Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Congressional research reportMar 12, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education:

Programs, Background, and Issues

Updated March 12, 2024

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

RL34205

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Summary

The federal government provides elementary and secondary education and educational assistance

to Indian children, either directly through federally funded schools or indirectly through

educational assistance to public schools that predominantly receive state and local funding. Direct

education is provided by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the U.S. Department of the

Interior (DOI), through elementary and secondary schools funded by the BIE. Federal educational

assistance to public schools is provided chiefly through programs of the U.S. Department of

Education (ED). Federal Indian education programs are distinguished by their targeting of

members (or descendants of members) of Indian tribes, which is distinct from targeting

individuals who identify by race/ethnicity as American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). Most of

this Indian education population attends public schools. Most federal data are based on

race/ethnicity, however, which complicates analysis of results for the population served by federal

Indian education programs.

The Bureau of Indian Education-funded education system for Indian students includes 169

schools and 14 “peripheral dormitories” for students attending public schools nearby. Schools and

dorms may be operated by the BIE itself or by tribes and tribal organizations. A number of BIE

programs provide funding and services, supplemented primarily by set-asides for BIE schools

from ED programs. Federal funding for Indian students in public schools flows to school districts

chiefly through ED programs, with a small addition from a single BIE program. Most of the ED

funds are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the

Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).

For decades, two perennial Indian elementary and secondary education issues—the poor

condition of BIE facilities and poor academic outcomes from Indian children—have confronted

Congress. Other issues related to Indian elementary and secondary education that Congress and

Administrations have attempted to address are access to Native language instruction, the

administration of BIE programs, and the adequacy of funding.

For at least 40 years, BIE school facilities have been characterized by a high rate of deficiencies

and health and safety concerns. Reports from students and faculty suggest that conditions affect

learning and enrollment. Weaknesses in the management of BIE school facilities and insufficient

funding have contributed to the facilities’ conditions.

Students in BIE schools and AI/AN students in public schools have comparatively poor academic

achievement. Since the 1970s, federal policies to address this issue include permitting greater

tribal control and influence through tribally operated BIE schools and culturally relevant

educational curriculum and Native language instruction, and encouraging collaboration between

states, local educational agencies, and public schools and tribes and parents of Indian students.

ESEA standards and accountability requirements also aim to promote the academic achievement

of students. With respect to BIE schools, Congress has wrestled to find a BIE and/or tribal

administrative structure that will support greater academic achievement of BIE students.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Brief History of Federal Indian Education Activities ...................................................................... 2

Civilization and Assimilation .................................................................................................... 2

Federal Indian School System ................................................................................................... 3

Shift to Public Schools .............................................................................................................. 4

Snyder Act of 1921.................................................................................................................... 5

BIA Operations in the 1920s and 1930s .................................................................................... 6

ED Indian Education Programs ................................................................................................. 6

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA) ......................... 7

Education Amendments Act of 1978......................................................................................... 8

Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA) of 1988 ..................................................................... 8

Reduction of and Limitations on BIE School System ............................................................... 9

Status of Indian and American Indian/Alaska Native Elementary and Secondary

Education...................................................................................................................................... 9

BIE Schools and Students ....................................................................................................... 10

Public Schools and AI/AN Students........................................................................................ 14

Federal Indian Elementary and Secondary Education Programs and Services ............................. 15

BIE Elementary and Secondary Education Programs ............................................................. 15

Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) .................................................................... 16

Student Transportation ...................................................................................................... 16

Early Child and Family Development (FACE) ................................................................. 16

Tribal Grant Support Costs (Administrative Cost Grants) ................................................ 17

Education Program Enhancements ................................................................................... 17

Juvenile Detention Education ........................................................................................... 17

Tribal Education Department Grants ................................................................................ 17

Johnson O’Malley Program (BIE Assistance to Public Schools) ..................................... 17

Facilities Operations ......................................................................................................... 18

Facilities Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 18

National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund .............................................. 18

School Facilities Repair and Construction and Faculty Housing...................................... 18

ISDEAA Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing ....................................................................... 19

BIE and BIA Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriations ...................................... 19

U.S. Department of Education Indian Elementary and Secondary Education Programs ........ 23

ESEA Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies..................................................... 23

ESEA Title I-B State Assessment Grants .......................................................................... 24

ESEA Title II-A Supporting Effective Instruction ............................................................ 24

ESEA Title III-A English Language Acquisition .............................................................. 24

ESEA Title IV-B 21st Century Community Learning Centers .......................................... 24

ESEA Title VI-A Indian Education Programs................................................................... 24

ESEA Title VI-C Alaska Native Education Equity ........................................................... 25

ESEA Title VII Impact Aid ............................................................................................... 25

IDEA Part B Special Education Grants to States .............................................................. 26

IDEA Part C Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities ..................... 26

MVHAA Education for Homeless Children and Youths .................................................. 26

Perkins Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP)............. 26

ED Elementary and Secondary Indian Education Funding ..................................................... 27

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Issues in Indian Education ............................................................................................................. 34

Poor Academic Achievement and Outcomes .......................................................................... 34

Native Language Instruction and Revitalization ..................................................................... 34

Discipline, Violence, Crime, and Alcohol and Drug Use ........................................................ 37

Broadband and Computer Access ........................................................................................... 38

BIE School Issues ................................................................................................................... 39

Federal Administration and Organization ......................................................................... 39

Academic Accountability Under ESEA ............................................................................ 42

BIE School Construction and Repair ................................................................................ 42

Public School Indian Education—Johnson O’Malley (JOM) Program Freeze and

Modernization ...................................................................................................................... 45

Figures

Figure 1. Number of Indian Students Enrolled in BIA, Public, and Private Schools 19001975 .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2. Appropriations for BIE Operations and Facilities, FY2014-FY2023 ............................ 20

Figure 3. Distribution of ED Funding for Indian Education Programs: FY2014-FY2023............ 28

Tables

Table 1. Number of BIE-Funded Schools and Peripheral Dormitories: FY2022 ........................... 11

Table 2. BIE Schools and Peripheral Dormitories and Students: Number and Percent, by

State, Average: SY2018-2019 to SY2021-2022 ......................................................................... 12

Table 3. Average Scores in NAEP Reading and Math, by Assessment, and Type of

School: 2011, 2015, and 2019 .................................................................................................... 14

Table 4. Average Public School Scores in NAEP Reading and Math, by Assessment and

Student Race/Ethnicity: 2022 ..................................................................................................... 15

Table 5. Appropriations for BIE Elementary-Secondary Education Programs and BIA

Education Construction: FY2014-FY2023 ................................................................................ 21

Table 6. Estimated Funding for Department of Education’s Indian Elementary-Secondary

Education Programs: FY2014-FY2023 ...................................................................................... 29

Table 7. Selected Federal Programs that Support Native Language Instruction ........................... 35

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 47

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 47

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Introduction

The federal government provides child development, elementary and secondary education, and

educational assistance to Indian1 children, in a federal school system and in public school systems

that predominantly receive state and local funding. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)2 in the

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees the federally funded BIE system of elementary

and secondary schools. The BIE system is funded primarily by the BIE but also receives

considerable funding from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The public school systems of

the states receive federal funding from ED, the BIE, and other federal agencies.

Federal provision of educational services and assistance to Indian children is based not on

race/ethnicity but primarily on their membership in, eligibility for membership in, or familial

relationship to members of Indian tribes, which are political entities. Federal Indian education

programs are intended to serve Indian children who are members of, or, depending on the

program, are at least second-degree descendants of members of, one of the 574 tribal entities

recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by

virtue of their status as Indian tribes.3 The federal government considers its Indian education

programs to be based on its trust relationship with Indian tribes, a responsibility derived from

federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, executive actions, and the Constitution (which assigns

authority over federal-Indian relations to Congress).4 Despite this trust relationship, most Indian

education programs are discretionary and not an entitlement like Medicare.

Different federal Indian education programs serve different, though overlapping, sets of Indian

students, and data on these programs’ students also differ (and overlap). The eligibility criteria for

these programs are not based on self-identified race/ethnicity categories. Rather, eligibility is

based on the recognition of the political status of the groups from which the students are members

or descendants of members. Not every school or school district that enrolls at least one Indian

student receives funding from a federal program that is designed to serve Indian students or that

allots funds based on numbers of Indian students.

1 In this report, the term Indian means members of federally recognized Indian entities, which include tribal entities

within the contiguous 48 states and Native entities within the state of Alaska (the latter term includes, but is not limited

to, Native Villages, Alaska Natives, Eskimos [Inuit and Yupik], and Aleuts of Alaska). The term Indian does not

include Native Hawaiians or other Native Pacific Islanders or indigenous people of Puerto Rico.

2 The BIE was formerly the Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In

2006, the Secretary of the Interior moved the OIEP out of the BIA and made it an agency equivalent to the BIA,

renaming it the BIE. Both bureaus are under the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs. For education programs, this report

uses “BIE” for current information and programs and “BIA” for historical periods.

3 The list of federally recognized tribal entities is published in the Federal Register. The most recent list is U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible to Receive Services

from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs,” 88 Federal Register 54654, August 11, 2023.

4 Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have characterized the role of the federal government with respect to Indian

tribes as involving a trust relationship. Having identified the trust relationship, the Court has upheld congressional

power to provide special treatment for Indians, declaring that “[a]s long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to

the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians, such legislative judgments will not be disturbed”

(Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 555 (1974)). However, the Court has never interpreted the trust relationship to

require any definite action on the part of Congress. When called upon to decide whether an administrative agency has

breached its trust obligation or when called upon to enforce the trust obligation against an agency of the Executive

Branch, moreover, the Court confines its review to whether the agency has a trust obligation imposed upon it by statute.

See, for example, United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Indian children served by public elementary and secondary school systems are also eligible for

the federal government’s general programs of educational assistance, but such programs are not

Indian education programs and will not be discussed in this report.

This report provides a brief history of federal Indian education programs, a discussion of students

served by these programs, an overview of programs and their funding, and brief discussions of

selected issues in Indian education.

Brief History of Federal Indian Education Activities

The following subsections provide a brief history of key periods in the development of federal

Indian education policy.

Civilization and Assimilation

U.S. government concern with the education of Indians began with the Continental Congress,

which in 1775 appropriated funds to pay the expenses of 10 Indian students at Dartmouth

College.5 Through the rest of the 18th century, the 19th century, and much of the 20th century,

Congress acted out of concern for what at the time was considered by some as the civilization of

the Indians, meaning their instruction in Euro-American agricultural methods, vocational skills,

and habits, as well as in literacy, mathematics, and Christianity. The aim of governmental efforts

was to change Indians’ cultural patterns into Euro-American ones—in a word, to assimilate

them.6

From the Revolutionary War until after the Civil War, the federal government provided for Indian

education either by directly funding teachers or schools on a tribe-by-tribe basis pursuant to treaty

provisions or by funding religious and other charitable groups to establish schools where they saw

fit. The first Indian treaty providing for any form of education for a tribe—in this case,

vocational—was in 1794.7 The first treaty providing for academic instruction for a tribe was in

1803.8 Altogether over 150 treaties with individual tribes provided for instructors, teachers, or

schools—whether vocational, academic, or both—either permanently or for a limited period of

time.9 The first U.S. statute authorizing appropriations to “promote civilization” among Indian

tribes was the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793,10 but the Civilization Act of 1819 was

the first authorization and appropriation specifically for instruction of Indian children near

5 Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Vol. II, 1775, May 10-September

20 (Washington: GPO, 1905), pp. 176-177. Congress’s stated intent was to keep the students from returning to their

homes in British Canada.

6 Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians (Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 1984), pp. 135-136.

7 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., Art. III, December 2, 1794, 7 Stat. 47, 48. The United States agreed not only to construct

gristmills and sawmills for the Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge tribes but also to send persons to instruct the tribes

in their use. See also Alice C. Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, U.S. Bureau of Education Special Report,

Sen. Ex. Doc. 95, 48th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1888), p. 162.

8 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Art. 3d, August 13, 1803, 7 Stat. 78, 79.

9 Nell Jessup Newton, ed.-in-chief, Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 2005 Edition (Newark, NJ: LexisNexis

Matthew Bender, 2005), p. 1356. Congress ended treaty-making with Indian tribes in 1871.

10 §9, Act of March 1, 1793, Chap. 19, 2 nd Cong., 2nd sess., 1 Stat. 329, 331. As civilizing factors, the section

specifically authorizes domestic animals, farming equipment, goods, money, and resident agents, but not teachers or

schools.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

frontier settlements in reading, writing, and arithmetic.11 Civilization Act funds were expended

through contracts with missionary and benevolent societies. Besides treaty schools and “mission”

schools, some additional schools were initiated and funded directly by Indian tribes. The state of

New York also operated schools for its Indian tribes. The total number of such treaty, mission,

tribal, and New York schools reached into the hundreds by the Civil War.12

Federal Indian School System

After the Civil War, the U.S. government began to create a federal Indian school system with

central policies and oversight, and with schools funded, constructed, and operated by DOI’s

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).13 In 1869, the Board of Indian Commissioners—a federally

appointed board that jointly controlled with DOI the disbursement of certain funds for Indians14—

recommended the establishment of government schools and teachers.15 In 1870, Congress passed

the first general appropriation for Indian schools not provided for under treaties.16 The initial

appropriation was $100,000, but both the amount appropriated and the number of schools

operated by the BIA rose swiftly thereafter.17 The BIA created both boarding and day schools,

including off-reservation industrial boarding schools on the model of the Carlisle Indian

Industrial School (established in 1879).18 Most BIA students attended on- or off-reservation

boarding schools.19 BIA schools were chiefly elementary and vocational schools.20

An organizational structure for BIA education began with a Medical and Education Division

(1873-1881), the appointment of a superintendent of education in 1883, and creation of an

education division in 1884.21 The education of Alaska Native children, however, along with that

of other Alaskan children, was assigned in 1885 to DOI’s Office of Education, not the BIA.22

11 Act of March 3, 1819, Chap. 85, 15 th Cong., 2nd sess., 3 Stat. 516. Previous appropriations for Indian affairs would

have funded education only for children of tribes that signed treaties providing for education.

12 Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, p. 197.

13 Szasz, Margaret Connell, and Ryan, Carmelita, “American Indian Education,” in Wilcomb E. Washburn, vol. ed.,

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4, Indian-White Relations (Washington: Smithsonian, 1988), p. 290.

14 The Board of Commissioners was created by the April 10, 1869, act (16 Stat. 40).

15 Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, p. 167.

16 An Act Making Appropriations for the Current and Contingent Expenses of the Indian Department ..., Act of July 15,

1870, Chap. 296, 41st Cong., 2nd sess., 16 Stat. 335, 359. See also U.S. American Indian Policy Review Commission,

Task Force Five: Indian Education, Report on Indian Education, Committee Print (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 69.

17 Paul Stuart, Nations Within a Nation: Historical Statistics of American Indians (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987),

pp. 135, 165.

18 Founded by Army Captain Richard H. Pratt on an unused Army base in Carlisle, PA, the school’s model of educating

Indian students in an off-reservation manual labor boarding school, away from students’ families and cultures, became

well-known. Pratt, its first superintendent, publicized the school and its emphasis on assimilation. Carlisle was funded

through Indian appropriations bills and private donations. It closed in 1918. See Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian

Education,” pp. 290-291.

19 Prucha, Great Father, pp. 815-816.

20 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” pp. 290-294.

21 Edward E. Hill, comp., Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians

(Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1981), p. 24. See also Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian

Education,” pp. 290, 293.

22 Hill, Guide to Records, p. 112; and Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 297. Authorization for Alaska

Native education was in §13, Act of May 17, 1884, Chap.53, 48 th Cong. 1st sess., 23 Stat. 24, 27-28.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Mission, tribal,23 and New York state schools also continued to operate, and the proportion of

school-age Indian children attending a BIA, mission, tribal, or New York school rose slowly.24

Shift to Public Schools

A major long-term shift in federal Indian education policy, from federal schools to public schools,

began in FY1890-FY1891 when the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, using his general authority

in Indian affairs, contracted with a few local public school districts to educate nearby Indian

children for whose schooling the BIA was responsible.25 After 1910, the BIA pushed to move

Indian children to nearby public schools and to close BIA schools.26 Congress provided some

appropriations to pay public schools for Indian students, although they were not always sufficient

and moreover were not paid where state law entitled Indian students to public education.27

By 1920, more Indian students were in public schools than in BIA schools.28 Figure 1 displays

the changing number of Indian students in BIA, public, and other schools from 1900 to 1975. The

shift to public schools accompanied the increase in the percentage of Indian youths attending any

school, which rose from 40% in 1900 to 60% in 1930.29 Comparable data are no longer available.

23 After 1870, most tribal schools were in Oklahoma, operated by one of the “Five Civilized Tribes” (Cherokee,

Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole), as they were then called.

24 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 291.

25 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs

[Fiscal Year 1890-1891] (Washington: GPO, 1891), p. 71.

26 Prucha, Great Father, pp. 823-825.

27 Prucha, Great Father, pp. 824-825.

28 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, Report on BIA

Education: Excellence in Indian Education Through the Effective Schools Process, Final Review Draft, March 1988, p.

15 (Table 1).

29 Marlita A. Reddy, ed., Statistical Record of Native North Americans (Detroit: Gale Research, 1993), p. 141. The

percentages are of Indians aged 5 to 20 and are based on Census data. Szasz and Ryan state, “In 1928 almost 90 percent

of all Indian children were enrolled in some school.” (“American Indian Education,” p. 294). The discrepancy in

percentages may be related to differing age ranges and differing definitions of the Indian population.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Figure 1. Number of Indian Students Enrolled in BIA, Public, and Private Schools

1900-1975

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Report on BIA Education. Final Review Draft

(Washington: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1988), Tables 1 and 8, pp. 15, 27.

Notes: BIA data include students in peripheral dormitories but exclude students in Alaska BIA schools. Public

school data are for Indian students living in BIA administrative or service areas.

Snyder Act of 192130

In 1921, Congress passed the Snyder Act31 in order to authorize all programs the BIA was then

carrying out. Most BIA programs at the time, including education, lacked authorizing legislation.

The Snyder Act continues to provide broad and permanent authorization for federal Indian

programs.

This act provides a broad and permanent authorization for federal Indian programs, including for

“[g]eneral support and civilization, including education.” Congress had never enacted specific

statutory authorizations for most BIA activities, including BIA schools. It had instead made

detailed annual appropriations for BIA activities. Authority for Indian appropriations in the House

had been assigned to the Indian Affairs Committee after 1885 (and in the Senate to its Indian

Affairs Committee after 1899). Rules changes in the House in 1920, however, moved Indian

appropriations authority to the Appropriations Committee, making Indian appropriations

vulnerable to procedural objections because they lacked authorizing acts. The Snyder Act was

passed to authorize all the activities the BIA was then carrying out. The act’s broad language,

however, may be read as authorizing—though not requiring—nearly any Indian program,

including education, for which Congress enacts appropriations.

30 Act of November 2, 1921, 42 Stat. 208, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §13.

31 Act of November 2, 1921, 42 Stat. 208, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §13.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

BIA Operations in the 1920s and 1930s

In the 1920s and 1930s, the BIA began expanding some of its own schools’ grade levels to

secondary education. Under the impetus of the Meriam Report and New Deal leadership, the BIA

also began to shift its students toward its local day schools instead of its boarding schools, and, to

some extent, to move its curriculum from solely Euro-American subjects to include Indian culture

and vocational education.32 The Meriam Report of 1928, an influential study of the condition of

American Indians and federal Indian administration, made several recommendations to promote

the advancement and civilization of Indians.33 In addition, in 1931, responsibility for Alaska

Native education was transferred to the BIA.34 In 1934, to simplify the reimbursement of public

schools for educating Indian students, Congress passed the Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Act,35

authorizing the BIA to contract with the states, except Oklahoma, and the territories for the

education of Indians (and other services to Indians).36

ED Indian Education Programs

The first major non-DOI federal funding for Indian education in the 20th century began in 1953,

when the Federal Assistance for Local Educational Agencies Affected by Federal Activities

program,37 now known as Impact Aid, was amended to cover Indian children eligible for BIA

schools.38 Impact Aid pays public school districts to help fund the education of children in

“federally impacted areas.” Further changes to the Impact Aid law in 1958 and the 1970s

increased the funding that was allocated according to the number of children on Indian lands.39

Congressional appropriations for Impact Aid have increased, while the JOM funding decreased

through FY2013.

In 1966 Congress added further non-DOI funding for Indian education by amending the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965,40 the major act authorizing federal

education aid to public school districts. The amendments set aside funds for BIA schools from the

program authorizing assistance to educational agencies for the education of children of lowincome families (now referred to as ESEA Title I-A); School Library Resources, Textbook, and

Instructional Materials (Title II); and Supplementary Educational Centers and Services (Title

III).41

32 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” pp. 294-295; Prucha, Great Father, pp. 836-839, 977-983; and

Margaret Connell Szasz, “W. Carson Ryan: From the Meriam Report to the Indian New Deal,” in Education and the

American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928, 2nd ed. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,

1977), pp. 16-36.

33 Lewis Meriam, The Problem of Indian Administration, Institute for Government Research, Report of a Survey made

at the request of Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and submitted to him, Baltimore, MD, February 21,

1928.

Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 297.

35 P.L. 73-167, Act of April 16, 1934, 48 Stat. 596, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §5342 et seq.

36 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 295.

37 P.L. 81-874, Act of September 30, 1950, 64 Stat. 1100, as amended; currently codified as Title VII of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

38 P.L. 83-248, Act of August 8, 1953, 67 Stat. 530.

39 Larry LaCounte, Tribal Perspective of the Impact Aid Program (Washington: National Indian Policy Center, 1993),

pp. 3-5.

40 P.L. 89-10, Act of April 11, 1965, 79 Stat. 27, as amended.

41 §102, Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, P.L. 89-750, Act of Nov 3, 1966, 80 Stat 1191.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

A congressional study of Indian education in 196942 that was highly critical of federal Indian

education programs led to further expansion of federal non-DOI assistance for Indian education,

embodied in the Indian Education Act of 1972, now known as ESEA Title VI.43 The Indian

Education Act established the Office of Indian Education (OIE) within the U.S. Department of

Health, Education and Welfare (later ED and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

and authorized OIE to make grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) with Indian children.44

The OIE was the first organization outside of DOI (since DOI’s birth in 1849) that was created

expressly to oversee a federal Indian education program.

Impact Aid and ESEA Title VI also promote Indian control in public schools. The 1972 Indian

Education Act amended the Impact Aid program to mandate Indian parents’ consultation in

school programs funded by Impact Aid.45 ESEA Title VI requires that public school districts

applying for its grants prove adequate participation by Indian parents and tribal communities in

program development, operation, and evaluation.46 The Improving America’s Schools Act of

1994 (P.L. 103-382, §9112(b)) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) have

expanded eligibility under the current ESEA Title VI formula grant program to Indian tribes,

Indian organizations, and Indian community-based organizations.47

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975

(ISDEAA)48

Following the termination period of the 1950s and 1960s intended to end the trust relationship

between the federal government and Indian tribes, federal Indian education policy began to move

toward greater Indian control of federal Indian education programs, in both BIA and public

schools. In 1966, the BIA signed its first contract with an Indian group to operate a BIA school

(the Rough Rock Demonstration School on the Navajo Reservation).49

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA; P.L. 93-638),50 signed

into law in 1975, authorized tribal administration of certain federal Indian programs, including

42 U.S. Congress, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Indian

Education: A National Tragedy, A National Challenge (Washington: GPO, 1969).

43 Title IV of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, P.L. 92-318, Act of June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235, 334, as

amended; currently codified as ESEA Title VI-A.

44 The OIE was transferred to the new U.S. Department of Education in 1980.

45 P.L. 92-318, §411(a),(c)(2), 86 Stat. 334-339; currently codified, as amended, at ESEA §7004. See also Szasz and

Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 298.

46 §421(a) of the 1972 act; currently codified at ESEA §6114(c)(4).

47 Indian organizations are defined in 25 C.F.R. §263.20 as organizations that “(1) are legally established—(i) by tribal

or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with state or tribal law; and (ii) with appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles

of incorporation; (2) include in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians; (3) are controlled by a governing

board, the majority of which is Indian; (4) if located on an Indian reservation, operate with the sanction or by charter of

the governing body of that reservation; (5) are neither organizations or subdivisions of, nor under the direct control of,

any institution of higher education; and (6) are not agencies of state or local government.” Indian community-based

organizations are defined in ESEA Section 6112(d)(2) as organizations that “(A) are composed primarily of Indian

parents, family members, and community members, tribal government education officials, and tribal members, from a

specific community; (B) assist in the social, cultural, and educational development of Indians in such community; (C)

meet the unique cultural, language, and academic needs of Indian students; and (D) demonstrate organizational and

administrative capacity to manage the grant.”

48 P.L. 93-638, act of January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §5301 et seq.

49 Prucha, Great Father, p. 1102.

50 P.L. 93-638, Act of January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §5301 et seq.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

BIA and BIE programs. ISDEAA, as amended, allows Indian tribes and tribal organizations, such

as tribal school boards, to assume some control over the management of BIE-funded education

programs by negotiating “self-determination contracts” or Title IV “self-governance compacts”

with BIE. Under a self-determination contract, BIE transfers to tribal control the funds it would

have spent for the contracted school or dorm, so the tribe may operate it. Tribes or tribal

organizations may contract to operate one or more schools.51

In 1975, the ISDEAA added to the JOM program a requirement that public school districts with

JOM contracts have either a majority-Indian school board or an Indian parent committee that has

approved the JOM program.52

Education Amendments Act of 197853

Three years after ISDEAA’s enactment, in Title XI, Part B, of the Education Amendments of 1978

(P.L. 95-561), Congress required the BIA “to facilitate Indian control of Indian affairs in all

matters relating to education.”54 This act created statutory standards and administrative and

funding requirements for the BIA school system and separated control of BIA schools from BIA

area and agency officers by creating a BIA Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) and

assigning it supervision of all BIA education personnel.55

Title XI of this act establishes requirements and guidelines for the BIE-funded elementary and

secondary school system. As amended, the act covers academic accreditation and standards, a

funding allocation formula, BIE powers and functions, criteria for boarding and peripheral dorms,

personnel hiring and firing, the role of school boards, facilities standards, a facilities construction

priority system, and school closure rules, among other topics. It also authorizes several BIE grant

programs, including administrative cost grants for tribally operated schools (described below),

early childhood development program grants (described below), and grants and technical

assistance for tribal departments of education.

Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA) of 198856

The Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA; P.L. 100-297) of 198857 authorized grants as another

means, besides ISDEAA contracts, by which Indian tribes and tribal organizations may operate

BIE-funded schools. The act requires that each grant include all requested funds that BIE would

have allocated to the school for operation, administrative cost grants, transportation, maintenance,

and ED programs. Because ISDEAA contracts were found to be a more cumbersome means of

Indian control of schools, most tribally operated schools are grant-supported schools.58

BIE’s formula funding for schools is excluded from “self-governance compacts” (25 U.S.C. §5363(b)(4)(B)).

52 25 U.S.C. §5346.

53 P.L. 95-561, Title XI, Part B, Act of November 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2143, 2316, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 22 (25

U.S.C. §2000 et seq.).

54 P.L. 95-561, Title XI, Part B, Act of November 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2143, 2316, as amended. The quote is from §1130

of the original act (now §1131 of the amended act).

55 Prucha, Great Father, p. 1146.

56 P.L. 100-297, Title V, Act of April 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 130, 385, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 27.

57 P.L. 100-297, Title V, Act of April 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 130, 385, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 27.

58 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 2005 Edition, p. 1361.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Reduction of and Limitations on BIE School System

Starting in the 1960s, the number of schools in the BIA school system began to shrink through

administrative consolidation, limitations, and congressional closures. For example, all BIAfunded schools in Alaska were transferred to the state of Alaska between 1966 and 1985,

removing an estimated 120 schools from BIA responsibility.59 The number of BIA-funded schools

and dormitories stood at 233 in 193060 and 277 in 1965,61 but fell to 227 in 1982 and to 180 in

1986 before rising to 185 by 1994;62 it currently stands at 183.63 Since the 1990s, Congress has

limited both the number of BIA schools and the grade structure of the schools.64 In 2006, the

Secretary of the Interior separated the BIA education programs in the Office of Indian Education

Programs from the rest of the BIA and placed them in a new Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)

under the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs.65 The number of Indian students educated at BIE

schools has ranged between 41,000 and 48,000 since FY2006.66

Status of Indian and American Indian/Alaska

Native Elementary and Secondary Education

Although there is no source for the status of Indian student educational achievement nationally,

the educational environment and achievements of BIE students and American Indian/Alaska

Native (AI/AN) students are reported. Students who identify their race/ethnicity as AI/AN may

not be members or descendants of members of federally recognized Indian tribes, and not all

members of such tribes may identify as AI/AN. For example, ED’s National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES), which collects and analyzes student and school data and produces the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),67 publishes reports on AI/AN students’

characteristics and academic achievements. NCES data are based on race/ethnicity (except most

data on BIE students), so the data will include students who identify as AI/AN even though they

are not members of tribes and do not fall into the eligibility categories of federal Indian education

programs. NCES’s race/ethnicity-based AI/AN student population is not the same as the student

population served by federal Indian education programs. The two populations overlap, but the

degree of overlap has not been determined. NCES data based on race/ethnicity, then, cannot be

assumed to accurately represent the Indian student population intended to be served by federal

Indian education programs.

59 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations for 1994, hearings, part 8, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 168.

60 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Report on BIA Education: Excellence in Indian Education

Through the Effective Schools Process. Final Review Draft (Washington: The Department, 1988), p. 17.

61 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Education, Fiscal Year 1965 Statistics

Concerning Indian Education (Haskell, Kansas: Haskell Institute Publications Service, 1966), p. 15.

62 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, Fiscal Year 1995

Annual Education Report (Washington, DC: The Bureau of Indian Affairs, no date), p. vi.

63 U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Education, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2024 (hereinafter referred to as

the FY2024 Budget), p. BIE-GS-1.

64 The limitations are in the annual BIE appropriations acts.

65 U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2008, pp. IA-EDUC-5 to -6.

66 Budget Justifications FY2006–FY2024.

67 NAEP is often known as the nation’s report card.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

BIE Schools and Students

The BIE funds a system consisting of elementary and secondary schools, which provide free

education to eligible Indian students, and “peripheral dormitories” (discussed below).68 The BIE

is led by a director in Washington, DC, who reports to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. In

addition to positions that manage finance, acquisition, accountability, facilities, and other support

activities, three Associate Deputy Directors (ADDs) provide oversight, guidance, and technical

assistance to the BIE schools. One ADD serves schools serving the Navajo nation, one serves the

remaining BIE operated schools, and one serves the remaining tribally operated schools. Each

ADD works through multiple, field-located Education Resource Centers (ERC) that provide

direct and customized technical assistance to the schools.69

The BIE school system serves students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes or

are at least one-fourth degree Indian blood descendants of members of such tribes, and who reside

on or near a federal Indian reservation or are eligible to attend a BIE off-reservation boarding

school.70 Indian tribes commonly require members to be lineal descendants or related to lineal

descendants of individuals on the original list of members, so BIE Indian students may have less

than one-fourth Indian blood. It is commonly estimated that BIE schools serve less than 10% of

Indian students.

The BIE-funded school system includes day and boarding schools and peripheral dormitories.

The majority of BIE-funded schools are day schools, which offer elementary or secondary classes

or combinations thereof, and are located on Indian reservations. BIE boarding schools house

students in dorms on campus and also offer elementary or secondary classes, or combinations of

both levels, and are located both on and off reservations. Peripheral dormitories house students

who attend nearby public or BIE schools; these dorms are also located both on and off

reservations. Approximately one-third of BIE schools are K-8, one-fifth are K-12, and another

one-seventh are K-6.71

Elementary and secondary schools funded by the BIE may be operated directly by the BIE, by

tribes and tribal organizations through grants authorized under the Tribally Controlled Schools

Act (TCSA) of 1988, or by tribes and tribal organizations through contracts authorized under the

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) of 1975. In addition, some

schools receive financial assistance from a state or public school district. A few are operated

through a cooperative agreement with a public school district.72 In accordance with state law, the

68 BIE also funds postsecondary institutions and programs not discussed in this report. A small number of BIE-funded

elementary and secondary schools also receive funding as public schools from their states.

69 FY2024 Budget.

70 25 U.S.C. §2007(f). One-fourth degree is the equivalent of one full-blood grandparent out of four. In certain

circumstances, non-Indian students may attend BIE schools (25 C.F.R. §31.3).

71 The remainder of schools serve grades PK-8, PK-12, K-2, K-3, K-4, K-5, K-7, K-9, K-11, 1-8, 1-12, 4-12, 5-8, 6-8,

6-12, 7-8, 7-12, and 9-12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, https://www.bie.edu/schools/

directory, as of November 21, 2023.

72 The Turtle Mountain Elementary and Middle schools in North Dakota are operated by a cooperative agreement

between a public school district and the BIE. The Standing Rock Community School is operated through a Joint

Powers Agreement between the Standing Rock Tribal Grant School and the Fort Yates Public School District (See U.S.

Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,

American Indian and Alaska Native Public Witness Hearing, Testimony of The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 115th

Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2017).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

three BIE schools in Maine receive state funding.73 In addition, some states provide varying

levels of support to BIE schools.74 There are eight charter schools co-located at BIE schools.75

BIE funds 169 schools and 14 peripheral dorms. Table 1 shows the number of BIE-funded

schools and peripheral dorms, by type of operator. The majority of BIE-funded schools are

tribally operated.76

Table 1. Number of BIE-Funded Schools and Peripheral Dormitories: FY2022

Schools and Peripheral

Dormitories

Tribally

Operated

BIEOperated

Total

128

183

Elementary/secondary schools

115

169

Day schools

118

Boarding schools

Peripheral dormitories

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2024.

In the mid-1990s, Congress became concerned that adding new BIE schools or expanding

existing schools would, in circumstances of limited financial resources, “diminish funding for

schools currently in the system.”77 As a consequence, the total number of BIE schools and

peripheral dorms, the class structure of each school, and co-located charter schools has been

limited by Congress. Through annual appropriation acts from FY1994 through FY2011, Congress

prohibited BIE from funding schools that were not in the BIE system as of September 1, 1996,

and from FY1996 through FY2011 prohibited the use of BIE funds to expand a school’s grade

structure beyond the grades in place as of October 1, 1995. Appropriations acts since FY2000

have prohibited the establishment of co-located charter schools.

Beginning in FY2012, Congress has begun to loosen restrictions on the size and scope of the BIE

school system. A provision enacted in the FY2012 appropriations act provided an exception for

schools and school programs that were closed and removed from the BIE school system between

1951 and 1972 and whose respective tribe’s relationship with the federal government was

terminated.78 As a result of the FY2012 exception in July 2012, BIE began funding grades 1-6 of

73 Lawrence O. Picus, Allan Odden, and Michael Goetz, et al., An Independent Review of Maine’s Essential Programs

and Services Funding Act: Part 1, Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, Presented to the Maine Legislature’s Joint

Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, North Hollywood, CA, April 1, 2013.

74 North Dakota provides state funding to several BIE schools: Mandaree Day School, Turtle Mountain Elementary

School, Turtle Mountain High School, Turtle Mountain Middle School, Twin Buttes Day School, and White Shield

School (North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, Office of Indian/Multicultural Education, BIE/Tribal Schools

(2019-2020), June 15, 2020, https://www.ndlegis.gov/assembly/67-2021/testimony/HAPPEDU-1013-20210114-1134F-BAESLER_KIRSTEN.pdf). BIE schools in Washington may become state-tribal education compact schools,

receiving some state funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements (Washington State Legislature, Final Bill

Report E2SHB 1134, 2013-14).

75 The schools are Blackwater Community School in Coolidge, AZ; Kin Dah Lichi'i Olta’ (Kinlichee) in Ganado, AZ;

Little Singer Community School in Winslow, AZ; Nazlini Community School in Ganado, AZ; Seba Dalkai Boarding

School in Winslow, AZ; Shonto Preparatory School in Shonto, AZ; Hannahville Indian School in Wilson, MI; and

Joseph K. Lumsden Bahweting Anishnabe Academy in Sault Ste. Marie, MI.

76 FY2024 Budget.

77 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations

Bill, 1995, report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 103-294 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 58.

78 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Jones Academy in Hartshorne, OK. Jones Academy was previously funded by BIE as a peripheral

dormitory for students attending schools in grades 1-12, and by the local public school district as

a grades 1-6 elementary school. The appropriations acts since FY2014 have authorized the

Secretary to support the expansion of one additional grade to better accomplish the BIE’s

mission, and appropriations acts since FY2018 have authorized the expansion of more than one

elementary grade in schools with a K–2 grade structure on October 1, 1996. As a result, in 2014

the BIE approved funding for the tribally funded 6th grade of the otherwise BIE-funded

Shoshone-Bannock Junior High.79 In addition, BIE approved the K-2 Blackwater Community

School to offer a 3rd grade in July of 2016 and 4th-5th grades in July of 2018.80 Successively,

appropriations acts since FY2015 have authorized the BIE to approve satellite locations of BIE

schools at which an Indian tribe may provide language and cultural immersion educational

programs as long as the BIE is not responsible for the facilities-related costs. Accordingly, in

AY2015-2016 the Nay-Ah-Shing School in Minnesota opened the Pine Grove Satellite Learning

Center using broadband and reducing transportation times and costs.81

Only Indian students attend the BIE school system, with few exceptions. In SY2023-2024, BIEfunded schools and peripheral dorms are estimated to serve approximately 47,000 Indian students

in 23 states.82 From SY2018-2019 to SY2021-2022, approximately 49% of BIE schools and

dormitories had an average attendance of fewer than 200 students.83

BIE schools and dormitories are not evenly distributed across the country. From SY2018-2019 to

SY2021-2022, approximately 66% of BIE schools and dormitories and, on average,

approximately 63% of BIE students were located in 3 of the 23 states with schools: Arizona (27%

of students), New Mexico (20%), and South Dakota (17%).84 Table 2 shows the distribution of

BIE schools and students across the 23 states. There are no BIE schools or students in Alaska, a

circumstance directed by Congress (see “Brief History of Federal Indian Education Activities,”

above).85

Table 2. BIE Schools and Peripheral Dormitories and Students: Number and Percent,

by State, Average: SY2018-2019 to SY2021-2022

(in descending order by number of students)

Schools and Dorms

State

Arizona

Number

Students

Percentage

30%

Number

14,051

Percentage

27%

79 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,

American Indian and Alaska Native Public and Outside Witness Hearing, Mr. Nathan Small, Chairman, ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Ft. Hall Reservation Testimony, 114th Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 2015.

80 Blackwater Community School-Akimel O'Otham Pee Posh Charter School Inc., https://bwcs.k12.az.us/ (accessed

May 29, 2020).

81 Holland & Knight, “Launching a Tribal Satellite School Expansion Plan.”

82 FY2024 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-15.

83 Percentage calculated by CRS based on FY2024 Budget, Appendix 1. The three-year averages for student counts are

based on the average daily attendance counts that are calculated for each year.

84 FY2024 Budget, Appendix 1. The three-year averages for student counts are based on the average daily attendance

counts that are calculated for each year.

85 Annual appropriation acts for the Department of the Interior regularly include an administrative provision prohibiting

BIA expenditures to support operation of elementary and secondary schools in Alaska (except through the JohnsonO’Malley program); see, for example, P.L. 110-161 (121 Stat. 2113).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Schools and Dorms

State

Number

Students

Percentage

Number

Percentage

New Mexico

24%

10,595

20%

South Dakota

12%

8,788

17%

North Dakota

4,763

Mississippi

2,843

Washington

2,352

North Carolina

1,474

Oklahoma

1,425

Wisconsin

1,155

Minnesota

731

California

683

Michigan

641

Montana

492

Oregon

478

Florida

388

Iowa

354

Maine

347

Wyoming

329

Idaho

282

Utah

254

<1%

Nevada

154

<1%

Louisiana

133

<1%

Kansas

<1%

183

100%

52,761

100%

Grand Totala

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Education, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2024, Appendix 1.

Notes: Student counts are based on the three-year average daily membership, which counts students

attendance during the entire year.

a. Totals may not add due to rounding.

One measure of a school system’s quality and the academic achievement of students is the

average score of students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading

and mathematics assessments.86 Table 3 indicates that average scores on the NAEP assessments

for students in BIE schools were below those of students in public schools. For example, on the

8th grade 2015 NAEP reading assessment the average score for BIE school students was 236

while the average for public school students was 264. Data on BIE schools after 2019 are not

available.

86 The NAEP, directed by the U.S. Department of Education, is the largest nationally representative and continuing

assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since NAEP assessments are

administered uniformly across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Table 3. Average Scores in NAEP Reading and Math, by Assessment, and Type of

School: 2011, 2015, and 2019

Average NAEP Score

Type of School

Grade 4

Reading

Grade 8

Reading

Grade 4

Math

Grade 8

Math

2019

BIE schools

186

233

215

251

Public schools

204

249

228

263

BIE schools

NRa

236

NRa

252

Public schools

221

264

240

281

2015

2011

BIE schools

182

234

213

250

Public schools

220

264

240

283

Source: B.D. Rampey, S.C. Faircloth, R.P. Whorton, and J. Deaton, National Indian Education Study 2019 (NCES

2021-018) U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2021).

Notes: NAEP assessment results for reading and mathematics are reported as average scores on a 0-500 scale.

a. NR means reporting standards not met.

Public Schools and AI/AN Students

There were approximately 49 million public school students enrolled in elementary and

secondary schools in fall 2020, and approximately 461,000 (0.9%) were AI/ANs. A greater than

average proportion of AI/AN students live in poverty and require services for students with

disabilities. The percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty was 30% for

AI/AN children and 16% for all children in 2021. In SY2021–2022, the percentage of children

ages 3–21 who were served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a

percentage of total enrollment in public schools was 19% for AI/AN students, the highest among

all racial/ethnic groups. The percentage of 16- through 24-year-old AI/AN youth who were not

enrolled in school and had not earned a high school credential was 10% in 2021, compared to 5%

for all 16- through 24-year-olds.87

The educational achievement of AI/AN students in public schools can be deduced from the

average scores of AI/AN and non-AI/AN students on the NAEP. Table 4 presents results of the

2022 NAEP reading and mathematics assessments for AI/AN and non-AI/AN students in grades 4

and 8. The average NAEP score for AI/AN students is consistently lower than that for white,

Hispanic, and Asian students.

87 U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics (hereinafter, Digest of Education Statistics), Tables

102.62, 203.50, 204.40, and 219.85a (accessed February 23, 2024).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Table 4. Average Public School Scores in NAEP Reading and Math, by Assessment

and Student Race/Ethnicity: 2022

Average NAEP Score

Grade 4

Reading

Grade 8

Reading

Grade 4

Math

Grade 8

Math

AI/ANa

197

246

221

258

White

227

268

246

285

Black

199

244

217

253

Hispanic

205

251

224

261

Asian

241

283

259

306

Native Hawaiian/Other

Pacific Islander

207

254

224

264

Two or more races

223

265

239

276

Student

Race/Ethnicity

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), available at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/

reading/2022/ and https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/ (February 23, 2024).

a. AI/AN means American Indian/Alaska Native.

Federal Indian Elementary and Secondary

Education Programs and Services

Federal Indian elementary and secondary education programs serve Indian elementary and

secondary students in public schools, private schools, and the BIE system. Except for one BIE

program, public schools do not generally receive BIE funding. Public schools instead receive

most of their federal assistance for Indian education through the U.S. Department of Education

(ED). BIE-funded schools, on the other hand, receive funding both from the BIE and from ED.

The BIE estimates that it provides about 79% of BIE-funded schools’ overall federal funding for

operations (excluding renovation and construction), and ED provides 20%.88 This section of the

report profiles first the BIE programs and second those ED programs that provide significant

funding for Indian education.

BIE Elementary and Secondary Education Programs

Funding for and operation of BIE-funded schools are carried out through a number of different

programs. The major BIE funding programs for operations are forward-funded—that is, the BIE

programs’ appropriations for a fiscal year are used to fund the school year that begins during that

fiscal year.89 Forward funding in the case of elementary and secondary education programs was

designed to allow additional time for school officials to develop budgets in advance of the

88 FY2024 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-11. The remainder is provided by other federal agencies.

89 Federal fiscal years begin on October 1 and end on the following September 30. School years (SY) begin on July 1

(three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year) and end the following June 30. Hence, BIE appropriations for

FY2023 (October 1, 2022-September 30, 2023) are used to fund SY2023-2024 (July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

beginning of the school year. These forward-funded appropriations are specified through

provisions in the annual appropriations bill and other statutory provisions.90

Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)91

The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) is the formula-based grant program through

which congressional appropriations for BIE-funded schools’ academic (and, if applicable,

residential) operating costs are allocated among the schools. ISEP grant funds are the primary

funding for basic and supplemental educational programs for Indian students attending BIEfunded schools. In addition, ISEP grant funds pay tuition to Sevier Public Schools in Utah for

out-of-state Indian students living in the nearby BIE Richfield peripheral dormitory. The ISEP

allocation formula, although authorized under the Education Amendments of 1978, is specified

not in statute but in federal regulations. The formula is based on a count of student “average daily

membership” (ADM) that is weighted to take into account schools’ grade levels and students’

residential-living status (e.g., in boarding schools or peripheral dorms) and is then supplemented

with weights or adjustments for gifted and talented students, language development needs,

supplemental education programs, and a school’s size. The final weighted figure is called the

“weighted student unit” (WSU). A three-year WSU average is calculated for each school and

nationally. Each school receives a portion of the ISEP appropriation that is the same proportion

that the school’s three-year WSU average is to the national three-year average WSU.92

Before allocation under the funding formula, part of ISEP funds is set aside for program

adjustments, contingencies, and appeals. In recent years, program adjustments have funded safety

and security projects, behavior intervention programs, targeted education projects to increase

academic achievement, police services, parental participation projects, technical assistance on

effective teaching practices for at-risk students, behavioral health counselors, and school staff

capacity with respect to budget and programming.

Student Transportation

Student transportation funds provide for buses, fuel, maintenance, and bus driver salaries and

training, as well as certain commercial transportation costs for some dormitory and boarding

school students. Because of largely rural and often remote school locations, many unimproved

and dirt roads, and the long distances from children’s homes to schools, transportation of BIE

students can be expensive. Student transportation funds are distributed on a formula basis, using

commercial transportation costs and the number of bus miles driven (with an additional weight

for unimproved roads).93

Early Child and Family Development (FACE)

BIE’s early childhood development program provides grants to tribes and tribal organizations for

services for pre-school Indian students and their parents.94 The program includes early childhood

education for children under six years old, and parenting skills and adult education for their

parents to improve their employment opportunities. The grants are distributed by formula among

applicant tribes and organizations who meet the minimum tribal size of 500 members. In

90 For example, see 25 U.S.C. §2010(a) and §2506(a).

91 25 U.S.C. §2007.

92 25 C.F.R. Part 39, Subparts A-C.

93 25 C.F.R. Part 39, Subpart G.

94 25 U.S.C. §2019.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

SY2018-2019 before COVID-19 pandemic-related enrollment reductions, the program served

over 2,000 adults and 2,000 children.95

Tribal Grant Support Costs (Administrative Cost Grants)

Tribal grant support costs,96 formerly known as administrative cost grants, pay administrative and

indirect costs for tribally operated TCSA-grant schools. Administrative costs for BIE-operated

schools are funded through BIE program management appropriations. By providing assistance for

direct and indirect administrative costs that may not be covered by ISEP or other BIE funds,

administrative cost grants are intended to encourage tribes to take control of their schools. These

are formula grants based on an “administrative cost percentage rate” for each school, with a

minimum grant of $200,000. For the first time in FY2016, appropriations fully funded the

statutorily determined grant amounts without the need for a ratable reduction.

Education Program Enhancements

Education Program Enhancements allow the BIE discretion to provide targeted improvements

and interventions. Examples of activities funded in recent years include supporting BIE

reorganization efforts, providing leadership training and professional development, funding the

Sovereignty in Indian Education (SIE) Enhancement program, and developing partnerships with

tribally controlled colleges. In addition, funding has been used to develop tribal education

departments.

Juvenile Detention Education

The Juvenile Detention Education program supports educational services for children in BIAfunded detention facilities. This is not a forward-funded program. The program was funded in

FY2007-FY2011 and has now been funded since FY2016.

Tribal Education Department Grants97

The Secretary is authorized to make grants and provide technical assistance to tribes for the

development and operation of tribal departments of education (TEDs) for the purpose of planning

and coordinating all educational programs of the tribe. Beginning in FY2015, funds have been

awarded to promote tribal control and operation of BIE-funded schools on reservations. Funds

have also been awarded to begin restructuring school governance, build capacity for academic

success, and develop academically rigorous and culturally relevant curricula.

Johnson O’Malley Program (BIE Assistance to Public Schools)98

Under the Johnson O’Malley (JOM) program, BIE contracts with tribal organizations, states,

LEAs, and Indian corporations to meet the unique and specialized educational needs of eligible

Indian students in public schools, private nonsectarian schools, and previously private schools

controlled by a tribe or tribal organization. Eligible Indian students, according to BIE regulations,

95 FY2024 Budget, pp. BIE-OIEP-19.

96 25 U.S.C. §2008.

97 25 U.S.C. §2020. P.L. 95-561, as added by P.L. 107-110.

98 25 U.S.C. §§5342, 5348.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

are members of federally recognized tribes or students who have at least one-fourth degree blood

from a member of a federally recognized tribe.99

Most JOM funds are distributed through tribal contractors—88% as of FY2012.100 Prospective

contractors must have education plans that have been approved by an Indian education committee

made up of a majority of Indians or the parents of Indian students. Funds are to be used for

supplemental programs, such as tutoring, other academic support, books, supplies, Native

language classes, cultural activities, summer education programs, after-school activities, or a

variety of other education-related needs. JOM funds may be used for general school operations

only when a public school district cannot meet state educational standards or requirements

without them, and enrollment in the district is at least 50% eligible Indian students.101 This is not

a forward-funded program.

Facilities Operations

This program funds the operation of educational facilities at all BIE-funded schools, including the

two BIE postsecondary schools, and dorms. Operating expenses may include utilities, supplies,

equipment, custodians, trash removal, maintenance of school grounds, minor repairs, and other

services, as well as monitoring for fires and intrusions. This is not a forward-funded program.

These funds are available at the beginning of the fiscal year for a period of 24 months.

Facilities Maintenance

This program funds preventive, routine cyclical, and unscheduled maintenance for all school

buildings, equipment, utility systems, and ground structures, including those at the two BIE

postsecondary schools. Like facilities operations funds, the funds are available at the beginning of

the fiscal year for a period of 24 months. Appropriations for facilities maintenance were

transferred from the BIA Construction account to the BIE account in FY2012.

National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund

The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152) established the National Parks and Public Land

Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) with mandatory appropriations to address deferred maintenance

for five agencies—Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and BIE. From FY2021-FY2025, LRF

receives annual deposits from federal energy development revenues, up to a cap of $1.9 billion

annually. Deposits to the fund are available as mandatory spending to address “priority deferred

maintenance projects.” The BIE receives 5% of annual deposits.

School Facilities Repair and Construction and Faculty Housing

Funds for repair, improvement, and construction activities for BIE schools, school facilities, and

employee housing are administered by Indian Affairs. Funds are distributed through the following

programs:

99 25 C.F.R. §273.112. In 1990, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada stated that a prior rule

requiring both at least one-fourth degree Indian blood descendancy and tribal membership was too restrictive.

100 FY2013 Budget, p. IA-BIE-31; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education: Actions

Needed to Improve Management of a Supplemental Education Program, GAO-20-308, April 2020, p. 6.

101 25 C.F.R. Part 273.126.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

•

The Replacement School Construction program replaces entire school campuses

based on a priority list of schools in need of construction.

The Replacement Facility Construction program replaces single academic related

buildings.

The Facilities Improvement and Repair program funds major and minor facilities

improvement, facility condition assessments, targeted projects, and compliance

projects.

The Employee Housing Repair program funds major repairs of employee housing

located near some BIE schools.

The Replacement/New Employee Housing program funds new or replacement

teacher housing at remote locations where alternative housing is limited or

current facilities are in critical need of replacement.

Construction and repair may be implemented either by Indian Affairs or by tribes under the

ISDEAA or the TCSA. In order to prioritize projects and guide expenditures, the BIA maintains a

comprehensive condition assessment within its Facilities Management System.

ISDEAA Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing

ISDEAA Section 105(l) requires DOI to lease facilities from tribes and tribal organizations upon

their request if such facilities are used by the tribe or tribal organization in support of their

ISDEAA contract or compact or TCSA grant.102 Indian Affairs administers the lease program.103

The lease covers facility operating costs such as rent, depreciation, reserve funds principal and

interest, and operation and maintenance expenses, repairs, and alterations. In FY2019, the BIE

began its first leasing agreement for school facilities with the Gila River Indian Community for

the Gila Crossing Community School. The BIE has since entered into another leasing agreement

with the Gila River Indian Community for the Casa Blanca Community School. In FY2019 and

FY2020, ISDEAA Section 105(l) education facilities lease costs were funded through facilities

operations.104

BIE and BIA Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriations

As illustrated in Figure 2, total BIA and BIE spending on elementary-secondary education and

construction has increased 95% over the 10-year period of FY2014-FY2023, from $712 million

to $1.386 billion. Appropriations for ISEP formula funds have risen 25% over the same period,

from $384 million in FY2014 to $482 million in FY2023. Appropriations over the same period

for education construction and facilities, excluding ISDEAA Section 105(l) education facilities

lease costs, have risen 527%, from $55 million in FY2014 to $396 million in FY2023. For

background on the increase in education construction funding, see the “BIE School Construction

and Repair” section.

102 25 C.F.R. §900.69-900.74.

103 In FY2019 and FY2020, the lease costs were supported through the BIE Facilities Operations budget line item.

104 FY2021 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-16.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Figure 2. Appropriations for BIE Operations and Facilities, FY2014-FY2023

(dollars in millions)

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Budget

Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2015-2019; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Indian Education, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2020-2024.

Notes: Education Construction includes a small amount of funds for BIE postsecondary institutions.

BIE appropriations for elementary and secondary education are divided between program funds,

expended through the BIE, and construction and related spending carried out through the BIA.

Table 5 shows detailed appropriations for BIE programs and BIA education construction for

FY2014-FY2023.

Congressional Research Service

Table 5. Appropriations for BIE Elementary-Secondary Education Programs and BIA Education Construction:

FY2014-FY2023

(current dollars in thousands)

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

BIE Elementary-Secondary

Education

636,720

656,092

667,721

715,695

720,805

726,552

753,531

771,378

793,227

882,742

Elementary/Secondary (forwardfunded)

518,318

536,897

533,458

575,155

579,242

582,580

596,893

617,901

638,865

706,185

ISEP Formula Funds

384,404

386,565

391,837

400,223

402,906

404,165

415,351

426,838

440,784

481,636

5,324

5,353

5,401

5,412

5,457

5,479

5,489

5,585

5,844

6,539

—

2,000

2,500

5,000

5,003

5,889

Student Transportation

52,796

52,945

53,142

55,995

56,285

56,413

56,991

58,143

59,616

70,007

Early Childhood

Development

15,451

15,520

15,620

18,659

18,810

18,852

21,000

21,655

25,267

Tribal Grant Support Costsa

48,253

62,395

73,276

80,165

81,036

82,935

83,407

86,884

89,450

95,822

Education Program

Enhancements

12,090

12,119

12,182

12,201

12,248

12,278

14,303

14,451

16,513

21,025

Elementary/Secondary Programs

118,402

119,195

134,263

140,540

141,563

143,972

156,638

153,477

154,362

176,557

Facilities Operationsb

55,668

55,865

63,098

66,219

66,608

68,795

74,897

69,785

70,189

80,888

Facilities Maintenanceb

48,396

48,591

55,887

59,043

59,552

59,774

60,906

61,999

62,421

73,544

—

500

553

554

555

14,338

14,739

14,778

14,903

20,335

21,140

21,198

21,570

Education Managementc

20,354

20,464

25,151

35,050

35,254

35,355

42,607

48,300

59,888

67,192

BIA Education

Constructionb,d

55,285

74,501

138,245

133,257

238,245

238,250

248,257

344,277

344,330

346,887

954

20,165

45,504

105,504

115,504

116,504

ISEP Program Adjustments

Tribal Education

Departments (TEDs)

Juvenile Detention Education

Johnson-O’Malley Program

Replacement School

Construction

CRS-21

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

Replacement Facility

Construction

—

11,935

23,935

Replacement/New Employee

Housing

—

1,000

1,500

Employee Housing Repair

11,935

3,823

7,565

7,567

13,574

13,576

13,578

13,581

13,589

13,595

Education Facilities Improvement

and Repair

50,513

73,241

68,251

95,232

95,235

95,240

95,257

95,302

96,353

Legacy Restoration Fund

—

95,000

Funds Appropriated in

Response to the COVID-19

Pandemice

—

46,089

620,500

—

Disaster Relieff

—

90,465

712,359

751,057

831,117

884,002

994,304

1,000,157

1,090,484

1,784,455

1,197,445

1,387,286

Total: BIE ElementarySecondary Education and

Education Construction

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2015-2019; and U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2020-2024.

Notes:

Abbreviations: BIA–Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIE–Bureau of Indian Education, ISEP–Indian School Equalization Program

a. Tribal grant support costs were previously entitled Administrative Cost Grants.

b. Appropriation includes funds for BIE postsecondary education institutions.

c. A portion of Education Management supports the BIE postsecondary schools and postsecondary programs.

d. BIA Education Construction excludes Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA) Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing expenses for BIE

schools.

e. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) appropriated $69 million to the BIE for Indian education programs to prevent,

prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The BIE allocated $46.1 million to elementary and secondary schools (Bureau of Indian Education, BIE Listening Session

presentation, July 2, 2020). The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) appropriated $850 million to the BIE for programs and activities funded by the BIE.

The BIE allocated $620.5 million for elementary and secondary education (U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, BIE Implementation of American Rescue

Plan (ARP) Funding, https://www.bia.gov/service/american-rescue-plan-act/bie-implementation-arp-funding).

The Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (Division N of P.L. 117-328) provided $90,465,000, to remain available until expended, for necessary

expenses related to the consequences of flooding at the To'Hajiilee Community School.

CRS-22

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

U.S. Department of Education Indian Elementary and Secondary

Education Programs

ED provides funding specifically for the elementary and secondary education of Indian children

to both public and BIE schools. ED’s assistance specifically for Indian education is not to be

confused with its general assistance for elementary and secondary education nationwide. Indian

students benefit from ED’s general assistance as they attend public schools. This section covers

ED Indian assistance—that is, assistance statutorily specified for Indians or allotted according to

the number of students who reside on Indian lands, many of whom are Indian—not general ED

assistance that may also benefit Indian students.

ED Indian education funding to public and BIE schools flows through a number of programs,

most authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95),105 or the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, although other acts also authorize Indian education assistance. Major ED Indian

programs are profiled below. Some general ED programs have set-asides for BIE schools, while

other programs either may be intended solely for Indian students, may specifically include Indian

and non-Indian students, or may mention Indian students as a target of the assistance. In most

instances, BIE schools are included in the definition of local educational agency (LEA) in the

ESEA106 and IDEA,107 so many ED programs may provide funding to BIE schools even when the

programs have no BIE set-aside or other specific provision for BIE schools, but these programs

are not discussed here. Tribes, tribal organizations, the BIE, and BIE schools are also specifically

eligible to apply for certain programs, which are not described here.

ESEA Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies

Title I, Part A, of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to LEAs for the education of disadvantaged

children. ESEA Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to lowachieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively

high concentrations of students from low-income families. ESEA reserves 0.4% for the outlying

areas and 0.7% for DOI unless the set-asides result in the states receiving less than their aggregate

FY2016 amount, in which case the provisions under ESEA prior to the enactment of ESSA are in

effect.108 DOI funds are for BIE schools and for out-of-state Indian students being educated in

public schools under BIE contracts (e.g., students in peripheral dorms).

105 For more information about ESEA programs, see CRS Report R45977, The Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): A Primer.

106 ESEA, §8101(30)(C).

107 IDEA, §602(19)(C).

108 ESEA Title I-A, as in effect prior to the enactment of the ESSA, provided a set-aside of 1% of Title I-A

appropriations for DOI and the outlying areas. The portion of the 1% provided to DOI was the amount determined by

the Secretary of Education to be needed to meet the special educational needs of the Indian students. Prior to FY2017,

the DOI share had been approximately 70% of the total set-aside, as calculated by CRS from “Fiscal Year 2001-2016

State Tables for the U.S. Department of Education: State Tables by Program,” U.S. Department of Education, Budget

Service, http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

ESEA Title I-B State Assessment Grants

The ESEA authorizes formula grants to states to support the development and implementation of

state assessments and standards as required under ESEA Title I-A. ESEA Title I-B, as amended

by ESSA, provides a set-aside of 0.5% for BIE.

ESEA Title II-A Supporting Effective Instruction

The ESEA authorizes formula grants to states that may be used for a variety of purposes related to

the recruitment, retention, and professional development of K-12 teachers and school leaders. The

ESEA Title II-A program, as amended by ESSA, provides a 0.5% set-aside of appropriations for

programs in BIE schools.

ESEA Title III-A English Language Acquisition

Title III, Part A of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to states to provide programs for and

services to English learners (ELs), also known as limited English proficient (LEP) students, and

immigrant students. The program is designed to help ensure that ELs and immigrant students

attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic achievement in English, and meet the

same state academic standards that all students are expected to meet. The program provides a setaside equal to the greater of 0.5% of appropriations or $5 million for the Native American and

Alaska Native Children in School program. The set-aside is available to eligible Indian tribes,

tribally sanctioned educational authorities, Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander

Native language educational organizations, BIE elementary and secondary schools, and consortia

of BIE elementary and secondary schools.

ESEA Title IV-B 21st Century Community Learning Centers

Title IV, Part B, of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to states for activities that provide

learning opportunities for school-aged children during non-school hours. States award

competitive subgrants to LEAs and community organizations for before- and after-school

activities that will advance student academic achievement. The program provides a set-aside of

no more than 1% of Title IV-B appropriations for the BIE and the outlying areas. The portion of

the 1% that goes to the BIE is determined by the Secretary of Education.

ESEA Title VI-A Indian Education Programs

ESEA Title VI-A authorizes several programs for the education of Indian children. The programs

serve Indian students, the children and grandchildren of members of federally recognized tribes,

members of state recognized tribes and their children and grandchildren, and additional

individuals considered to be Indian.109

Title VI, Part A, Subpart 1 of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, authorizes formula grants for

supplementary education programs to meet the educational and cultural needs of Indian students.

LEAs, Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Indian community-based organizations, consortia of

the aforementioned entities, and BIE schools are eligible for grants. For an LEA to be eligible, at

least 10 Indian students must be enrolled or at least 25% of its total enrollment must be Indians

109 ESEA, §6151(3). Additional individuals considered to be Indian are (1) members of tribes whose federal recognition

was terminated after 1940, and their first and second degree descendants; (2) members of an organized Indian group

that received a grant under the program as it was in effect before the passage of the Improving America’s Schools Act

of 1994 (P.L. 103-382); and (3) individuals considered to be Indian by the Secretary of the Interior, for any purpose.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

(exempted from these requirements are LEAs in Alaska, California, and Oklahoma and LEAs

located on or near an Indian reservation). An LEA’s application must be approved by a local

committee of family members of Indian students and other stakeholders.

The Indian Education programs also authorize special competitive grant programs. One provides

demonstration grants to develop innovative services and programs to improve Indian students’

educational opportunities and achievement. Another competitive program provides for

professional development grants to colleges, or tribes or LEAs in consortium with colleges, to

train Indian individuals as teachers or other professionals.

In addition, the Indian Education programs authorize national programs. For example, grants to

tribes for education administrative planning and development are authorized. Funds are also

authorized for the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE), which advises the

Secretary of Education and Congress on ED programs that benefit Indian children.

ESEA Title VI-C Alaska Native Education Equity

Title VI, Part C, of the ESEA authorizes competitive grants to Alaska Native organizations,

educational entities with Native experience, and cultural and community organizations for

supplemental education programs that address the educational needs of Alaska Native students,

parents, and teachers. Grants may be used for development of curricula and educational materials,

student enrichment in science and math, professional development, family literacy, home

preschool instruction, cultural exchange, dropout prevention, and other programs.

ESEA Title VII Impact Aid

Title VII of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, authorizes Impact Aid Basic Support Payments.

Impact Aid provides financial assistance to school districts whose tax revenues are significantly

reduced, or whose student enrollments are significantly increased, because of the impacts of

federal property ownership or federal activities. Among such impacts are having a significant

number of children enrolled who reside on Indian lands,110 which are defined as Indian trust and

restricted lands,111 lands conveyed to Alaska Native entities under the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act of 1971,112 public lands designated for Indian use, and certain lands used for lowrent housing. However, the students residing on Indian lands need not be Indian. Impact Aid

funds are distributed by formula directly to LEAs and are used for basic operating costs, special

education, and facilities construction and maintenance.

There is no requirement that the funds be used specifically or preferentially for the education of

Indian students. There is, however, a requirement that Indian children participate on an equal

basis with non-Indian children in all of the educational programs and activities provided by the

LEA, including but not limited to those funded by Impact Aid. There is also a requirement that

the LEA consult with the parents and tribes of children who reside on “Indian lands” concerning

their education and to ensure that these children receive equal educational opportunities. A few

BIE schools receive Impact Aid funding. ED indicates that about 105,000 students residing on

Indian lands were used to determine formula allocations under Impact Aid for FY2022.113 The

110 ESEA, §7013(7).

111 Trust lands and restricted lands are not taxable by states or local governments, including LEAs. Trust lands are lands

held by the federal government in trust for an Indian tribe or individual; restricted lands are lands held by an Indian

tribe or individual subject to federal restrictions on alienation.

112 P.L. 92-203, Act of December 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688; 43 U.S.C. §1601 et seq.

113 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request, Impact Aid, p. 13.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

amount of Impact Aid funding going to LEAs based on the number of children residing on Indian

lands makes it the largest ED Indian education program.

IDEA Part B Special Education Grants to States

Part B of the IDEA authorizes formula grants to states to help them provide a free appropriate

public education to children with disabilities.114 States make subgrants to LEAs. Funds may be

used for salaries of teachers or other special education personnel, education materials,

transportation, special education services, and occupational therapy or other related services.

Section 611(b)(2) of the IDEA reserves 1.226% of state-grant appropriations for DOI. Each

appropriations act since the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-149) has limited the DOI set-aside to

the prior-year set-aside amount increased for inflation.115 As a consequence, in FY2022 the DOI

set-aside was 0.75%.116 Section 611(h) of the IDEA directs the Secretary of the Interior to allocate

80% of the set-aside funds to BIE schools for special education for children aged 5-21 and 20%

to tribes and tribal organizations on reservations with BIE schools for early identification of

children with disabilities aged 3-5, parent training, and provision of direct services.

IDEA Part C Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

Part C of the IDEA authorizes a grant program to aid each state in implementing a system of early

intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.117 Section 643(b)

of the IDEA reserves 1.25% of state-grant appropriations for DOI to distribute to tribes and tribal

organizations for the coordination of assistance in the provision of early intervention services by

the states to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families on reservations served by BIE

schools.

MVHAA Education for Homeless Children and Youths

Title VII, Part B, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MVHAA; 42 U.S.C.

§§11431-11435) authorizes the Education for Homeless Children and Youths (EHCY) program.

The program provides assistance to state educational agencies (SEAs) to ensure that all homeless

children and youths have equal access to the same free appropriate public education, including

public preschool education that is provided to other children and youths. The program provides a

1.0% set-aside of the appropriation to DOI for services provided by BIE to homeless children and

youths.

Perkins Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP)

Title I of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV; P.L. 109270), as amended by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act

(Perkins V; P.L. 115-224), authorizes formula grants to states to support the development of

114 For more information on IDEA Part B, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions.

115 The inflation index has been either as specified in Section 619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA or the percent change in the

IDEA appropriations from the prior year.

116 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Special Education, p. 28.

117 For more information on IDEA Part C, see CRS Report R43631, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA), Part C: Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

career and technical skills among students in secondary and postsecondary education.118 The

program provides a 1.25% set-aside for the Native American Career and Technical Education

Program (NACTEP). Eligible entities for NACTEP funds include federally organized Indian

tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, and consortia of such, as well as BIE

schools.119

ED Elementary and Secondary Indian Education Funding

ED Indian education funding primarily supports public schools. Less than a quarter of ED Indian

education funds are set aside for BIE schools (see Figure 3); however, this constitutes a

significant source of BIE school funding.

The overall ED Indian education program funding during the FY2014-FY2023 period increased

from FY2014 ($1.050 billion) to FY2023 ($1.452 billion) (see Table 6). Funds appropriated in

response to the COVID-19 pandemic provided an additional $0.123 billion in FY2020 and $0.354

billion in FY2021.

Impact Aid is the largest single ED elementary and secondary Indian education program, as

Figure 3 illustrates. The second-largest funding stream comprises the various BIE set-asides from

several ESEA formula grant programs, especially IDEA Part B and ESEA Title I-A. The ESEA

Indian Education programs provide approximately 13% of the total funding.

118 For more information on Perkins V, see CRS Report R47071, Strengthening Career and Technical Education for

the 21st Century Act (Perkins V): A Primer.

119 BIE schools may not carry out secondary-level CTE programs with NACTEP funds, because they are eligible to

receive money through the states.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Figure 3. Distribution of ED Funding for Indian Education Programs: FY2014-FY2023

(dollars in millions)

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service, unpublished tables,

transmitted on various dates, 2015-2023; and U.S. Department of Education, FY2024 Budget Justification, pp. C14.

Congressional Research Service

Table 6. Estimated Funding for Department of Education’s Indian Elementary-Secondary Education Programs:

FY2014-FY2023

(current dollars in thousands)

Education

Department

(ED) Programs

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

Total ED

Indian

ElementarySecondary

Education

Programs

1,049,657

1,060,280

1,119,481

1,164,397

1,243,064

1,276,957

1,435,424

1,471,414

1,383,579

1,451,980

Subtotal of ED

Funds SetAside for the

BIE

217,872

216,883

225,198

233,190

240,458

242,337

247,873

250,851

264,007

272,625

Percentage of Total

21%

20%

19%

17%

19%

ESEA Title I-A

Grants to Local

Educational

Agencies

92,597

93,711

99,640

108,184

110,284

110,984

114,134

115,723

122,723

128,673

IDEA Part B

Special Education

Grants to States

93,805

94,009

94,170

94,881

96,818

97,500

99,028

100,006

106,376

ESEA Title II-A

Improving

Teacher Quality

State Grants

11,690

10,228

10,606

10,662

10,796

10,895

ESEA Title IV-B

21st Century

Community

Learning Centers

8,055

7,892

8,244

8,231

7,756

7,819

7,998

8,061

8,572

8,506

CRS-29

Education

Department

(ED) Programs

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

ESEA Title IV-A

School Support

and Academic

Enrichment State

Grants

—

2,000

5,473

5,821

6,020

6,070

11,351

6,866

IDEA Part C

Grants for Infants

and Families with

Disabilities

5,414

5,661

5,802

5,990

6,127

6,667

ESEA State

Assessment

Grants

1,845

—

1,845

1,846

MVHAA Title VIIB Homeless

Children and

Youth

650

700

770

850

935

1,015

1,065

1,140

1,290

ESEA Title II-B-2,

Sec. 2222

Comprehensive

Literacy

Development

Grants

—

950

960

970

ESEA Title VI-B

Rural Education

425

440

452

465

470

488

538

ESEA Title I,

Section 1003

School

Improvement

Grants

3,091

2,808

—

ESEA Title IV-A

Safe and DrugFree Schools

300

—

CRS-30

Education

Department

(ED) Programs

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

831,785

843,396

894,282

931,208

1,002,606

1,034,620

1,064,551

1,097,563

1,119,572

1,179,355

79%

80%

81%

74%

75%

81%

ESEA Impact

Aid—Basic

Support

591,392

592,642

626,138

632,779

696,285

715,909

751,344

769,049

790,482

826,874

ESEA Indian

Education—LEA

Grants

100,381

105,381

109,881

110,381

ESEA Indian

Education—

Special Programs

17,993

37,993

57,993

67,993

70,000

72,000

Voc. Rehab. For

AIs with

Disabilities

37,201

39,160

43,000

40,189

43,000

45,250

50,650

ESEA Alaska

Native Education

Equity

31,453

32,453

35,453

35,953

36,453

37,953

44,953

ESEA Impact

Aid—Disabilities

19,827

20,688

21,360

21,830

21,530

21,081

20,853

ESEA Impact

Aid—

Construction

“Discretionary"

—

17,406

—

17,406

—

17,406

—

17,406

—

18,406

13,970

14,907

15,782

16,032

16,685

16,686

17,873

Subtotal of

Other ED

Funds for

Indian

Education

Percentage of Total

Perkins Native

American Career

and Technical

CRS-31

Education

Department

(ED) Programs

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

ESEA Indian

Education—

National

Programs

5,565

5,656

6,565

6,865

7,365

7,865

9,365

12,365

ESEA Title III-A

English Language

Acquisition

5,000

ESEA Impact

Aid—

Construction

“Formula"

8,703

—

8,703

—

8,703

—

8,703

—

8,703

Education

Program

—

Special Ed. Parent

Info. Centers

300

—

300

—

Subtotal of

Funds

Appropriated

in Response to

the COVID-19

Pandemic

—

123,000

353,685

—

Percentage of Total

24%

Education

Stabilization

Funda

—

123,000

245,640

—

ESEA Alaska

Native Education

Equityb

—

85,000

—

ESEA Indian

Education –

Special Programsc

—

20,000

—

CRS-32

Education

Department

(ED) Programs

IDEA Part Cd

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

—

3,045

—

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service, unpublished tables, transmitted on various dates, 2015-2023; U.S. Department of Education, FY2024 Budget

Justification, pp. C-14; https://www.bie.edu/sites/default/files/documents/BIE%20FY%202024_0.pdf (accessed on June 4, 2020); Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic

Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA; Division M of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2021 [P.L. 116-260]); and American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).

Notes: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. Abbreviations: ED—U.S. Department of Education. ESEA—Elementary and Secondary Education Act. IDEA—

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. LEA—Local educational agency (school district). MVHAA—McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Perkins—Carl D.

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.

a. The CARES Act established the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally," and the

CRRSAA reauthorized the ESF. Under the CARES Act, ED was required to reserve 0.5% of the total appropriation of $30.75 billion for the BIE. The BIE allotment

was disbursed as follows: 70% to BIE elementary and secondary schools, 20% to tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), and 10% for emergency needs determined

by the BIE (U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of the Interior, Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S.

Department of the Interior (DOI) – Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), June 11-12, 2020). Under the CRRSAA, ED also was required to reserve 0.5% of the total ESF

appropriation of $81.88 billion for the BIE. The statutory language further specified that 60% of the funds be allocated for BIE-funded elementary and secondary

schools and the remaining 40% of funds be distributed to TCUs. For more information regarding ESF, see CRS Report R47027, Education Stabilization Fund Programs

Funded by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA: Background and Analysis.

b. Section 11006(3) of the ARPA provided $85.0 million for awards to entities eligible to receive grants under the ESEA Alaska Native Education program for activities

authorized under the ESEA Alaska Native Education program.

c. Section 11006(1) of the ARPA provided $20.0 million for awards to tribal education agencies for activities authorized under the ESEA Title VI-A-2 Indian Education

program that provides demonstration grants to develop innovative services and programs to improve Indian students’ educational opportunities and achievement.

d. Section 2014 of the ARPA provided $3.0 billion for awards under the IDEA. Of the funds, DOI received $3,045,220 for IDEA Part C (U.S. Department of Education,

IDEA American Rescue Plan Funds, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/arp/index.html).

CRS-33

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Issues in Indian Education

Some of the issues of concern with regard to Indian education pertain to the comparatively poor

academic outcomes of Indian students, the effect of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

on Bureau of Indian Education schools, the poor condition of BIE school facilities, and the

allocation of Johnson O’Malley funds. The federal government has been actively engaged in

addressing these issues in a holistic manner in hopes of ultimately increasing the academic

achievement of Indian students.

In 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14049, White House Initiative on Advancing

Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and

Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities. Among its purposes, the order is intended to

foster a federal response that tackles the legacy of federally supported Indian boarding schools,

promotes Native languages, addresses the educational inequities evidenced by the COVID-19

pandemic, and improves the educational outcomes of Indian children. The order tasks each

federal agency represented on the White House Council on Native American Affairs with

developing a plan to advance the order’s purpose and monitoring its progress.

In recent years, Congress has also supported efforts to address these issues. Beginning in 2012,

Congress appropriated funds specifically to promote tribal self-determination with respect to

public schools. Several ESEA provisions adopted through ESSA are designed to increase Indian

and tribal influence in public schools. In recent years, authorizing and appropriating committees

have held hearings on the condition of BIE school facilities, the effect of the COVID-19

pandemic on BIE schools, ways to promote Native languages, strategies to improve educational

outcomes of Indian students, and Indian boarding schools. In addition, Congress has enacted

legislation to address several of the issues.

Poor Academic Achievement and Outcomes

There are significant gaps in educational outcomes for Indian students in BIE schools and

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in public schools compared to other students.

For more information on educational outcomes, see the earlier section entitled “Status of Indian

and American Indian/Alaska Native Elementary and Secondary Education.” As specified in the

ESEA, “it is the policy of the United States to fulfill the federal government’s unique and

continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of

Indian children.”120 Title 25 of the U.S. Code also refers to “the federal responsibility for and

assistance to education of Indian children.”121

Native Language Instruction and Revitalization

Many federal policies during the civilization and assimilation era and before the current era of

self-determination contributed to Native language loss.122 In recent decades, there have been

consistent calls to increase the use of Native language instruction to increase cultural relevance

and improve overall academic performance. One argument contends that language, culture, and

120 ESEA, §6101.

121 25 U.S.C. §5301(b)(2).

122 Kauffman and Associates, Inc., Bureau of Indian Affairs Native Language Revitalization, White House Council for

Native American Affairs, Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, White House Initiative for Native

Americans Tribal Colleges and Universities, Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families,

Literature Review Draft, August 2023.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

identity are intertwined and thus are important to the tribal identity. A counter argument is that

Native language instruction detracts from the core curriculum. The Native American Languages

Act (P.L. 101-477), as amended, established federal policy to encourage and support Native

languages through instruction, exceptions to teacher certification requirements, and comparability

with foreign languages. Several administrations have issued executive orders intended to assess

the role of Native language and culture on educational strategies and academic achievement

and/or expand opportunities for AI/AN students to learn their Native language.123 Congress has

expanded program authorities and appropriated funds to permit Native language instruction,

preservation, and revitalization.

There is not consensus in the research literature regarding the relative effectiveness of Native

language instruction. One commonly cited review of research studies with control groups, for

instance, suggests that bilingual instruction in some instances was found to improve English

reading proficiency in comparison to English immersion, but in other instances it had no impact.

This review focused principally on studies conducted prior to 1996 and that examined instruction

for Spanish-speaking elementary school children, and many of the studies have limitations. The

one study of Indian Native language students included in the review found no significant

difference in English reading outcomes between bilingual and English-immersion instruction.124

Some longitudinal studies prior to 2007 indicated that Native language immersion students

achieved higher scores on assessments of English and math than Native students who did not

receive Native language immersion.125 However, a more recent review of the literature suggests

that rigorous Native language and culture programs sustain non-English academic achievement,

build English proficiency, and enhance student motivation.126

Table 7 lists federal programs that support Native language instruction in the context of formal

elementary and secondary education. For most programs, Native language instruction or the

development of Native language instructors is one of many allowable activities. Several of the

programs are competitively awarded, which may disadvantage tribes with fewer resources to

develop applications. The programs that primarily support Native language instruction received

approximately $45 million of funding in FY2023.127

Table 7. Selected Federal Programs that Support Native Language Instruction

Federal Agency

Program

Authority

Programs that Primarily Support Native Language Instruction

Department of Education

Native American Language (NAL@ED) Program

ESEA, Title VI-A-3

123 See, for example, Executive Order 13336, “American Indian and Alaska Native Education,” 69 Federal Register

25296, May 4, 2004; and Executive Order 14049, “White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity,

Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities,” 86

Federal Register 57317, October 4, 2021.

124

Robert E. Slavin and Alan Cheung, “A Synthesis of Research on Language of Reading Instruction for English

Language Learners,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 75, no. 2 (Summer 2005), pp. 247-284.

125 Mary Eunice Romero-Little, Teresa L. McCarty, and Larisa Warhol, et al., “Language Policies in Practice:

Preliminary Findings from a Large-Scale National Study of Native American Language Shift,” TESOL Quarterly, vol.

41, no. 3 (September 2007), pp. 607-618.

126 Teresa L. McCarty, and Alica Wiley Snell, The Role of Native Languages and Cultures in American Indian, Alaska

Native, and Native Hawaiian Student Achievement, Arizona State University, under a contract from the U.S.

Department of Education, July 2011.

127 U.S. Department of Education FY2024 Budget Justification, Indian Education; American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

(P.L. 117-2); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FY2024 Budget Justification, Administration for

Children and Families; and Explanatory Statement to Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Federal Agency

Program

Authority

Department of Education

Native American Language Resource Centers

Program

Native American Language

Resource Center Act of

2021 (P.L. 117-335)

Department of Health and

Human Services

Emergency Grants for Native American Language

Preservation and Maintenance

Esther Martinez Native

American Languages

Preservation Act of 2006

Department of Health and

Human Services

Esther Martinez Immersion

Esther Martinez Native

American Languages

Preservation Act of 2006

Department of Health and

Human Services

Native American Language Preservation and

Maintenance Programs

Esther Martinez Native

American Languages

Preservation Act of 2006

Department of the Interior

Living Languages Grant Program (LLGP)

Snyder Act; FY2020–FY2023

Interior Appropriations Bills

Department of the Interior

BIE Native Language Immersion Grants at BIE

schools

FY2020–FY2023 Interior

Appropriations Bills

Programs that May be Used to Support Native Language Instruction

Department of Education

English Language Acquisition

ESEA, Title III-A

Department of Education

Indian Education Formula Grant Program

ESEA, Title VI-A-1

Department of Education

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children

ESEA, Title VI-A-2

Department of Education

Indian Education Professional Development

ESEA, Title VI-A-2

Department of Education

Alaska Native Education Equity Program

ESEA, Title VI-C

Department of the Interior

Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)

Education Amendments of

1978, §1127

Department of the Interior

Education Program Enhancements

Snyder Act; Education

Amendments of 1978, §1127

Department of the Interior

Johnson O’Malley (JOM)

Johnson-O’Malley Act

Department of the Interior

Early Child and Family Development (FACE)

Education Amendments of

1978, §1139

Source: CRS compilation of statutory provisions, Federal Register Notices, and budget documents.

Notes: ESEA–Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

a. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Living Languages Grant Program (LLGP);

Solicitation of Proposals,” 85 Federal Register 31544-31548, May 26, 2020.

Of the various opportunities for Native language learning, some schools offer classes taught in

Native languages. Approximately one-quarter of BIE schools were Native language immersion

schools in 2019. Also in 2019, 42% of BIE 4th graders and 64% of BIE 8th graders reported

attending classes taught in an AI/AN language at least once per week. This exposure is

significantly higher than that of AI/AN students in public schools. Of those in public schools with

at least 25% AI/AN enrollment in 2019, 26% of 4th graders and 25% of 8th graders reported

attending classes taught in an AI/AN language at least once per week.128

128 B.D. Rampey, S.C. Faircloth, R.P. Whorton, and J. Deaton, National Indian Education Study 2019 (NCES 2021-

018), U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, 2021).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

In 2015, the BIE introduced a Native language policy framework for BIE-operated schools,

including college and preschool programs. The policy is intended to require the integration of

Native language instruction to the extent that Native language standards exist. Consistent with

this set of aims, DOI, ED, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) signed a

memorandum of understanding to work together to encourage instruction in and preservation of

Native languages.129 BIE regulations updated in 2020 describe the ability of tribal governing

bodies and school boards to create Native language academic standards and assessments.130 In

March 2020, the BIE announced that it intends to provide guidance on the use of content

assessments in a Native language for ESEA Title I-A compliance purposes that would increase

flexibility in the use of Native languages for instruction in all subjects.131

Despite the number of programs that may be used to support Native language learning, the extent

to which these programs have resulted in access to Native language instruction and Native

language fluency has not been documented.

Discipline, Violence, Crime, and Alcohol and Drug Use

Tribal representatives have indicated that violence and alcohol and drug use are serious

community issues that affect students and their ability to learn. A high incidence of substance use,

depression, interpersonal violence, and suicide are not conducive to learning.132 This environment

affects Indian students enrolled in BIE and public schools.

ED and the General Accountability Office (GAO) have indicated that AI/AN students enrolled in

public schools are overrepresented among out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and other

disciplinary actions.133 Such actions may be related to poverty and mental health issues in

addition to potential discrimination. Suspensions and expulsions can have negative educational

consequences.

A February 2010 evaluation of violence prevention policies and measures at BIE schools by

DOI’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found areas of concern for potential violence and

deficiencies in the policies and procedures for preventing and managing incidents.134 According

to the OIG evaluation, in recent years 6% of public high school students carried a weapon on

campus, whereas 37% of BIE middle school students reported the same. The OIG evaluation

found that many BIE schools had open campuses—little or no fencing, inadequate security access

129 Brian Drapeaux, Director, Bureau of Indian Education, Lillian Sparks, Commissioner, Administration for Native

Americans, and William Mendoza, Executive Director, White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native

Education, Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Education On Native Languages, November 30, 2012.

130 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System,” 85

Federal Register 17030, March 26, 2020.

131

Ibid.

132 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and

the Indian Health Service, The National Tribal Behavioral Health Agenda, December 2016.

133 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Protecting Civil Rights, Advancing Equity: Report to the

President and Secretary of Education, Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY

13–14, Washington, DC, 2015; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities

for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities, GAO-18-258, March 2018.

134 The committee report accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) directed DOI

to provide such grants. For more information, see U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,

Evaluation Report—School Violence Prevention, Report No. NM-EV-BIE-0003-2008, Washington, DC, February

2010.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

procedures, and flawed camera surveillance systems. The OIG recommended that the BIA and

BIE

•

establish safety policies and accurate incident tracking systems,135

evaluate campus safety and security,

correct weaknesses or require tribal operators to correct weaknesses,

address safety as a criterion for tribes to maintain operating grants and contracts,

and

implement staff training to prevent and manage incidents.

Follow-up inspections in 2014 indicated the need for improvement in several areas. Emergency

preparedness and security plans failed to cover all applicable topics. Violence prevention training

for staff and students also failed to cover all applicable topics. BIE schools need to evaluate and

implement necessary safety measures.136

The BIE collaborates with HHS to provide behavioral health services and assistance. In 2016, the

BIE and Indian Health Service (IHS) entered into an agreement to establish local partnerships for

IHS-operated mental health programs to provide mental health counseling to students attending

BIE-operated schools. The agreement encourages tribes and tribally controlled BIE schools to

also participate in local partnerships.137 Also in 2016, HHS, DOI, and the U.S. Department of

Justice entered into an agreement to coordinate efforts in the prevention, intervention, and/or

treatment of alcohol and substance use disorders.138 As a result, the HHS Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration maintains BIE Tribal Action Plan regional points of

contact to support coordination and technical assistance.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the BIE initiated its Behavioral Health and Wellness Program

in an effort to provide culturally relevant and evidence-based virtual counseling and onsite crisis

services at all BIE schools for staff and students. In 2023, the BIE extended its contract for the

services an additional five years.139

Broadband and Computer Access

Access to high-speed internet (broadband) and computers is of increasing importance in

elementary and secondary education. The internet may be used for online standardized

assessments (some BIE students must be bussed offsite for assessments),140 in-home instructional

access, and access to various educational resources and content. To this end, schools need

broadband access for multiple students concurrently, and students need access at home. Calendar

135 The evaluation indicated that reporting of incidents in the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) is

inconsistent and inaccurate.

136 Kimberly Elmore, Management Advisory - Summary of Bureau of Indian Education Violence Prevention

Inspections, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report No. 2015-CR-074, June 15, 2016.

137 Interagency Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service and the

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education and Bureau of Indian Affairs-Office of Justice Services,

December 2016.

138 Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), December 6,

2016.

139 Bureau of Indian Education, “Interior Department Announces Behavioral Health and Wellness Program for Tribal

Schools,” press release, June 29, 2023, https://www.bie.edu/news-article/interior-department-announces-behavioralhealth-and-wellness-program-tribal-schools.

140 FY2021 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-23.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

year 2022 Census data indicate that, on average, 93% of the population are in a household that

has a computer and a broadband internet subscription, but American Indians and Alaska Natives

have the lowest rate of access at 88%.141 Census defines a computer to include desktop computers

and smartphones. Smartphones may not be adequate for completing remote learning lessons,

which means the data may overestimate access to remote learning. In addition, 28% of persons on

tribal lands lack broadband access compared to 2% of Americans in urban areas.142

There are three primary sources of funding to improve broadband access on tribal lands.143 The

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Universal Service Fund (USF) and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provide significant funding for

broadband deployment; however, tribal entities and BIE schools may receive limited funding in

proportion to their need. The BIE Education IT appropriations program element provides internet

connectivity for BIE-operated schools and some tribally operated BIE schools. In addition, in

FY2020 BIA set aside funds from the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020 (P.L. 11694) for grants to tribes to perform feasibility studies for the deployment or expansion of

broadband.144 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government appropriated $78

billion to address the digital divide and broadband availability, a portion of which was available

to Indian tribes, tribal colleges and universities, BIA, BIE, and/or the IHS.145

BIE School Issues

BIE school-specific issues include how to define an effective academic accountability system for

BIE schools, construction and repair of BIE schools, and BIE management and administration.

Federal Administration and Organization

The structure and administration of the BIE school system has long been considered a contributor

to poor educational outcomes. A landmark 1928 report, known as the Meriam Report, found that

underfunding and paternal federal policy contributed to deficient boarding school student diets,

low qualification standards and salaries for teaching staff, student labor to maintain schools, and a

prescriptive and unresponsive curriculum. Another milestone report in 1969, known as the

Kennedy report, recommended a promotion of the status of BIA within DOI but declined to make

a recommendation regarding what it characterized as the long-standing and most serious issue of

the ineffective internal organization of the BIA.146 The 1969 report highlighted that education was

not the BIA’s highest priority and called attention to a lack of centralized authority, data, and

141 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2022: ACS 1-Year Estimates Subject Table S2802, available at

https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S2802?d=ACS+1-Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&vintage=2022&

hidePreview=true.

142 Federal Communications Commission, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC 20-50, April 24, 2020, p. 18.

143 See also CRS Report R44416, Tribal Broadband: Status of Deployment and Federal Funding Programs.

144 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “National Tribal Broadband Grant; Solicitation of Proposals,”

85 Federal Register 7580-7584, February 10, 2020.

145 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (P.L. 116-136) provided $100 million for broadband

programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260)

provided $6.2 billion for broadband programs at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and USDA; the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

(P.L. 117-2) provided $7.2 billion for broadband programs at the FCC; and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

(P.L. 117-58) provided $64.4 billion for broadband programs at the FCC, NTIA, and USDA.

146 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Indian

Education: A National Tragedy - A National Challenge, Pursuant to S. Res. 80, 91st Cong., 1st sess., November 3, 1969,

S.Rept. 91-501 (Washington: GPO, 1969).

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

information; a clear chain of command; educational expertise among administrators; and a high

quality, motivated, and stable teaching staff. Additional organizational assessments were

conducted in 1992,147 1999,148 and 2012.149

Since 2013, GAO has published several reports on DOI management of BIE schools. GAO has

maintained DOI management of Indian education programs on its high-risk list of government

programs since 2017.150 It found fragmented administrative structures, a lack of clear roles and

poor coordination between responsible offices, frequent turnovers in leadership, and inadequate

procedures and internal controls.151 In addition, GAO indicated that the small enrollment of many

BIE schools makes it more difficult for them to acquire all of the necessary educational and

personnel resources.152 The BIE has an inadequate number of staff to oversee school

expenditures, and staff have inadequate training and written procedures with which to fulfill their

administrative obligations.153 For example, insufficient BIE staff expertise and oversight have

resulted in special education services required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act either not being provided or not being appropriately documented.154 As of April 2023, the

BIE has made progress in addressing several weaknesses but still needs to ensure schools

consistently make up missed special education and related services, reduce staff vacancies,

provide adequate capacity to oversee schools, and establish sufficient monitoring to ensure

schools provide students needed services.155

Federal administration of BIE schools is complicated by statutory provisions. While the Indian

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and Tribally Controlled Schools Act

support the federal policy of tribal control, DOI management of tribally operated schools is

necessarily limited by the two laws. In contrast, state educational agencies may establish

standards, processes, and programs for public schools to implement. BIE administers TCSA

grants, which are limited to schools, but BIA administers ISDEAA contracts, which may include

other funding streams such as funds for roads and economic development. Also, the requirement

147 Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization, 1992 Report to the

Secretary of the Interior and the Appropriations Committees, December 1992.

148 National Academy of Public Administration, A Study of Management and Administration: The Bureau of Indian

Affairs, August 1999.

149 Bronner, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for Support Functions, March 2012.

150 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to Be

Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas, GAO-23-106203, April 2023.

151 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to

Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-342T, February 27, 2013; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian

Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-774, September 24,

2013; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Further Actions on GAO Recommendations Needed to Address

Systemic Management Challenges with Indian Education, GAO-15-539T, April 22, 2015.

152 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to

Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-342T, February 27, 2013; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian

Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-774, September 24,

2013.

153 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education Needs to Improve Oversight of School

Spending, GAO-15-121, November 13, 2014; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Further Actions on GAO

Recommendations Needed to Address Systemic Management Challenges with Indian Education, GAO-15-539T, April

22, 2015.

154 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Education: Actions Needed to Ensure Students with Disabilities

Receive Special Education Services, GAO-20-358, May 22, 2020.

155 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to Be

Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas, GAO-23-106203, April 2023; and Letter from U.S. Government

Accountability Office, Priority Open Recommendations: Department of the Interior, to The Honorable Deb Haaland,

Secretary of the Department of the Interior, May 11, 2023.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

for tribal consultations supports self-determination and may improve results and acceptance, but

it slows change, implementation, and innovation.

Several options have been considered to address these long-standing administrative,

organizational, and ultimately student achievement issues.

•

Similar to the transfer of BIA-funded schools in Alaska to the state of Alaska, the

remaining BIE schools or students could be transferred to the states, which have

established and known governance systems. AI/AN students in public schools

demonstrate higher academic achievement than BIE students, which lends some

support for this option. However, AI/AN students in public schools on average

score lower than white and Asian/Pacific Islander students in public schools

(Table 3 and Table 4). In addition, AI/AN students in public schools and BIE

students may not be comparable populations.

Some stakeholders have suggested colocating or transitioning BIE schools to

tribally operated charter schools. As charter schools are public-state schools, this

option is similar to the aforementioned option of transferring BIE schools to the

states except that charter schools provide greater autonomy to the operator than is

available to traditional public schools.

Some stakeholders have suggested transferring the BIE school system to ED

because ED is the federal agency whose mission is educational excellence and

equal access. Transferring BIE to ED may be difficult as some tribal stakeholders

advocate for DOI-Indian Affairs maintaining responsibility for Indian affairs and

the fact that ED does not have experience operating a school system.

The Administration and Congress have initiated DOI reorganizations and

restructurings to address the issue directly. The proposals have variously tried to

centralize or decentralize authority and responsibility, improve options for highquality personnel recruitment and retention, delineate all of the education

functions into a separate or independent organization, share support functions

between BIE and BIA to leverage expertise, publish policy/procedures manuals,

and improve tribal participation.

In 2014 following results of the American Indian Education Study Group, DOI ordered a

restructuring of BIE in order to address many outstanding issues, in particular encouraging

greater tribal control, improving student achievement, and increasing communication within the

BIE and with its stakeholders. The reorganization is designed to provide greater support and

technical assistance to tribally operated BIE schools in order to promote more effective teachers

and principals, better respond to resource needs, and foster family and community support for

students. The reorganization is also designed to ensure the budget is aligned with expected

outcomes and processes.156

During the 114th Congress, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs approved the Reforming

American Indian Standards of Education Act of 2016 (S. 2580), which proposed to create an

independent Indian education agency that would be within DOI and that would be directed by a

presidential appointee. The explanatory statements to accompany the FY2014, FY2016, FY2017,

and FY2018 appropriations acts instructed DOI to present a plan to reorganize Indian Affairs such

156 Secretary’s Order 3334, “Restructuring the Bureau of Indian Education,” Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, June

12, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

that all Indian education functions are administered by and accountable to an independent BIE.157

The explanatory statement to accompany the FY2020 appropriations act accepted the proposal for

an independent BIE with a separate budget. The FY2021-FY2023 explanatory statements have

required quarterly reports from the BIE on the reorganization’s progress and BIE’s capacity.

Academic Accountability Under ESEA

The ESEA, as amended by ESSA in 2015, requires DOI to develop regulations for defining BIE

school standards, assessments, and an educational accountability system under ESEA Title I-A,

and it permits BIE schools to waive such regulatory requirements if the tribal governing body or

school board of a BIE school determines the regulations to be inappropriate. From AY2016-2017

through AY2019-2020, the BIE received waivers from implementing an accountability system

that met ESSA requirements.

The final BIE regulations were published in March 2020 and were to go into effect for AY20202021.158 The rules call for unified BIE assessments for English language arts, math, science, and

tribal civics, and the option for tribal-level Native American language academic standards and

assessments. The BIE is to use commercially available English language arts, math, and science

standards until they can be modified to meet unique BIE needs. Tribal governing bodies and

school boards can waive in part or whole any part of the academic accountability system. The

Miccosukee Tribe has had an alternative system since AY2014-2015, while the Navajo Nation has

since AY2015-2016.

In part because of the COVID-19 pandemic, BIE’s implementation of the new off-the-shelf

assessments was delayed to AY2020-2021 and AY2021-2022. As of August 2023, the BIE has not

fully implemented its new accountability system consistent with its plan and regulations.159

BIE School Construction and Repair

For over 40 years, BIE school facilities have been characterized by a large number of old

facilities with a high rate of deficiencies.160 Some facilities are in poor condition and do not meet

health and safety standards.161 Reports from students and faculty suggest that conditions affect

learning and enrollment. GAO and DOI have reported several weaknesses in the management of

BIE school facilities.162 Construction activities have historically been managed by either the BIA

157 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Explanatory Statement, To accompany House

Amendment to Senate Amendments to H.R. 244 (Rules Committee Print 115-16, showing the text of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2017.), 115th Cong., 1st sess.

158 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System,” 85

Federal Register 17009-17030, March 26, 2020.

159 Bureau of Indian Education, Agency Plan: Bureau of Indian Education: The Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, 2023 Amended Agency Plan; and Letter from U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to Tony Dearman, Director, Bureau of Indian

Education, August 25, 2023.

160 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Should the Bureau of Indian Affairs Continue to Provide Educational

Services to Indian Children?, CED-80-72, April 23, 1980, pp. 24-25; and U.S. General Accounting Office, School

Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools Funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs, GAO/HEHA-98-47,

December 31, 1997.

161 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the

Oversight and Support of Education Facilities, GAO-15-389T, February 27, 2015.

162 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the

Oversight and Support of Education Facilities, GAO-15-389T, February 27, 2015; U.S. Government Accountability

Office, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

or Indian Affairs. The weaknesses include a lack of consistent and complete facilities condition

information, inadequate implementation of procedures to address facilities’ deficiencies,

insufficient staffing, inadequate staff training, inconsistent oversight, insufficient internal controls

and procedures, and poor communication. Several efforts have been employed to address

facilities’ deficiencies.

In addition to management concerns, annual funding levels have been insufficient to reduce

estimates for eliminating facilities in poor condition. In 2016, DOI estimated that the replacement

cost of BIE school facilities exceeded $4.6 billion and that the cost to correct known deficiencies

exceeded $430 million.163 At the end of FY2019, BIE reported 71 schools in poor condition, 43 in

fair condition, and 65 in good condition.164 In August 2023, BIE reported that in addition to the

schools to which funding has been allocated, 68 schools are in poor condition and in need of

replacement at an estimated cost of $6.2 billion.165

Prioritization of Facilities

The BIE is responsible for BIE school facilities, including replacement, improvement, and repair

of existing school facilities, and repair of education employee housing. In response to ongoing

facilities needs and unsafe conditions, Congress has established requirements of DOI in an effort

to facilitate addressing the issues. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, P.L. 107-110) required

that DOI establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to report on BIE schools’ needs for school

and school facilities replacement and repair, and to develop formulas to distribute funds to

address these needs.166 Congress has periodically directed the BIA to develop replacement school

priority lists. As of March 2023, work is incomplete on the most recent congressionally requested

replacement school construction lists developed in 2004 (14 schools) and 2016 (10 schools).167

More recently, in each year from 2019 to 2023, BIE developed school replacement priority

lists.168

Oversight of Water Systems

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with the BIA and

BIE to address alleged violations of waste, water, air, toxics, and community right-to-know laws

at schools and public water systems. The alleged violations are related to the labeling, storage,

and release of wastes; asbestos management plans; and drinking water monitoring and

contaminant levels. The original settlement required BIA and BIE to correct alleged violations at

72 schools and 27 water systems and implement an environmental compliance auditing program

and an environmental management system (EMS) to improve environmental practices at all of its

407T, February 15, 2017; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Key Actions Needed to Ensure

Safety and Health at Indian School Facilities, GAO-16-391T, March 16, 2016; and U.S. Department of the Interior,

Office of Inspector General, Condition of Indian School Facilities, Report No.: C-EV-BIE-0023-2014, September

2016.

163 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Condition of Indian School Facilities, Report No.: CEV-BIE-0023-2014, September 2016.

164 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, Site Assessment Analysis for FY2020; data as of the

end of FY2019 Q4.

165 U.S. Department of Education, Transcript of National Advisory Council on Indian Education meeting, March 30,

2023, p. 37.

166 25 U.S.C. §2005(a)(5).

167 FY2024 Budget. pp. BIE-CONST-16- BIE-CONST-17.

168 FY2024 Budget. pp. BIE-CONST-16- BIE-CONST-21.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

BIE schools. The consent agreement was modified in 2014, expanding the list of BIA/BIE

facilities subject to the consent agreement.169

Construction Bonds

In addition to annual appropriations, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.

111-5) authorized Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs; 26 U.S.C. §54F).170 QSCBs

were a tax credit bond program that made bond proceeds available for the construction,

rehabilitation, or repair of a public school facility or for the acquisition of land for a public school

facility. Treasury allocated $200 million in each of 2009 and 2010 to DOI for Indian tribal

governments to construct or repair BIE-funded schools. The authority to issue QSCBs was

repealed beginning in 2018. No tribe took advantage of the program partly because many tribes

are unable to sell bonds because they are high risk entities; although the allocation remains

available.171

ISDEAA Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing

A 2016 court decision, Maniilaq Association v. Burwell,172 required that IHS enter into a “lease,”

upon request, with any tribe or tribal organization furnishing a facility that supports ISDEAA

programs and that under any such lease, Indian Health Service (IHS) reimburse “the Tribe or

Tribal Organization for its reasonable facility expenses.” The decision is applicable to BIE. Once

a lease agreement is entered into, meeting the annual costs becomes a legal funding entitlement.

The popularity and ongoing costs of such leases are unknown. The FY2022-FY2024 President’s

budgets proposed shifting the costs to indefinite mandatory funding to reflect the entitlement

nature of the leases.173

Trust Fund Accounts

Another approach to funding facilities construction and renovation is the establishment of a trust

fund account from applicable contributions that can be used for these purposes. In 2000, DOI was

directed to establish a charitable, nonprofit foundation called the American Indian Education

Foundation, later renamed the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education

(Foundation).174 The Foundation was established to raise private contributions but has not been

functional. The National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (see “National Parks

and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund”) is providing funds for a limited period (FY2021FY2025). The Foundation was intended to support the mission of the BIE and further the

educational opportunities of American Indians who attend BIE-funded schools. It was to be a

federally chartered nonprofit corporation accepting and administering charitable donations that

further the educational opportunities of Indian children attending BIE-funded schools. The

Foundation was established in July 2004, but it lacked start-up capital, lacked operational funds,

169 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Settlement with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to Resolve

Violations at Schools in Indian Country,” https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/settlement-department-interior-doiresolve-violations-schools-indian-country.

170 For more information about QSCBs, see CRS Report R40523, Tax Credit Bonds: Overview and Analysis.

171 Letter from Jon Tester, United States Senate, Tim Johnson, United States Senate, and Al Franken, United States

Senate, to Honorable Sally Jewel, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, May 19, 2014.

172 Maniilaq Ass'n v. Burwell, 72 F. Supp. 3d 227 (D.D.C. 2014) and Maniilaq Ass'n v. Burwell, 170 F. Supp. 3d 243

(D.D.C. 2016).

173 FY2024 Budget. p. IA-PTL-3.

174 Title XIII of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (P.L. 106-568). 25 U.S.C. §5421 et seq.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

and was unable to raise money.175 In March 2023, the Foundation held its first board meeting.176

As of November 2023, the Foundation is seeking a Lead Executive Officer to head the

organization.177

Additional Potential Options

There are several potential options for addressing poor facilities at BIE schools. Some that are

routinely suggested or have been suggested by organizations like GAO include the following:

•

additional funds for maintenance, improvement, and construction could be

appropriated to cover the estimated cost of bringing facilities into good

condition;

public-private partnerships could be formed to fund and/or provide expertise to

affect facilities improvement and construction;178

implementation of a DOI-based unit or organization that would execute

appropriate communication, procedures, internal controls, oversight, and staffing

to properly manage BIE facilities;179 and

congressional and administrative oversight of measured progress in facilities’

improvement and construction may affect outcomes.180

Public School Indian Education—Johnson O’Malley (JOM)

Program Freeze and Modernization

From FY1995 until enactment of the Johnson-O’Malley Supplemental Indian Education Program

Modernization Act (JOM Modernization Act; P.L. 115-404), program administration was subject

to the JOM freeze. By statute, JOM funds are distributed to contractors by formula, based on a

count of Indian students and average per-pupil operating costs. Student counts for allocating

funds were frozen in FY1995.181 The intention was to include the JOM funds in each tribe’s

recurring base funding, tribal priority allocations (TPA), in an effort to stabilize funding for tribes

and provide them additional control and flexibility in the use of the funds. Because there is a

statutory prohibition on changing a tribe’s base funding, JOM allocations were based on FY1995

175 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Amending the Indian Self Determination and Education

Assistance Act to Modify Provisions Relating to the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, To

accompany S. 1231, 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 29, 2005, S.Rept. 109-118.

176 The White House Domestic Policy Council, 2023 Progress Report for Tribal Nations, p. 67,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023.12.04-TNS-Progress-Report.pdf.

177 National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, https://www.nfeaie.org/opportunities (as available on

November 20, 2023).

178 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Explanatory Statement, To accompany House

Amendment to Senate Amendments to H.R. 244 (Rules Committee Print 115-16, showing the text of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2017.), 115th Cong., 1st sess, p. 30.

179 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial

Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-407T, February 15, 2017.

180 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to

Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-342T, February 27, 2013.

181 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill, 1995, Report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 17, 1994, H.Rept. 103-551, pp.

54-55; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill, 1995, Report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 28, 1994, S.Rept. 103-294, p.

55.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

student counts.182 Over time, the JOM freeze resulted in an inequitable allocation of funds and

restricted new contractors from program access.183

In an effort to distribute funds in accordance with more current student counts and to reach

additional students, Congress has generally taken four steps—direction to BIE, legislative

amendments, a GAO review, and increased funding.

•

FY2012-FY2019 appropriations conference reports directed the BIE to count the

number of students participating in and eligible to participate in the JOM

program and recommend a methodology to distribute funds in the future.184

Despite BIE requests to current and prospective JOM contractors, some did not

report actual or potential participants.

In December 2018, the JOM Modernization Act was enacted, requiring the

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive estimate of actual and

potential JOM participants, requiring contractors to report participation numbers

in order to receive JOM funding, adjusting over time the amount of funds

allocated to contractors based on eligible student counts, and increasing program

access for new contractors depending on appropriations levels.

Congress requested that GAO review the JOM program, resulting in an April

2020 GAO report on issues in the implementation of JOM. In part because JOM

is administered by several BIA offices, the BIE is unable to compile a complete

list of contractors and has not defined roles and responsibilities for BIA staff. The

BIE does not provide training to contractors to help them administer the program.

GAO recommended that BIE “maintain an accurate and complete list of JOM

contractors, develop JOM training, and clearly define roles and responsibilities

and identify staff for carrying out JOM functions.”185

Explanatory statements to accompany the FY2020-FY2023 appropriations acts

have directed BIE to provide training and capacity building activities and

implement GAO’s recommendations.

JOM distributions in FY2024 and subsequently are to be based on “the actual count of JOM

eligible students within a JOM contractor’s tribal service area or school district.” 186 Congress

may continue monitoring the extent to which the oversight and actions impact the program’s

scope and effect.

182 25 U.S.C §450j-1(b)(2). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Tribal Consultation of Indian

Education Topics,” 60 Federal Register 53932, October 18, 1995.

183 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, To Direct The Secretary of the Interior to Conduct an Accurate

Comprehensive Student Count for the Purposes of Calculating Formula Allocations for Programs Under the JohnsonO'Malley Act, and for other Purposes, Report to accompany S. 943, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., January 24, 2018, S.Rept.

115-201.

184 See for example, U.S. House of Representatives, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen of New

Jersey, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate

Amendments on H.R. 244,” Congressional Record, vol. 163 (May 3, 2017), p. H3881.

185 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education: Actions Needed to Improve Management of a

Supplemental Education Program, GAO-20-308, April 2020.

186 FY2024 Budget. pp. BIE-OIEP-7-BIE-OIEP-8.

Congressional Research Service

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Author Information

Cassandria Dortch

Specialist in Education Policy

Acknowledgments

This is a substantially revised version of a report originally written by Roger Walke, former CRS Specialist

in American Indian Policy.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

RL34205 · VERSION 17 · UPDATED

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.