Volume 35 Number 1
October 1995

The education of American Indians and Alaska Natives in public, tribal, and BIA schools continues to be a difficult and often frustrating experience for too many students, parents, tribal leaders, and dedicated professional educators. Once again, the growth and improvement in Indian education over the past 15-25 years is threatened by economic and social conditions, and the political agenda of the day. As we approach the year 2000, the national budget deficit and efforts to balance the budget combined with the conservative state rights' New Federalism ideology could set Indian education back to the policies and practices of the early 1980s or more likely to the 1950s. We are expected to work wonders with far less resources. The Republican leadership in the 104th Congress with its Contract with America, budget reductions, and disregard for treaty rights and tribal sovereignty is the main factor in the possible demise of Indian education.

It is interesting that at a time when the federal initiative is for less national government and more state responsibility with flexibility, the need in Indian affairs is for a reaffirmation of the federal responsibility with increased resources to meet tribal needs. Does it seem like a conflict? Well, it certainly can be viewed as a difference of opinion when the general public in America wants less federal government while the general Indian public wants the federal government to live up to its legal and moral responsibility inherent in the over 400 treaties entered into during the treaty period. This does not mean more federal government bureaucracy or federal paternalism. What it means is that the federal responsibility must be strengthened with increased resource capacity. Block granting to states is not the answer, as many tribes know too well the response of state governments to tribal governments. Block grants to tribes makes much more sense.

The policy of Self-Determination combined with the efforts to downsize and re-engineer the Federal government has resulted in the use of self-governance compacts, 638 contracts, and 100-297 grants to drive the restructuring and streamlining of the BIA. In theory the concept and intent is good because it means more tribal control. It is also in keeping with the government to government relationship between Indian nations and the Federal government. Indeed, tribal control over tribal affairs has been advocated for years and is often viewed as the solution to many of the current problems and issues in Indian country. However, in reality, there are major concerns that question the theory and practice. For example, are there adequate resources in the BIA budget to ensure tribal success? The answer is "no" as resources are extremely limited and not sufficient in quantity. Can the BIA provide quality technical assistance? "No," the BIA doesn't have the ability or the resources. Will the Federal Government strengthen its role and commitment to Indian people? Probably not. Can the BIA provide meaningful trust responsibility to tribes? "No," it can't. Is Indian education a trust responsibility? Most tribal leaders think so, but most lawyers don't agree. Will the federal responsibility be weakened and eventually abrogated? That is a possibility. These, and other concerns, are legitimate and must be addressed to ensure self-determination, and not termination, as the end result.

Today, BIA education provides services to over 400,000 individuals nationally in programs that range from early childhood education to graduate studies. This includes 47,657 elementary and secondary students attending 187 BIA supported schools; 20,000 students attending 24 tribal colleges, Haskell Indian Nations University, and Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque; 275,000 Johnson O'Malley (JOM) students; 14,800 higher education undergraduate scholarship students, 580 graduate students, 15,500 adult education students, and 1,500 early childhood students and their parents.

Last year (1994-95), for the first time in history, there were more tribally controlled schools (93) than BIA operated schools (92) at the elementary and secondary levels. This is significant for it provides hard evidence that the policy of local and tribal control of education is being realized. This year (1995-96), there are 98 tribal schools and 89 operated by the BIA. The trend will continue as more and more schools become tribal grant schools and more of the education budget in the BIA shifts to tribal control. At present, higher education, adult education, and the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program are in Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)-that part of the BIA budget that gives tribes control and flexibility in budget expenditures. As tribes exercise more control over BIA education programs it is imperative that educators and Indian education organizations develop stronger relationships with elected and appointed tribal leadership to make sure education is a priority and that education funds are used to support education activities. This is critical since TPA allows tribes to move education funds to meet non-education needs.

In addition, there continue to be numerous inquiries from tribes about new schools and even from public schools about how they might become part of the BIA system. The number of BIA funded schools increased by seven since the 1990-91 school year. Many public school districts are having financial difficulty and, if Impact Aid and/or Indian Education Act funds (Title IX) are reduced, as it is likely by Congress, then it is possible more students and schools will seek BIA support. In addition, the BIA is the only real alternative for tribes to exercise control over the education of their students. Unfortunately, the budget is driving and changing policy without regard for quality education or need. In the BIA, the 1995 Congressional Interior appropriations language overrides P.L. 100-297 (the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988) by placing a moratorium on the number of schools the BIA can support. It is fixed at 187, after two new schools entered the system at the beginning of 1995-96 school year. There will be no more new schools until the freeze is lifted by Congress. The FY96 budget language is expected to be more drastic with cuts in basic operational funds for BIA schools including a freeze on school grade expansions and limitations on school staff travel. Congressional mandating by appropriations, especially by the Senate and House Interior Appropriation Committees, is a prime example of the micro management that is imposed on the Office of Indian Education Programs (OlEP) in the BIA.

The number of elementary and secondary students attending BIA schools has increased 3-4% yearly since the 1989-90 school year. During the current school year, 1995-96, there are 47,657 students attending 187 BIA schools. This represents an increase of 3% compared to the 46,557 students enrolled during the 1994-95 school year. Next year another 4% increase is expected to bring the total to 48,898 students. The tribal colleges experience an annual student increase of about 9% each year.

There is also evidence that students in BIA funded schools are doing better academically. Drop out rates are lower, attendance and retention rates are higher, there is better instructional leadership in our schools, vision and mission statements are established, curricula is clearer and written, there is more use of Indian languages and cultures and school boards are actively engaged and providing leadership and direction for schools.

BIA supported schools and programs continue to receive national recognition for their success, i.e., St. Stevens School was recognized as a Blue Ribbon School last year (Seven BIA schools have been Blue Ribbon Schools since 1986). Chief Leschi, Tuba City Boarding School, Takini, and St. Stevens have received national awards in the Drug Free Schools Program. Four BIA schools were nominated for national recognition for implementing outstanding Title I programs last year. The Family and Child Education program (FACE) continues to receive national and international attention as an early childhood program that promotes family literacy. And there are other honors at the local and state levels.

The Bureau's school reform efforts are being recognized by others, especially the Bureau Effective Schools Team (BEST), FACE, School Support Team efforts, and Goals 2000. Articles in this issue by Rick St. Germaine and Tippeconnic and Jones address the Effective Schools Program and the FACE program respectively. The Department of Education in Washington, D. C. complimented the BIA about Goals 2000 by indicating that the BIA was ahead of many states and leading the way in its national implementation. Bureau funded schools are very enthusiastic about the possibility of further reform under Goals 2000 and see it as the impetus needed to create the kinds of schools that will fully address the needs of Indian children through stronger utilization of language and culture. An important change reflected in the reform efforts has been the move to an integrated comprehensive approach to teaching and learning where the whole will become more important than the individual parts. For OIEP, it meant changing the approach from "directing" schools to "helping" by providing technical assistance.

The establishment of tribal colleges and universities is one of the success stories in all of education in this country. In spite of limited financial support from the BIA, the 24 tribal colleges and universities continue to make important contributions to the tribes and the over 20,000 students they serve. Recently they gained land grant college status and there is hope that a Tribal College Executive Order, similar to those for Blacks and Hispanics, will be signed by the President. BIA operated Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) are also making important strides in higher education. SIPI is quickly becoming a leader in high-tech training while Haskell is implementing a program that will prepare teachers to teach Indian students.

In addition, 721 students received grants from the Special Higher Education Grant Program in 1995 to pursue graduate degrees in Business, Education, Engineering, Law, Natural Resources, Health related fields of study. Over 13,000 students participated in the Adult Education Program and over 15,000 students were provided grants through the Higher Education Grant Program.

And there are numerous other successful efforts in BIA supported schools, colleges, and universities. Progress has been made; however, much remains to be done before the vision of providing quality education to every student can be accomplished. There continues to be major problems and issues that provide daily challenges. For example, facilities, including new school construction and renovation and repair of existing facilities is a problem of major proportions. Facilities have the potential of becoming the Achilles' heel of BIA education. There exists a backlog of at least $700 million in renovation and repair alone. No one really knows the need in new school construction, we just know that it is tremendous. It is clear the present system in the BIA and Department of Interior is not working and some radical changes must take place to build and repair schools.

Tribal and school representatives continue to make it clear that adequate funding is needed for virtually every educational program in the BIA, especially for increased dollars for JOM, higher education scholarships, Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP), school construction and repair, and for tribal colleges, including Haskell and SIPI. However, during the current lean and budget reduction times, actual need is not fully recognized nor will it generate increased funds. Rather, the focus is on reductions and efforts to "study" situations, cut out "frills," and get more out of each dollar. For example, there have been a number of efforts that have and continue to study the Indian School Equalization Program, which is a formula that distributes funds to BIA schools. Any effort to base ISEP on needs or to recommend increased funds is not recognized or supported by budget and policy people outside of education. While at OIEP, I initiated a comprehensive study of ISEP, only to have the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee stop the study during the field data collection phase. Instead, they inserted appropriations language that mandated a study that would only look at the distribution of appropriated funds without consideration for the what need was to fund quality education. The enthusiasm for reform, fostered by Goals 2000 is endangered by the possibility of lack of sufficient funds necessary to make change. A return to day to day survival is certainly possible.

Another area of concern is the need for research, including accurate and reliable data concerning Indian education. Recent activities in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) have the potential to result in some valuable research findings and data concerning Indian students, but only if the research questions and methodologies are carefully developed and implemented with the direct involvement of Indian researchers. Also, in the broader context, sampling methods must include adequate numbers of Indian students in national or regional studies so that research findings are meaningful.

The current position in BIA education is to protect what is there, especially budget, and at the same time find ways to make dollars go further. New dollars will be difficult to get, and they will be especially hard to get for any new initiatives. At the same time, individuals in policy and budget positions must be educated in, and hopefully learn to respect tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and the rest of the body of knowledge that supports the government to government relationship. The major challenge becomes how do we maintain local growth and the progress in school improvement in a national political and economic environment that has the potential to take us back in time. To further complicate the matter, there is little support for education in the BIA as OIEP and the balance of the BIA ("Ed and BOB") continue to battle and compete for resources. I expect that, in the final analysis, the resiliency and perseverance of Indian people will prevail and BIA education will—it always has. Before I left the BIA I attended a couple of sessions where there were a number of Indian youth. First, over 500 students, representing the tribal colleges, were recognized for their accomplishments at the annual American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) conference. Second, over 70 Close Up students representing a number of BIA supported schools visited my office in Washington, D.C. In both sessions it was an honor to interact with bright, articulate, and responsible Indian youth. They are representative of many other Indian students from all over the country. It is true that Indian youth are our most important resource and represent the future.

When you consider the sovereignty rights of Indian nations, treaties, and the responsibility of the Federal Government, combined with young Indian talent plus the experience and knowledge of the current Indian leadership and the wisdom and spirituality of our elders we know Indian education will continue for many years to come.

We must all do our part. We cannot rely on the collective effort of everyone without individual action from each one of us. Please do your part!

John W. Tippeconnic III, Ph.D.