his Ed.D. degree in secondary administration at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Margaret A. Mangini is presently a doctoral candidate in the EAS department at ASU, and serves as faculty research associate in the Office of Field Services. She received her B.S. degree in secondary education, English, and her M.Ed. degree in guidance and counseling at the Edinboro State College, Pennsylvania.