Volume 34 Number 1
Fall 1994

Self-determination and local control in American Indian education is viewed by many American Indians as means of cultural preservation and growth (see Note 1). American Indians seek greater self-determination to decrease federal control over Indian schools and improve education for Indian youth (Deloria, 1991; Educational Equality Project, 1989; Gipp and Fox, 1991; Havighurst, 1981; O'Brien, 1990; Prucha, 1986; Szasz, 1977, 1989, 1990). As O'Brien (1990, p. 20) suggests, "Despite history, Indian advocates still think education is the key to the economic survival of their people and are optimistic that improvements will be made." Some American Indians view the authority to create and administer local education programs as a means to this end.

Local autonomy in education is also a concern for non-Indians. The extant literature notes the criticism leveled against increasing state and federal involvement in public schools (Chubb and Moe, 1988, 1990; Doyle and Finn, 1984; Elmore, 1990; Kelley 1987; Metz, 1990; Weeres, 1990). Opponents claim centralized control has produced a bureaucratized system focused on standardization rather than the needs of the immediate community (Bastian, 1990; Chubb and Moe, 1990; Doyle and Finn, 1984; Elmore, 1990; Metz, 1990). Their proposed changes closely parallel those suggested by American Indians: increased local autonomy and limited external control over such decisions as budgeting, personnel, and curriculum (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Metz, 1990; Weeres, 1990).

Policies already exist in support of local control for American Indian education. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-638) enables tribal groups to contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to operate their own schools. Under Title V of the Augustus F. Hawkins Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297), tribal groups can fund education programs with BIA grants.

For the current research, schools operated through contracts with the BIA are "contract schools," and schools funded by grants from the BIA are "grant schools." Institutions directly administered and staffed by BIA employees are "BIA-administered schools" or "BIA schools."

Proponents of local control see the statutes as enabling greater participation by the local community through such bodies as school boards and advisory committees. This provides a means of regulating education funds to ensure that such resources are used for Indian children (Prucha, 1984).

Despite the potential for greater autonomy through contracts and grants, critics point out the possible shortcomings of such funding. The BIA, perceived by Indians and non-Indians alike as an inefficient, overly bureaucratized, paternalistic organization, is heavily involved in the distribution of education funding. (Deloria and Lytle 1983, 1984; Nelson and Sheley, 1982; Prucha, 1985). Senese (1986) reports that the Self-Determination Act did not remove all of the BIA's authority over tribal education programs. He suggests that the BIA has a great deal of discretionary power over the contracting process. The BIA maintains actual control through its authority to approve or disapprove contracts and the allocation of funding to local groups.

In contrast, Prucha (1986) maintains the capacity of local control through contracting. He observed that federal domination may not have appeared to the extent feared by critics:

Prucha (1984, 1985) also acknowledges the possible weaknesses of the federal self-determination policy. He notes that some American Indians skeptically view the statute. There is a fear that self-determination is but another name for termination, by which the federal government can cease all support for and obligations to the tribes.

Federal self-determination policy produces a double-edged sword. Given Prucha's (1984, 1985, 1986) assertions, it is argued that if the legislation is implemented as intended, contracts and grants should provide tribes with greater local control over education than is present in BIA schools. BIA-administered schools embody a top-down administration style with less control by the local community. Contract and grant schools have more local or grassroots discretion in policy implementation.

However, contract schools are funded through legal agreements between the local community and the BIA. Following Senese's critique, there should be few or no differences between BIA and contract schools, as the BIA still maintains its authority to direct education. While Senese was writing before the passage of Title V, it should follow that grant schools would also have restrained self-determination. The BIA has to approve the grant proposals and release the funds to the local schools.

Juxtaposing these two positions provides an interesting research problem. The current research addresses these arguments regarding the viability of self-determination and local control for American Indian education. This study focuses on whether self-determination and local control exist and to what degree they exist within BIA-administered, contract, and grant schools. The following sections discuss the sample, the research methodology engaged, and the findings of the analysis.

A greater concentration of BIA-administered or funded education programs and diverse American Indian cultures in the Southwest provides an opportunity to examine tribal approaches to education. In 1991, there were 21 federally recognized Indian tribes in Arizona, the site of the current investigation (see Note 2). The total enrolled population of these tribes was 246,087 members. Five of these tribes are in the sample, representing about 85 percent of the enrolled American Indian population in Arizona (see Note 3).

In Arizona, 12,558 American Indian students were enrolled in BIA-administered or funded elementary and secondary schools for academic year 199 1 1992. In that same year, 46,412 Indian students attended Arizona public schools. Nationally, 39,791 American Indian students attended BIA-administered or funded schools. While this is only a brief demographic sketch, it provides an overview of the population from which the sample was drawn. More specific information is in the discussions of the data collection techniques used in the study.

Interview Schedule and Sample

Survey data supplement the primary interview data collection and are discussed later. Consultations with American Indian education professionals aided in the development of the interview schedule. The schedule contained 30 open-ended questions regarding the school and respondent and more focused inquiries about self-determination and local control. Two primary areas of questions are central to the current research. One question asked "How much self-determination do you feel your school has?" The interviewees were then asked to direct their responses toward the design and implementation of local education policies. A multiple part question was used: "Does your school have local control over education? How is local control defined and how much is present in your school?" Probes used in the interview focused on budgetary, personnel, and curriculum issues.

A sample of 12 administrators and school board members was selected from BIA, contract, and grant schools for in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The interviewees were chosen to meet several interrelated concerns, including the type of school where they were currently employed, their tribe of employment, and the length and diversity of their experiences in education. This sample included six administrators, three school board members, and one dormitory director. Of these ten, there were three grant school, three contract school, and four BIA school employees. A BIA Agency Superintendent for Education and a Tribal Director of Education were included because of their considerable experience and knowledge in American Indian education; however, they were not employed at a specific institution.

The current researcher conducted ten on-site and two telephone interviews. Inclement weather required the use of telephoning, though this was not the preferred contact. The on-site interviews ranged from one to three hours in length, with an average length of one and one-half hours. Interview responses helped to develop the survey questionnaire.

Survey Sample and Questionnaire

The survey instrument consisted of 40 open- and closed-ended questions. As with the interview schedule, the respondents were asked for demographic information and their perceptions of self-determination and local control at their schools. Four of these questions are central to the current investigation. The respondents were asked (1) "How much self-determination do you feel the community/tribe where you work has in designing its own education policies?" (2) "How much self-determination do you feel the community/tribe where you work has in implementing its own education policies?" (3) "How much local control do you feel the community/tribe has over the administration of the school in implementation issues such as the budget and personnel?" and (4) "How much local control do you feel the community/tribe has over the administration of the school in design issues such as curriculum design?" A five-point Likert scale of "None," "Little," "Some," "A great deal," or "Total" was used for each of these four questions.

Three schools from each tribe were to receive the questionnaires. Whenever possible, a BIA-administered school, a contract school, and a grant school were selected. One tribe had only one school so it was included with two schools in another community. Historically, both communities had been part of the same tribe and are located in the same geographic area. It is important to note that the two communities, although they share a common culture, are separate tribes. Therefore, cultural variation is expected.

A total of 337 questionnaires were mailed to the administrators at 12 schools. Six of the twelve administrators had already participated in the interviews. The remaining six administrators were contacted by both telephone and letter about the study to secure their participation, and to determine the number of questionnaires needed. Each instrument contained a cover letter explaining the research and identifying the researcher. The administrators then distributed the instruments to the staff and school board.

Seventy-five of the surveys were returned. The return rate for individual educators is approximately 25 percent, while the return rate for schools is about 67 percent. Generalizing these findings to other populations is limited. However, awareness of tribal diversity should already limit extrapolations from one Indian culture to another. Despite the low return rate, the research adds to the local control literature and provides clarification for future studies. It is also important to keep in mind that the questionnaire findings are to support the primary interview data.

With respect to the 75 respondents, 59 percent were teachers and 15 percent were administrators. Only one school board member responded, while 25 percent of the respondents did not identify their positions. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents were BIA school employees while 37 percent worked in contract schools, and another 19 percent worked at grant schools. Five percent of the respondents did not identify the type of school where they were employed.

In summary, the research questions are: (1) do personnel at BIA, contract, and grant schools perceive that they have self-determination and local control, and (2) do persons employed at contract or grant schools report greater self-determination and local control than persons at BIA-administered schools. A discussion follows of the interview and survey findings.

The respondents were asked for their perceptions of (1) how much self-determination the tribe or community had in the creation and implementation of education policy, and (2) the amount of local control the tribe or community had over school administration in areas of budgeting, personnel, and the curriculum. Within each of these two areas, the interview data are examined first and then the survey data.

Self-Determination in Policy Design and Implementation
In the interviews with BIA-administered school employees, one person proposed that getting the local people interested in education would help improve the school. Training people from the local community would increase the number of educators in the area and build a greater sense of community. He suggested that:

Another BIA school employee mentioned the need for training local people. This person proposed that "the school board members needed to learn to take themselves seriously." While the Bureau expected the school boards to take charge, the board members did not see themselves as elected officials with forsworn duties. The respondent viewed the school board members' perceptions of their obligations to be impeding the development of programs necessary for the community. In turn, this was an obstacle to greater self-determination in education. Educating the board members was considered crucial to creating an educational environment benefiting the students and the community. Many board members and community residents had literally grown up in the BIA and accepted the way things were done:

Other interviews with BIA school personnel recounted a lack of community autonomy. They suggested that compliance with BIA regulations reduced the school boards' self-determination. The interviewees complained that BIA officials dictated policies to the school boards rather than advising them how to better operate their programs.

Contract school personnel, in contrast, perceived their communities to have greater self-determination in education. One response was that the community had "a lot" of self-determination and could implement its own policies. The community was defined as "very sophisticated as to what they want and where they want to be" with respect to education. One interviewee commented that, from experience:

A negative side to contracting was also proposed:

Nearly identical responses are depicted in Table 2 when the respondents were asked how much self-determination the community had in the implementation of education policies.

Almost 60 percent of the BIA-administered school respondents said that their community had at least some self-determination in the implementation of policies. More than 85 percent of the grant school respondents and 93 percent of the contract school respondents perceived community self-determination in implementing education policies. A correlation coefficient of .493 (p=.001) supports perceptions of greater self-determination in schools operated by local groups as compared to BIA administered programs.

These findings sustain the arguments raised in the literature that self-determination in American Indian education is perceived as better attainable through contract and grant schools rather than through BIA-administered schools. After discussing self-determination in the creation of local policies, the interviewees and survey respondents were asked about local control in their schools.

Local Control in Policy Implementation
The persons interviewed at BIA-administered, contract, and grant schools were asked whether they and others at their school had discretion in implementing existing policies. Perceptions of local adaptations of policy vary among the three types of schools.

Responses from BIA school personnel ranged from low autonomy to a good deal of local discretion. One BIA school employee expressed frustration over the Bureau's administration of education:

[P]eople in the central office [of the BIA] need to come out and really study education sites. The Bureau doesn't really make much reference to our reservation. The central office needs to talk to people.

This educator complained that the BIA was more concerned about paperwork, stating "we are bombarded with paperwork. We have to meet deadlines. There is always more paperwork coming. It's hard to spend a whole day with students and teachers due to paperwork. "The interviewee reported a dislike for Bureau policies because "they don't work. They are more confusing than helpful." The Bureau was blamed for school administrators not complying with standards:

We do have academic standards, which have been drafted by the BIA. The Bureau hasn't provided us with funding for some programs they require. For example, we are supposed to have a librarian, but we don't have any money to hire one. Now, the school isn't in compliance because of lack of funding.

Another interviewee contended that the BIA dictated programming at the school. This person alleged that the Bureau discriminated in its funding provisions. Programs that were important to the BIA received money while services that were not a Bureau priority often experienced delays in the arrival of funds.

Despite the negative critiques of the BIA, one interviewee noted that although "We have laws that are set by the BIA, we decide locally how they [laws] can be met." It was reported that the policies established by the Bureau have some flexibility:

Another interviewee supported this claim. "The education policies from the Bureau are pretty flexible. I don't think there's much difference between Bureau, contract, and public schools."

The interviews with contract school personnel suggested that the amount of discretion available to them varied by programming area. They perceived more discretion in the upkeep and renovation of the physical plant than in the determination of academic standards. Under BIA policy, the facilities for contract schools are designated as local concerns overseen by the local board and administration. The BIA's academic standards are much like those that North Central Accreditation has established for public schools. BIA-funded schools have the choice of accepting one or the other standard. Most educators reported that their schools have North Central Accreditation or are actively pursuing their approval. North Central's standards were viewed by the interviewees as more comprehensive than those established by the BIA.

Concern was expressed regarding the possibility of reprisals from the Bureau if the school board and administration did not comply with the established standards. The primary concern was that the BIA would manipulate funding to keep school officials in compliance with Bureau policies. The employees reportedly obeyed BIA policies so as not to jeopardize the approval of the next year's contract.

One contract school interviewee claimed "there are some higher rules. There are always strings with federal funding." This person also acknowledged that the school administration does have discretion. "How you do the procedures is up to YOU."

Grant school personnel perceived largely unrestricted discretion in implementing BIA policies. One person noted that the school administration also had autonomy from the tribal council in school operations. "The tribe has no control. They passed educational standards, but they have no policy for enforcement."

A grant school organization had been founded by area educators to provide technical expertise for grant school officials. Personnel and board members from area grant schools met regularly to share successes and receive assistance in problem solving. The grant school educators perceived more autonomy from the Bureau than was reported by contract or BIA school personnel.

One interviewee said that the school board was responsible for setting the budget and making plans for how to invest the grant money. Grant funds are allocated in block amounts. The school board can invest the monies and use the interest accrued for whatever purposes. A business manager administers funds and oversees the investment process.

The grant school personnel reported greater local control and innovation in their facilities than did the contract and BIA school employees. While claims were made that local control did exist in BIA-administered institutions, other BIA school personnel reported bureaucratic constraints on their autonomy. Contract school employees were more cautious than their grant school counterparts, suggesting that they were aware of the BIA's power.

Throughout the interviews, the educators broke down the category of "implementation" into budget issues and curriculum matters. Survey questions followed up on this distinction. When asked how much local control they perceived their communities had, the contract school respondents reported having more local control over the budget than did BIA and grant school educators. Table 3 summarizes the educators' responses.

Eighty-one percent of the contract school respondents said that they had some or more local control in budget issues. Fifty-six percent of the BIA school respondents and 64 percent of the grant school personnel reported having at least some local control over the budgets at their schools. It is interesting that contract school employees reported greater autonomy than grant school respondents. However, it is not prudent to make too much of the differences given the small number of cases. One possible reason may be that contract school respondents who have been employed at BIA-administered schools base their answers on their experiences there. This possibility does not explain why the grant.

The second question focused on the amount of local control the community had over the design of the school's curriculum. There was a significant difference between the answers provided by the educators at the three types of schools. Personnel at BIA-administered schools were equally split in their perceptions of local control. Table 4 summarizes these findings.

In Table 4, 50 percent of the BIA school respondents reported some or more control over curriculum design. In comparison, 80 percent of contract school employees and 79 percent of grant school personnel related that their community had at least some control over the design of the curriculum (r = .435, p = .001). This finding supports the proposition that grant school and contract school personnel perceive greater local control over the curriculum than do BIA school employees.

Contract and grant school respondents reported greater self-determination in designing and implementing education policies than did respondents from BIA-administered schools. They reported fewer constraints on local initiatives than did BIA school respondents. Contract and grant school personnel also reported greater local control in administering existing policies to satisfy local needs than was indicated by BIA school employees. In both the interviews and the surveys, persons working at contract and grant schools indicate greater similarities in experiences with one another in comparison to the staff at BIA-administered schools.

Future inquiry must examine the curriculum offered at locally controlled schools. Does greater self-determination and local control translate into effective instruction and positive experiences for the students- Given American Indians' concerns about education, future research needs to address the curriculum in locally controlled Indian schools and the students' academic achievements. Are students in contract and grant schools performing at higher levels than students in BIA administered schools? In assessing academic achievement, it is important to keep in mind the goals of the American Indian students and Indian controlled schools. Curricula that stress Indian histories, tribal cultures, and languages should be examined relative to those cultures and avoid using the white middle-class standard often emphasized in public schools.

The necessity of educating the local community about their responsibilities to the school must also be addressed. The interviews with BIA school educators suggested that people are often not informed about how they can interact with the BIA to improve their schools. Local school board members were reported to lack the necessary expertise to operate effectively in their positions. Future research should identify training programs and community education groups and assess their impact on BIA-administered schools.

Noriega (1992) raises issues not addressed in the current research. He questions whether local control is in the hands of the American Indian communities or more closely controlled by the federal government. Noriega suggests that the American Indians administering locally controlled projects may strongly identify with the status quo. Any attempts at self-determination may be only superficial alterations to the Eurocentric models of indoctrination maintained in public schools. Greater awareness of this sensitive issue will strengthen future research. However, future researchers must grapple with how to adequately measure co-optation without biasing the research.

The current research suggests that locally controlled contract and grant schools may provide the improvement in education sought by American Indians. The potential for economic and cultural growth through self-determination and local control remains an important topic for future research.

1. This article focuses solely on American Indians within the United States. Native peoples from Canada and other parts of the Americas are excluded from the analysis due to the differing legal arrangements between tribes in other countries and the federal governments of those countries. The research addresses only American Indians in the lower forty-eight states. Although American Indians and Alaska Natives share common issues, Alaska Natives did have a different pattern of contact with outsiders; the initial contact was with Russians rather than Western Europeans.

2. These tribes are the: Papago-Pima, Camp Verde Yavapai-Apache, Cocopah, Mohave-Chemehuevi, White Mountain Apache, Fort McDowell Yavapai-Apache, Mojave, Quechan, Gila River, Pima-Maricopa, Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Paiute, Navajo, Pascua Yaqui, Salt River Pima-Maricopa, San Carlos Apache, Southern Paiute, Tohono O'Odham, Tonto Apache, and Yavapai.

3. A sixth tribe was initially contacted for inclusion in the sample. This tribe chose not to participate without providing any reason for their declination. While multiple possibilities exist, their decision could have been influenced by several issues. Some of the previous research conducted regarding American Indians has been exploitative of native peoples and has been used to perpetuate negative stereotypes of the population. American Indian people may be reticent to participate in research fearing such potential harms. It is also possible that the tribe had been approached to participate in numerous studies and were seeking to reduce the demands on their time. Several of the persons participating in the current study reported the large number of research requests that they receive each year.

4. Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient is used as the data fit the criteria established by Bohrnstedt and Knoke (1982, p. 304).

   Our own preference is to use the product-moment correlation coefficient for data where there is clearly an underlying continuous variable, even if it is measured only at the discrete level.