Hopi Tribe Education Feasibility Study

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Public Works LLC . May 18, 2018

Hopi Tribe Education Feasibility Study

HOPI TRIBE EDUCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

xviii

GOVERNANCE OF HOPI EDUCATION

Issue: Hopi Schools Governance

Recommendation 1.1

Recommendation for Option 1:

Recommendation for Option 2:

Recommendation for Option 3:

Recommendation for Option 4:

Issue: Providing Oversight – How to Structure a Central Board

Recommendation 1.2

Issue: Leadership – The Superintendent Position

Recommendation 1.3

Issue: Central Authority Responsibilities – Plenary vs. Limited

Recommendation 1.4

Issue: Funding a Central Authority

Recommendation 1.5

Issue: Curricular Control

Recommendation 1.6

Issue: Building Capacity and Trust in Tribal Educational Leadership

Recommendation 1.7

EDUCATION LEADERSHIP

Recommendation 2.1

Recommendation 2.2

Recommendation 2.3

EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY

Issue: Curriculum, Instruction & Student Performance

Recommendation 3.1

103

Issue: Exceptional Student Services (ESS) Special Education

Recommendation 3.2

108

114

Issue: Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)

116

Recommendation 3.3

119

Issue: Career & Technical Education

Recommendation 3.4

122

125

Issue: Library Services

Recommendation 3.5

127

130

Issue: Professional Development

Recommendation 3.6

131

135

Issue: Supporting New Teachers

Recommendation 3.7

137

139

142

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Issue: Staff Planning and Organization

Recommendation 4.1

Recommendation 4.2

144

146

149

Issue: Recruitment, Training, and Retention

Recommendation 4.3

Recommendation 4.4

Recommendation 4.5

Recommendation 4.6

153

154

158

160

162

INTEGRATION OF HOPI LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

Recommendation 5.1

Recommendation 5.2

164

170

177

DISCIPLINE & BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES

182

Issue: Student Behavior Management & Discipline

Recommendation 6.1

182

194

Issue: Guidance & Counseling

Recommendation 6.2

196

200

202

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT

Issue: Strategic Family and Community Engagement

Recommendation 7.1

203

204

Issue: Family Engagement

Recommendation 7.2

208

223

Issue: Public Relations

Recommendation 7.3

231

234

EDUCATIONAL CONTINUUM (PRE-K – POSTSECONDARY)

239

Issue: Building a Comprehensive System

Recommendation 8.1

241

242

Issue: Early Child Care

Recommendation 8.2

243

245

Issue: K-12 Enrichment

Recommendation 8.3

247

249

Issue: Career Pathways and College Preparation

Recommendation 8.4

250

252

Issue: Workforce Development

Recommendation 8.5

255

257

Issue: Supporting College Students

Recommendation 8.6

257

259

Issue: College & University Partnerships

Recommendation 8.7

261

263

COMMUNITY SUPPORT

266

Issue: Community Partnerships

Recommendation 9.1

267

269

Issue: Addressing Underlying Issues

Recommendation 9.2

273

276

Issue: Community Vision for Education

Recommendation 9.3

280

283

FINANCE & BUDGET

Issue: Procurement and Contracting

Recommendation 10.1

285

288

Issue: Coordination Among School Business Offices

Recommendation 10.2

Recommendation 10.3

Recommendation 10.4

291

293

294

295

Issue: Information Management

Recommendation 10.5

295

296

Issue: BIE Funding Constraints and School Budgets

Recommendation 10.6

298

301

Issue: Food Services

301

iii

Recommendation 10.7

304

Issue: Long-Term Economic Development

Recommendation 10.8

305

308

TRANSPORTATION

Issue: Organization and Staffing

Recommendation 11.1

Recommendation 11.2

309

312

313

Issue: Transportation Planning, Policies & Procedures

Recommendation 11.3

Recommendation 11.4

314

316

317

Issue: Routing and Scheduling

Recommendation 11.5

318

321

Issue: Training and Safety

Recommendation 11.6

321

322

SAFETY & SECURITY

323

Issue: Facilities Safety Issues

Recommendation 12.1

324

Issue: Student and Staff Safety and Security

Recommendation 12.2

325

329

330

333

337

339

340

346

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Recommendation 13.1

Recommendation 13.2

Recommendation 13.3

Recommendation 13.4

Recommendation 13.5

APPENDIX A: Complete Survey Data

APPENDIX B: Collected Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions

HOPI TRIBE EDUCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

In 2015, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) awarded the Hopi Tribe a “Tribal Education

Department” (TED) grant, for the development and operation of the education department.

According to BIE,

These funds support the development of TEDs to improve educational outcomes for

students and improve efficiencies and effectiveness in the operation of BIE-funded

schools. The goal of the TED grant program is to promote tribal education capacity

building by focusing on certain areas. These areas include providing for the development

and enforcement of tribal education codes, facilitating tribal control in all matters related

to the education of Indian children on reservations, and providing for the development of

coordinated educational programs on reservations.

Through the TED grants, the BIE intended to “transform and improve the quality of education”

students receive at BIE-funded tribal schools, to help the Tribes facilitate local control,

restructure school governance, build governance capacity, and construct curricula that are both

academically rigorous and culturally relevant to students.1

In Spring 2016, after the creation of an ad hoc committee of school administrators, and

extensive discussions, the Hopi Tribal Council approved the acceptance of the TED grant and

began to develop a Request for Proposals. In 2017, the Council approved the use of the TED

grant funds to hire Public Works LLC and its team of 11 experienced consultants.

The Public Works team was tasked with evaluating the current educational structure and

determining (1) whether it was “feasible” for the Tribe to develop a “coordinated educational

program” on the reservation, and, if so, (2) how the Hopi Tribe should structure the governance

and build leadership capacity to facilitate a “comprehensive and coordinated” education system.

Current Educational Governance Structure

Currently, there are seven schools on the Hopi reservation, including:

www.bie.edu/cs/groups/xbie/documents/text/idc1-030936.pdf

•

Five elementary schools: Keams Canyon Elementary School, First Mesa

Elementary School, Second Mesa Day School, Hopi Day School, and Moencopi Day

School, which all serve students in Grades K – 6;

One elementary and middle school2: Hotevilla-Bacavi Community School, which

serves students in Grades K – 8; and

One combined junior and high school: Hopi Junior Senior High School, which

serves students in Grades 7 – 12.

These schools are funded by the BIE. Through several Hopi Tribal Council resolutions over the

last few decades, the schools have all transitioned from BIE-managed to "tribally-controlled"

grant schools. Each of the schools is managed by a local Governing Board of elected board

members.

There are three institutions that exercise leadership roles in the Hopi education system:

1. The Hopi Tribal Council’s Health and Education Committee (HEC),

2. The Hopi Board of Education (HBE), and

3. The Hopi Department of Education and Workforce Development (the “Department”),

Each school's Governing Board sends a representative to the Hopi Board of Education (HBE),

an entity regulated by the Tribe. Under the Hopi Education Ordinance, referred to as "Ordinance

#36," originally enacted by the Hopi Tribal Council in 1981 and amended several times since

then, the HBE is supported administratively by the Hopi Department of Education. Ordinance

#36 decrees that the HBE and the Department should assess reservation-wide educational

needs, set reservation-wide educational goals, set minimum reservation-wide education

standards, and prepare an annual report on the status and future development of the Hopi

Education System. However, the Hopi Tribal Council only recently revived the HBE in 2016,

after years of defunding it, and thus neither the HBE nor the Department has complied with

these requirements, and no reservation-wide standards, goals, or reports exist.

Now called the “Hopi Department of Education and Workforce Development,” the Department

runs one child care center, four Head Start Centers, a workforce development program

(primarily aimed at youth and young adults who are no longer attending school), and a college

scholarships program. For the most part, prior the receipt of the federal TED grant, the

The Hopi Mission School (K-8) is also included in the Hopi Education Ordinance #36, but it is currently

closed.

Department focused on early childhood education and the college scholarships, but did little to

coordinate with the K-12 schools or support K-12 students.

In addition, as part of the TED grant process in 2016, the Hopi Tribal Council reactivated the

Health and Education Committee as a standing committee under the Legislative Branch, which

was approved on the 2015 Organizational Chart of the Hopi Tribe. The committee currently

includes a chairman, vice chairman, and three other Council members.

Summary of the Major Issue

As laid out in detail in the following report, the current schools’ structure is not working

effectively for Hopi students. Hopi school staff are working diligently, but they are not seeing

strong academic achievement results; school administrators are overwhelmed with managerial

and other tasks with minimal support or strategic direction from their elected governing boards;

and teachers, parent liaisons, and department managers alike are unable to share strategies,

learn from each other, pool resources, or achieve economies of scale. The schools employ

different academic curricula, and Hopi language and culture is not being integrated effectively

into the schools’ programs. Most importantly, there is no overarching entity that can provide

school leaders with oversight over individual schools, accountability for poor academic

performance or ineffective governance, or support or knowledge of the newest educational

strategies and models.

These unsatisfactory outcomes suggest that a comprehensive system of schools would be far

more effective than the current structure of isolated, independent schools. As delineated below,

there are three potential governance options to restructure the Hopi educational system to

achieve such a result: (1) a consortium, (2) a centralized entity to provide support, or (3) a

unified school district model.

Whichever governance option is chosen, however, the Hopi Tribal government has not

demonstrated the financial ability or administrative capacity to provide the needed support. As

such, stakeholders have voiced concerns that structural changes would take away local control

and give control to the Tribe, without providing meaningful leadership capacity or additional

funding resources from the Tribe, in return; it thus merely would add a level of unneeded

bureaucracy and would worsen the schools’ situation.

This caused the Public Works team to ask the second – and more difficult – question: Even

though the schools would benefit greatly from coming together and cooperating in some

fashion, even perhaps under a single schools’ superintendent, is it feasible for the Hopi Tribe to

establish these governance structures, fund them, and implement them with fidelity and

effectiveness?

vii

While it is clear that a comprehensive educational system would be possible to set up, it would

be neither easy nor effective unless the Hopi Tribal government takes certain steps before,

during, and after it makes the structural changes. Balancing the needs of the schools with the

current lack of capacity on the Tribal level, this Feasibility Study grapples with that more difficult

question.

Accordingly, the Public Works team recommends three steps:

1. The Hopi Tribal Chairman should support the TED Advisory Committee to ensure

stakeholder representation, participate in the visioning meetings in May 2018, and

commence a six-month community process to define Hopi education for the future.

2. The TED Advisory Committee, schools’ administrators, and other key stakeholders

should review relevant portions of the report, evaluate the recommendations for each

policy area, share ideas, and consider what governance structure will best ensure

that each policy recommendation is effectively implemented.

3. As a first step toward building a comprehensive educational system, however it is

structured in the long-term, the Hopi educational leadership should take immediate

steps to compile data, strengthen its governance capacity, act collaboratively, and

build trust as it continues the community dialogue about long-term options.

If the Hopi adopt these three recommendations, Public Works concludes that it is, in fact,

feasible for the Hopi to set up an effective governance structure and build leadership capacity

to facilitate a “comprehensive and coordinated” education system on the Reservation.

Report

Public Works is honored by the opportunity to present this report. The report includes

extensive information about Hopi’s current schools’ practices, relevant research and best

practices, and feasible options for the future. By providing a good foundation for a data-driven

community dialogue, this report can help to facilitate the development of a comprehensive and

consolidated education plan for the Hopi Tribe’s education system.

This project included three parts:

1. Research and Best Practices: In separate documents, Public Works has already

submitted two reports:

viii

a. Tribal Education Codes Report: Public Works compiled and analyzed 17

Tribal Educational Codes (January 2018 report); and

b. Site Visits Report: The review team visited and met with 13 Tribes who are

conducting promising practices on issues relevant to the Hopi, such as

governance of schools, preservation of Tribal language and culture,

professional development and capacity building, and family and community

engagement, among others (February 2018 report).

2. Feasibility Study: A relevant, structured, comprehensive analysis of the current

Hopi educational system; and

3. Visioning Statements: Development of a clear, focused and concise vision for Hopi

education based on the comprehensive educational system analysis.

Research and Best Practices

In the two reports already provided, Tribal Education Codes Report and Site Visits Report, the

review team included myriad examples of how the Hopi can structure their governance,

oversight, and support of their schools. The Codes report shows what can be done legislatively.

The Site Visits report offers over one hundred separate examples of how strong leadership and

partnerships can result in significant accomplishments that benefit students. These examples,

as well as the leading research in relevant subjects, are integrated into the Feasibility Study

report's recommendations as well.

Feasibility Study

Using funds from the federal TED grant, Public Works conducted the Feasibility Study from

August 2017 to February 2018 to assess the current performance of Hopi schools to determine

possible next steps. The team analyzed data from multiple sources, including:

•

Data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Education and by the Hopi Department

of Education and Workforce Development (the "Department");

Information and documents provided by the schools, including, but not limited to,

aggregated student data when available, school improvement plans, budget

documents, technology plans, parent newsletters, student-parent handbooks,

governing board bylaws, agendas, and meeting minutes;

Onsite interviews in June 2017, October 2017, and November 2017 with school

administrators, Tribal leaders, Governing Board members, Department managers,

and key community stakeholders;

•

Focus group interviews with elementary principals, Hopi Junior Senior High

department managers, elementary teachers, parents, special education teachers,

business and finance administrators, high school students in the AVID program, and

Head Start parents and staff, among other groups;

Visits and meetings with the Hopi Tutuveni newspaper editor, KUYI radio station,

Hopi Education Endowment Foundation (HEEF), Hopi Foundation, Northern Pioneer

College, First Mesa Youth Center, Hopi Cultural Center, Hopi Housing Authority,

Hopi Office of Cultural Preservation, a number of village Community Service

Administrators (CSAs), and members of the Health and Education Committee;

A Special Meeting held by the Hopi Board of Education on November 6, 2017, where

Public Works gave a presentation about the other Tribal Education Codes and

promising practices of other Tribes that could inform the Hopi in their decisionmaking, explained the Feasibility Survey, and answered questions about the study;

An open community meeting held at the First Mesa Youth Center for business,

church, youth, and community leaders on November 7, 2017;

A "Gallery Walk" survey of comments by students, parents, and family members

during the Hopi Day School Shindig on November 8, 2017;

Follow-up phone interviews with schools' administrators, parent liaisons, the Hopi

Board of Education Chairman, the Hopi Tribe's Health and Education Committee

Chairman, and the Tribal Chairman and Vice Chairman and their key staff members.

In addition to the analysis of documents and extensive interviews and focus groups, Public

Works analyzed four personalized surveys of (1) administrators and teachers, (2) Hopi High

School students, (3) parents and guardians, and (4) community members. The surveys were

designed, edited, and approved over a four-month period with input from the Hopi Foundation,

the schools' administrators, and an ad hoc Education Committee appointed by the Education

Director that included some Department managers, Tribal Council members, and school

administrators, and the Hopi Board of Education Chairman. The surveys were distributed by

Department staff and school administrators. They were also mentioned and promoted in Hopi

Tutuveni articles in November and December 2017 (with the community survey links included in

the December article), and promoted further by the Hopi Tribal Chairman's Chief of Staff and

again by the Hopi Tribal Chairman himself in two different KUYI radio shows throughout January

2018. In addition, the Department's managers forwarded the surveys throughout the Tribal

agencies and provided the Mobile Technology Unit to allow community members to use

computers to fill out the surveys online.

The surveys were open from December 2017 to February 2018.3 The respondents completed

most of the surveys online using an application called Survey Monkey, however between 100

and 150 surveys were completed by parents or community members on paper copies. For the

Hopi High School student surveys, the AVID students took the lead in asking their friends and

classmates to complete the surveys. In two schools, over 50 parent surveys each were

completed at PTO and PAC meetings. In total, Hopi stakeholders completed 605 surveys:

Parents and Guardians (204), Hopi High School students (165), Community Members (142),

and Administrators and Teachers (94).

The use of multiple data sources to compile the information and analysis in this report enhances

the integrity of the final recommendations.

Written Report

The team was inspired by school administrators’ efforts to provide a welcoming school

environment, strong school culture, and successful students. However, there was evidence that

current governance systems were dysfunctional, with frayed trust and minimal accountability.

Nonetheless, each option for change brings another risk or potential challenge. The report is

intended to break down each barrier, and provide the Hopi community with concrete

recommendations and step-by-step implementation options.

The report includes 13 chapters, distinguished by their policy areas and specific

recommendations. In each chapter, the current educational situation is described under “Key

Findings,” which are separated by individual school where possible, or grouped more generally

when appropriate. Using educational research and best practice models from Tribes across the

country, Public Works then sets forth “Recommendations” and potential “Implementation”

steps. In some cases, the implementation has an extensive “Fiscal Impact.” As such, the Tribe

and/or the schools will need to decide whether such a recommendation is a priority and, if so,

then find the resources. Alternatively, many of the recommendations can be implemented with

current resources.

Lastly, many of these recommendations can be implemented using a variety of Tribal regulatory

structures, including a central authority, school district model, a consortium and sharing of

ideas, or maintenance of the current structure with stronger accountability and compliance

mechanisms. These four major distinctions are raised repeatedly throughout the report.

The Administrators/Teachers survey and the Hopi High School surveys were closed in mid-January

2018, while the Parent/Guardian and Community Member surveys were not closed until February 2018

when all paper copies were received and input manually.

This report is organized into three parts: Governance and Leadership, School Improvement, and

Administrative Performance.

Part I: Governance and Leadership

Based on the evidence from Hopi and the research nationwide, a comprehensive system of

schools would be more effective than the current structure of isolated, independent schools.

However, this is only the case if the institution managing the schools has the financial and

leadership capacity to provide the needed support and oversight. As such, it is particularly

important for the Hopi Tribe to figure out how to establish these governance structures, fund

them, and implement them with fidelity and effectiveness.

As such, Public Works lays out four potential governance options, all supported with detailed

examples from other Tribes:

•

Option 1: Maintain and strengthen the current local autonomy structure;

Option 2: Set up a consortium for sharing ideas and resources;

Option 3: Create a centralized entity that provides support for the schools; and/or

Option 4: Create a central authority that provides oversight and consistency to the

schools.

For each option, we address the structures that currently exist to manage and govern Hopi

schools, how they are working, and what they need to improve. For any future restructuring, we

ask:

•

How the Hopi would define a “comprehensive educational system?”

What regulatory and administrative structures would need to be authorized?

How the Hopi would fund a reservation-wide regulatory authority or collaborative

entity? and

What capacity building and leadership training would be needed to implement the

plan with transparency, accountability, and fidelity.

As noted above regarding the noncompliance with Ordinance #36 to date, changing the Hopi

Education Code, in and of itself, will not result in school improvement. This last point is critical:

Strong leadership and significant capacity-building efforts are intimately tied to effective

implementation of any governance system.

With extensive supportive details, the Governance and Leadership chapters provide options,

highlight critical decision-making factors, and focus on mechanisms needed for implementation,

as follows:

xii

•

Chapter I: Governance – The Hopi Tribal Chair should support the TED Advisory

Committee and hold an inclusive community dialogue to find consensus on the

foregoing options; and for each option, the Committee should consider Tribal funding

sources, what administrative, policy, and curricular issues would be covered, how the

“regulated entity” should be structured, and whether it would hire a schools’

superintendent. Most importantly, regardless of which structure is chosen, Tribal

education leaders should pursue capacity-building and leadership training to

implement the plan with transparency, accountability, and fidelity.

•

Chapter 2: Educational Leadership – School administrators should come together

to learn from one another (and/or get support from a schools’ superintendent); the

Board and school administrators should use strategic planning to operate and

govern; and the Tribal education institutions (HBE, HEC, and the Department) should

have clearly defined roles and training.

Part II: School Improvement

Hopi schools are struggling to prepare their students for college and career in the global

economy, while maintaining the focus on Hopi culture and customs. The broad concept of

“School Improvement” encompasses many integrated components, including educational

services (i.e. curriculum and instruction, professional development and mentoring), integrated

student supports (i.e., special education services, gifted education, vocational education),

human resources systems that support teachers, family engagement, a continuum of services

from birth to college and career, and support from the broader community.

Public Works evaluates how the schools are addressing these challenges, and what supports

they need to improve student achievement rates. We consider what oversight structures,

collaborative mechanisms, and strategic relationship-building prowess they would need to

implement meaningful school improvement. Based on that data, we recommend a

comprehensive approach to school improvement and higher student achievement.

As it is the core of school improvement, this is the longest section of the report, with six

chapters. Most of the recommendations include a common model or practice that should be

adopted by all the schools, or a coordinator or consultant needed to build capacity or set up an

effective program. This could be accomplished with a consortium, but it would be more effective

under a central authority model. Recommendations include:

•

Chapter 3: Educational Service Delivery – Hire a School Improvement Coordinator

and implement a transformative School Improvement model; establish special

education centers (especially for those students with more severe disabilities);

ensure that all schools offer rigorous Gifted and Talented programs; restructure the

xiii

Career and Technical Education (CTE) program and create a Business and Industry

Advisory Committee to support it; collaborate and strengthen school library

programs; and establish a collaborative to share professional development and new

teacher support systems.

•

Chapter 4: Human Resources Management – Develop a common staffing

allocation formula; conduct a system-wide salary study; implement a coordinated

mentorship program; adopt a single written recruitment policy and a consistent salary

scale; develop a Grow-Your-Own program for teachers; special educators, and

counselors; implement a common performance review system for principals; and

work to improve the housing situation for teachers.

•

Chapter 5: Integration of Hopi Language and Culture – Develop a common

curriculum and assessments; and consider a role for Tribal authorities to play in

supporting, developing and promoting curricula regarding Hopi values, culture, and

language.

•

Chapter 6: Discipline and Behavioral Health Services – Implement, with fidelity, a

school-wide student behavior management system in all schools, incorporating into

the system Hopi core values and culture; and support it with full-time counselors in

all schools

•

Chapter 7: Family Engagement – Ensure that all schools integrate meaningful

family engagement into all planning; develop public relations plans and use their

schools’ web sites to be more transparent; and apply a family engagement model

that promotes, trains, and sustains parents and family members to support student

achievement.4

•

Chapter 8: Educational Continuum (Pre-K – College) – Develop an “Education

Pipeline” that assesses the needs and supports the educational continuum of youth,

from birth to workforce; and build the organizational capacity necessary to support

greater cooperation with post-secondary education partners.5

•

Chapter 9: Community Support – Promote collaboration and coordination amongst

schools and community stakeholders to strengthen programs to serve youth

effectively; collaborate with related Tribal agencies to address underlying issues; and

Implementation of this recommendation will require technical assistance from the BIE, partnership with a

nonprofit organizations or association, or professional consulting services.

As the Department coordinates much of this programming now, this chapter is focused primarily on

recommendations for the Department.

xiv

initiate a series of wide-ranging discussions among the community about what

makes up the Hopi vision of education and how to fulfill that vision.

Part III: Administrative Performance

Finally, Public Works addresses other critical aspects of school administration that are needed

to develop a comprehensive educational system. In particular, the review team evaluates how

well administrative systems are currently working, where the schools need improvements, and

ways they can become more efficient and conserve limited resources.

Again, many of these chapters include recommendations for reservation-wide management or

coordination to provide support and opportunities for sharing strategies, pool resources, and/or

achieve economies of scale. We recommend that Hopi schools hire reservation-wide directors

for both transportation and facilities, as well as a part-time facilitator for federal finance work.

These positions mirror a more traditional school district model in the sense that they would

generally be assistant superintendents or department managers in a school district office,

however, they could also be created under a consortium. Additionally, the Technology chapter

recommends a reservation-wide Technology Consortium. Finally, some of the recommendations

that require schools to act would still need some mechanism for accountability and oversight.

Recommendations include:

•

Chapter 10: Finance & Budget – Hire a federal finance facilitator who serves all the

schools; collaborate on procurement of professional contract staff and services;

adopt uniform business practices, software, and reporting practices; meet together

monthly to share information and provide each other technical support; consolidate

the schools’ Food Services programs; and ensure that all schools create or update

their strategic plans and use them to guide budgeting and decision-making.

•

Chapter 11: Transportation – Hire a full-time transportation director to oversee the

transportation operations in all Hopi schools; conduct a cost-benefit analysis to

determine if leasing buses is the most economical method of providing transportation

services; purchase electronic routing software; develop transportation policies that

are consistent with the Hopi Education Code (about transporting students beyond

attendance boundaries); and ensure that all schools review and update school

transportation policies and that all transportation supervisors are well-versed in driver

training and safety procedures.

•

Chapter 12: Safety & Security – Hire a part-time facilities director to ensure

facilities are using industry standards regarding cleanliness, safety, maintenance,

and energy management across all schools; and organize a coordinated Hopi

Incident Command System that includes all stakeholders and ensure all schools

have a consistent and updated emergency response procedure manual.

•

Chapter 13: Educational Technology – Form a Hopi School Technology

Consortium; ensure that each school develops or updates its school technology plan

and sets up a separate technology budget and includes ongoing professional

development in classroom technologies; and develop Hopi-centric technology

content.

Visioning Statements

In addition to this report, Public Works has drafted 13 visioning statements aligned with each of

the policy chapters. Their purpose is to provide statements for the TED Advisory Committee

members and key stakeholders to review, deliberate, and determine where they can find

consensus. These statements will help to facilitate the development of a clear, focused and

concise vision for Hopi education based on the comprehensive educational system analysis.

Conclusion

Public Works was directed to consider two important components of Hopi education: (1)

strengthening and maintaining the Hopi way of life; and (2) improving student academic

achievement to build 21st Century skills, provide higher education opportunities, and prepare

students to meet their career aspirations. Similarly, when asked to describe a comprehensive

educational system in the Community Surveys, two community members wrote their aspirations

for the Hopi schools:

Where students can have the opportunity to learn Hopi Language and concepts (range

from Hopi ceremonies to Hopi Constitution), at the same time acquiring a high level of

education where it teaches students to become productive members of society. In order

to contribute to this modern-day Hopi, we need both worlds to survive as has been

always expressed by our Hopi elders.

To me, a Comprehensive Hopi Education System consists of a foundation built on Hopi

lifeways - it means it takes what the best aspects of Hopi / Indigenous living are and

pairing them with what it will take to succeed in the world beyond school.

These two synergistic objectives provide the foundation for our analysis and report.

xvi

Contact information

Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Contact

President

Eric Schnurer, Public Works LLC

eschnurer@public-works.org

(610) 296-9443

Project Director

Pamela Kondé, Public Works LLC

pkonde@public-works.org

(703) 272-3393

xvii

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 1: Governance of Hopi Education

Key Findings:

•

The current Hopi educational system isn’t working well and the Hopi’s locally

controlled schools need more support; however, the Tribal government lacks the

financial ability or administrative capacity to provide it. For example:

Because Hopi schools are independent, peers are not learning from each

other.

Schools are not optimizing resources because they are failing to achieve

economies of scale.

Community members and school staff alike want more support from a

reservation-wide entity.

There is no synergy between schools, oversight over individual schools, or

accountability for poor academic performance or ineffective governance.

•

The current Hopi Board of Education does not have the capacity to support or

oversee all Hopi schools effectively.

•

The schools need administrative and curricular supports that they are not receiving,

and that could be provided by a schools’ superintendent.

•

If a tribal-level central authority is constituted, its responsibilities, and the roles,

powers and duties of the local schools, still can vary widely across a range of

substantive areas.

•

The schools can collaborate, pool funds, or even centralize authority in certain

administrative areas, without necessarily ceding authority over money and budget,

however, if the Tribe were to establish a district office or provide supplemental

supports to schools, it needs to consider additional resources.

•

Lack of curricular alignment between the elementary and secondary levels and the

sustained low performance at the elementary level have culminated in lack of

preparedness and low performance of students at the secondary level.

•

The Hopi Tribal government lacks administrative capacity, and/or financial ability to

provide support for schools, and therefore, it lacks the trust of some stakeholders

that it can provide oversight over a Hopi school system.

xviii

Summary of Recommendations:

•

The Hopi Tribal Council Chair should support the TED Advisory Committee and hold

an inclusive community dialogue on the following options on how to move forward

with their school system:

Option 1: Maintain and strengthen the current local autonomy structure;

Option 2: Set up a consortium for sharing ideas and resources;

Option 3: Create a centralized entity that provides support for the schools;

and/or

Option 4: Create a central authority that provides oversight and consistency

to the schools.

•

If the Hopi decide to design a reservation-wide education system, they should

consider how to structure a central board to provide oversight.

•

Regardless of the organizational structure chosen, the Hopi should consider hiring a

superintendent who will oversee all schools and support all school leaders.

•

In considering a centralized entity that would provide more consistent support and/or

oversight to Hopi schools, the TED Advisory Committee should determine those

administrative, non-curricular areas to which the superintendent would provide

support and/or oversight.

•

The Hopi Tribe should determine how to fund its centralized entity and/or separate

operational areas.

•

Whether implementing a consortium, a central entity, or a unified school district, the

TED Advisory Committee should consider what aspects of curricular control would

be maintained locally, and what aspects would be developed on a reservation-wide

basis.

•

As a first step toward building a comprehensive educational system, however it is

structured in the long-term, the Hopi educational leadership should take immediate

steps to compile data, strengthen its governance capacity, act collaboratively, and

build trust as it continues the community dialogue about long-term options.

xix

Chapter 2: Education Leadership

Key Findings:

•

Hopi school administrators do not have a community of professional support or

regularly engage in professional leadership development.

•

School administrators and Governing Boards are not engaging in strategic

leadership.

•

Neither the Tribal Council’s Committee on Health and Education, the Hopi Board of

Education, or the Hopi Department of Education and Workforce Development have

consistently carried out Ordinance #36 requirements related to collecting data,

setting reservation-wide goals and standards, and issuing and annual report; nor are

they working together strategically with the local Governing Boards to collaborate in

their school improvement efforts (such as hiring, evaluation, learning, providing

professional development, or purchasing).

Summary of Recommendations:

•

School administrators should come together regularly to engage in professional

learning and to receive and provide each other with support.

•

School administrators and Governing Boards should be supported, through training

and by organizational structures, to exercise strategic leadership of their schools and

school communities.

•

Tribal Education Leaders, including the Hopi Board of Education Members and the

Hopi Department of Education and Workforce Development, should have clearly

defined roles and responsibilities and should engage in training to ensure that they

exercise them effectively.

Chapter 3: Educational Service Delivery

Key Findings:

•

The Hopi schools have not been successful in raising student performance at the

elementary or secondary levels.

•

Serving students with disabilities at the elementary school level through inclusion or

resource limits Hopi schools’ ability to provide the best instructional setting for

students with severe emotional, intellectual, or behavioral disabilities.

•

The Hopi schools set low criteria for identifying gifted and talented students and

implement programs that are not highly rigorous.

•

The Career and Technical Education (CTE) program implemented at the Hopi

Junior/Senior High School does not effectively prepare students for the job market.

•

Some Hopi school libraries do not meet the U.S. CFR Standard XIII minimum

requirements with regard to staffing, collection size, policies and procedures.

•

While some of the Hopi schools improved the planning and organization of

professional development, professional development has not been effective and has

not resulted in an increase in student performance.

•

Support of new teachers is limited and unorganized among the Hopi schools. The

schools do not have a mentoring or coaching system and according to interviews

and a review of documentation, there is little evidence of content and instructionspecific professional development or monitoring for new teachers.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Consider a transformation of the schools’ instructional approaches to achieve rapid

school improvement in student performance.

•

Consider transitioning from having a special education program in every school to

designating two elementary schools to serve all students with disabilities and one

school to serve students with severe disabilities. This structure, implemented in

many school districts nationally will allow the maximization/optimization of

instructional and professional support resources.

•

Increase the rigor of the GT programs from identification and selection to program

activities and projects and ensure that all schools offer the program.

•

Consider restructuring the CTE program by increasing its course offerings,

expanding its resources through a business and industry advisory committee,

establishing student participation in CTE organizations, and implementing articulation

agreements.

•

Hopi schools should evaluate their library programs to determine where they do not

meet the minimum requirements set in Standard XIII and identify cost efficient and

effective strategies, including collaboration and staff sharing, to meet the

requirements.

xxi

•

Establish a collaborative that will plan, develop, organize, and deliver researchbased, best practice professional development tailored to school needs.

•

Consider developing a new teacher support system through collaboration with other

schools to ensure that new teachers have mentors, attend a well-planned

professional development program targeted at new teachers and get ongoing

feedback.

Chapter 4: Human Resources Management

Key Findings:

•

Schools do not use standard staffing formulas to ensure they are appropriately

staffed.

•

Recruiting, hiring and retaining highly qualified staff has been a key challenge for

school leaders.

•

High turnover is a challenge among administrators, teachers, and support staff,

causing schools a lack of clear and shared focus and costing the schools resources

in replacing and retraining new teachers.

•

There is inadequate support for mentorship programs, staff development, and

monitoring.

•

There is insufficient quality housing available at the schools to attract and retain

teachers and staff.

•

The Governing Boards do not use the same performance evaluation methods for

their school principals/CSAs, thus there is lack of consistency in leadership

expectations across all schools.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Hopi schools should use a locally developed staffing allocation formula or industry

standard guidelines to determine the appropriate number of positions necessary.

They should also look to other schools for opportunities to share staff and resources,

where feasible.

•

Hopi schools should adopt best practices to reduce the high staff turnover rates.

These practices include:

xxii

•

Monitoring and reporting annual turnover costs to the Board;

Administering consistent exit interviews to determine why staff are leaving

and develop strategies to address those reasons;

Implementing a coordinated mentorship program; and

Conducting a system wide salary study.

To address teacher recruitment, the Hopi schools should implement three

recognized best practices:

Adopt a single written recruitment policy between all schools and pool funding

to create a recruitment budget for all the schools.

Schools should also consider adopting a consistent salary scale so that

schools are not in direct competition.

Implement a robust and continuous “Grow-Your-Own” program for teachers

and hard to fill positions like special educators and behavioral health

counselors.

•

Develop a new teacher support system through collaboration with other schools to

ensure that new teachers have mentors, attend a well-planned staff development

program targeted at new teachers and get ongoing feedback.

•

Create a Teacher Housing Workgroup to assess and provide options, work toward

implementation of the Hopi Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2016

and the Tawaovi Development Plan, and consider ways to simplify and/or expedite

the village process.

•

Option 1: The Hopi Tribal Authority could work with the school to negotiate

prices with existing module home vendors and to move quickly. Rather than

years, constructing a module home could be done in a matter of weeks.

Option 2: The Hopi Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2016

and the Tawaovi Development Plan outline other options for improving

access to housing. School administrators alongside tribal leaders and the

Hopi Tribal Housing Authority may explore the following: (1) Implementing the

Tawaovi Development Plan and building lots of housing on the Hopi

Partitioned Land, about 15 miles north of Second Mesa; (2) Conducting the

housing assessment and working with Hopi Tribal Housing Authority, with a

specific focus on housing for teachers; and (3) Maintaining, but expediting the

village processes.

The schools should adopt or create one Performance Evaluation System that should

be used by All Governing Boards to evaluate their Principals/CSA’s.

xxiii

Chapter 5: Integration of Hopi Language and Culture

Key Findings:

•

Schools address and integrate Hopi language and culture into the school curricula

inconsistently; there is little evidence that parents are involved in the effort, and there

are no data to determine whether the different approaches schools use are effective.

•

Hopi language and culture is not sufficiently integrated into the educational system.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Restructure the Hopi language and culture programs implemented in the Hopi

schools by articulating Hopi language and culture standards, developing a curriculum

and assessments to be used across all Hopi schools, and making parents and

community members an integral part of the program.

•

The Hopi should consider a role for Tribal authorities to play in supporting,

developing and promoting curricula regarding Hopi values, culture, and language.

Chapter 6: Discipline & Behavioral Health Services

Key Findings:

•

The implementation of student behavior management approaches in most Hopi

schools is not school wide, is not implemented with fidelity, or sustainable and does

not result in desired outcomes.

•

Hopi elementary schools provide limited guidance and counseling services. Three of

the six elementary schools contract for counselors who come to the schools twice a

week for a small number of hours.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Implement with fidelity a school-wide student behavior management system in all

schools, incorporating into the system Hopi core values and culture.

•

Move from part-time contracted counselor positions to full-time counseling positions

on all campuses.

xxiv

Chapter 7: Family Engagement

Key Findings:

•

Family and community engagement activities are rarely strategically integrated into

the schools’ governance documents or daily operations.

•

Hopi schools provide extensive parent communications and hold many successful

family engagement activities, but most schools are challenged to find effective

strategies to connect with the parents and guardians in meaningful ways that support

academic achievement.

•

School leaders rarely conduct public relations to promote positive news, either

through traditional media or social media, and the schools’ web sites are inconsistent

and out-of-date.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Review school planning documents and integrate family and community engagement

strategically and intentionally into the school improvement process.

•

Transform the successful communications and involvement activities into an active

family engagement model that promotes, trains, and sustains parents and family

members to support student achievement.

•

Develop and implement a brief public relations plan, which include reaching out to

traditional media sources, posting information and news on social media, and

uploading documents regularly to the schools’ web sites.

Chapter 8: Educational Continuum (Pre-K - Postsecondary)

Key Findings:

•

The Department of Education and Workforce Development offers early childhood,

workforce development, and college scholarship programs, but does not have a

comprehensive plan that connects these programs and supports the entire

educational continuum.

Infant and early childhood programs are not adequately preparing Hopi

students for Kindergarten;

Enrichment opportunities for K-12 students are limited and sporadic;

xxv

•

Hopi schools are not adequately preparing students for college or a career

pathway.

Workforce development programs are not closely aligned with strategic

career paths or the economic development priorities outlined in Tribe’s

economic development plans.

Hopi college students, including HTGSP scholarship recipients, lack the

transitional and other supports needed to be successful in their college

programs and complete their course of study.

The Hopi have developed some promising partnerships with higher education

institutions, however there is no mechanism or dedicated staff to strengthen and

sustain these relationships in a systemic, strategic manner.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Develop an Education Pipeline that assesses the needs and supports the

educational continuum of youth, from birth to workforce.

•

Strengthen and align early childhood programming so young students are

ready for kindergarten.

Provide sufficient enrichment that offers opportunities for social development

(i.e. social capital) and 21st century skills.

Coordinate with HJSHS and the Office of Community and Economic

Development to support more career pathways, rigorous coursework, and

post-secondary opportunities in high school to improve students’ success in

college and career, and to align the programming with the Tribe’s economic

planning.

Continue that coordination and alignment to strengthen meaningful workforce

development programs for older youth, individuals with multiple barriers, and

young adults to build in-demand career skills that are closely aligned with the

Tribe’s strategic economic development priorities.

Strengthen the capacity of the Hopi Tribe Grants and Scholarship Program

(HTGSP) to support Hopi students during their study at community colleges

and four-year institutions.

Build the organizational capacity necessary to support greater cooperation with postsecondary education partners, including community college partnerships.

xxvi

Chapter 9: Community Support

Key Findings:

•

Strong community organizations exist, but there is a lack of a unified effort to

collaborate to strengthen resources to serve youth more effectively.

•

Underlying family and community issues that can affect attendance and school

achievement are not being adequately documented, tracked, or addressed.

•

The Hopi community aspires for great educational outcomes for their children, but

many community members interviewed and surveyed are unsure how, specifically, to

best achieve those goals.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Promote collaboration and coordination amongst schools

stakeholders to strengthen programs to serve youth effectively;

•

Collaborate with related Tribal agencies to address underlying issues.

•

Initiate a series of wide-ranging discussions among the community about what

makes up the Hopi vision of education and how to fulfill that vision. Create broad

agreement for the pillars of the new Hopi education system.

and

community

Chapter 10: Finance & Budget

Key Findings:

•

Each Hopi school procures goods and negotiates contracts individually, frequently

for the same goods, services, and contracted professional staff and from the same

providers. As a result, business officers are doing redundant work and schools are

missing opportunities for cost efficiencies and additional savings.

•

School Business Office staff at different schools largely work in isolation from one

another which prevents them from helping one another and sharing resources.

•

Information on federal funding opportunities is not uniformly understood by school

administrators, likely resulting in missed funding opportunities.

xxvii

•

The schools use rolling fund balances, creative cost descriptions, and backfilling

between line items to work around the limitations with, and restrictions on, BIE

funding.

•

Hopi schools report frequent or chronic underfunding in transportation, food, facility

maintenance and housing, and information technology.

•

Schools do not collaborate on menu planning or coordinate food purchases, resulting

in higher expenditures on food services than is necessary.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Hopi schools should consider collaborating on procurement, and when contracting

for professional contract staff and services.

•

The Tribe should focus on keeping federal revenues on the reservation.

•

School business offices should adopt uniform business practices, software, and

reporting practices.

•

School business office staff should be given time each month to meet together to

provide each other technical support and share information and skills.

•

School business office staff should consider joining a professional organization.

•

There should be a Hopi federal finance facilitator who serves all the schools.

•

All schools should create or update their strategic plans and utilize them to guide

decision making, including budgeting.

•

Consolidate the schools’ Food Services programs.

Chapter 11: Transportation

Key Findings:

•

The organizational structure and staffing for transportation at the Hopi do not always

follow transportation best practice standards.

•

The Hopi schools and school board’s transportation policies and procedures have

not been reviewed, evaluated, and updated on an annual basis.

xxviii

•

Hopi schools are conducting all routing manually, which may not be the most costeffective and efficient method of routing.

•

The Hopi schools should have a more reliable process in place to ensure the safety

and security of its transportation services.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Hire a full-time transportation director to oversee the transportation operations in all

Hopi schools.

•

Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine if leasing buses is the most economical

method of providing transportation services.

•

All school transportation policies and procedures should be reviewed, evaluated, and

updated on an annual basis.

•

Develop transportation policies that are consistent with Hopi Education Code.

•

Consider purchasing electronic routing software to enhance the efficiency and

effectiveness of transportation services in the Hopi schools.

•

Immediately ensure that all transportation supervisors are well versed in driver

training and safety procedures.

Chapter 12: Safety & Security

Key Findings:

•

Hopi schools are struggling with facilities issues, ranging from old buildings in poor

repair to lack of space. While each school has a staff member dedicated to facilities,

there is no one person to turn to for professional help outside each school and

schools are not consistently implementing a preventative maintenance program.

•

The Hopi Schools Emergency Plans are inconsistent and include multiple safety

issues that should be high priorities for change.

xxix

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Hire a part-time facilities director to ensure facilities are using industry standards

regarding cleanliness, safety, maintenance, and energy management across all

schools.

•

Organize a coordinated Hopi Incident Command System that includes all

stakeholders (schools, law enforcement, emergency responders, and all governing

bodies) and ensure all schools have a consistent and updated emergency response

procedure manual.

Chapter 13: Educational Technology

Key Findings:

•

Hopi school leadership and staff are not consistently making decisions regarding

technology use and purchasing that are not in close alignment with their school’s

technology plans.

•

Many supplementary technology and connectivity resources are available to rural

schools and to Native American schools specifically. However, not all Hopi schools

seem to base their decisions about connectivity on the same information or sources.

•

There are no separate technology budgets at the Hopi schools for planning

expenditures, such as needed supplies, periodic maintenance, and anticipated

repairs or upgrades.

•

Teacher training on education technologies and applications is the key to a

successful educational technology program, however it is often inconsistent and

sporadic.

•

It is a challenge for Hopi schools to identify culturally relevant technology

applications that incorporate appropriate Hopi knowledge and language. As a result,

technology may not be supporting or reinforcing learning goals in the best possible

ways.

Summary of Recommendations:

•

Each school should develop or update their school technology plan with goals that

reflect the highest priorities of the school, and realistic objectives based on an

assessment of the school’s current technology assets and needs.

xxx

•

Explore the potential of forming a Hopi School Technology Consortium.

•

Information technology should be separately budgeted for, with earmarks as

appropriate, in alignment with the technology plan developed by the school’s

stakeholders and according to the school’s priorities.

•

Make ongoing professional development in classroom technologies a central

component of each school’s technology plan.

•

Explore the possibilities for developing Hopi-centric educational content – such as

Hopilavayi language modules for instance – with appropriate partners, such as

technology businesses or universities that have an interest and expertise in

developing cultural and/or linguistic content.

xxxi

GOVERNANCE OF HOPI EDUCATION

Chapter Summary

Overview: The ultimate goal of Hopi schools – and of all people the review team talked with on

Hopi – is to achieve the best possible education for every Hopi child.

In whatever way one defines this – whether as attainment on measures of primary and

secondary education, preparation to hold jobs and to compete in the 21st Century economy, or

mastery of Hopi concepts of the world and how to live in it – the Hopi schools are not wholly

fulfilling this mission.

While the way that schools operate both individually and as part of a larger system clearly

affects the way that students learn, the determinants of educational outcomes are more

complex than simply the governance structure of the schools. Governance structure,

school/district relations, building management, school leadership, teacher quality, funding, and

parental engagement all help determine educational outcomes. These factors are all interrelated

in myriad ways, as well.

Educational governance nonetheless has become a central feature of the debate over

educational quality in the United States. This report begins with governance because it is both

the motivating factor for the TED grant and the commissioning of this study, and a highlydebated subject within the Hopi community. There is a broadly shared conclusion that the

current “system” isn’t working; as detailed below, this conclusion is borne out by the relevant

metrics. There is overwhelming evidence that Hopi’s locally controlled schools need more

support and assistance. However, the Tribal government lacks the financial ability or

administrative capacity to provide that support, while many stakeholders have voiced concerns

over losing their autonomy to the Tribal government. Therein lies the challenge.

Based on Tribal codes and practices nationwide, the chapter presents various governance

structures for the Hopi Tribe to consider. This chapter also discusses necessary steps to build

capacity and trust in order to move the conversation forward.

Key Findings:

The findings presented in Chapter 1: Governance of Hopi Education are summarized below:

•

The current Hopi educational system isn’t working well and the Hopi’s locally

controlled schools need more support; however, the Tribal government lacks the

financial ability or administrative capacity to provide it. For example:

Because Hopi schools are independent, peers are not learning from each

other.

Schools are not optimizing resources because they are failing to achieve

economies of scale.

Community members and school staff alike want more support from a

reservation-wide entity.

There is no synergy between schools, oversight over individual schools, or

accountability for poor academic performance or ineffective governance.

•

The current Hopi Board of Education does not have the capacity to support or

oversee all Hopi schools effectively.

•

The schools need administrative and curricular supports that they are not receiving,

and that could be provided by a schools’ superintendent.

•

If a tribal-level central authority is constituted, its responsibilities, and the roles,

powers and duties of the local schools, still can vary widely across a range of

substantive areas.

•

The schools can collaborate, pool funds, or even centralize authority in certain

administrative areas, without necessarily ceding authority over money and budget,

however, if the Tribe were to establish a district office or provide supplemental

supports to schools, it needs to consider additional resources.

•

Lack of curricular alignment between the elementary and secondary levels and the

sustained low performance at the elementary level have culminated in lack of

preparedness and low performance of students at the secondary level.

•

The Hopi Tribal government lacks administrative capacity, and/or financial ability to

provide support for schools, and therefore, it lacks the trust of some stakeholders

that it can provide oversight over a Hopi school system.

Summary of Recommendations:

The review team’s recommendations for addressing these findings are summarized below:

•

The Hopi Tribal Council Chair should support the TED Advisory Committee and hold

an inclusive community dialogue on the following options on how to move forward

with their school system:

Option 1: Maintain and strengthen the current local autonomy structure;

Option 2: Set up a consortium for sharing ideas and resources;

Option 3: Create a centralized entity that provides support for the schools;

and/or

Option 4: Create a central authority that provides oversight and consistency

to the schools.

•

If the Hopi decide to design a reservation-wide education system, they should

consider how to structure a central board to provide oversight.

•

Regardless of the organizational structure chosen, the Hopi should consider hiring a

superintendent who will oversee all schools and support all school leaders.

•

In considering a centralized entity that would provide more consistent support and/or

oversight to Hopi schools, the TED Advisory Committee should determine those

administrative, non-curricular areas to which the superintendent would provide

support and/or oversight.

•

The Hopi Tribe should determine how to fund its centralized entity and/or separate

operational areas.

•

Whether implementing a consortium, a central entity, or a unified school district, the

TED Advisory Committee should consider what aspects of curricular control would

be maintained locally, and what aspects would be developed on a reservation-wide

basis.

•

As a first step toward building a comprehensive educational system, however it is

structured in the long-term, the Hopi educational leadership should take immediate

steps to compile data, strengthen its governance capacity, act collaboratively, and

build trust as it continues the community dialogue about long-term options.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Issue: Hopi Schools Governance

Local Autonomy: With sovereign authority held by the Hopi Tribal leadership, all Hopi schools

are tribally-controlled grant schools, with their local governing boards providing financial and

administrative oversight. There are six elementary schools on the Hopi Reservation. Five

schools cover kindergarten through 6th grade (Keams Canyon Elementary School, First Mesa

Elementary School, Second Mesa Day School, Hopi Day School, Moencopi Day School), and

one school continues to 8th grade (Hotevilla-Bacavi Community School). Per PL 100-297, Hopi

Education Ordinance #36, and subsequent Hopi Tribal Council resolutions (one for each school

that transitioned from BIA control), Hopi schools (grades K-12) are now all “tribally-controlled”

grant schools.6 Each school has its own local Governing Board, which provides oversight of its

school. In monthly meetings, the local boards make all decisions, including financial, hiring and

firing of the principal and all staff, approval of PAC members, spending, conference attendance,

and trainings.

Despite formal “Tribal control” of Hopi schools and sovereign authority over education on the

reservation, however, the Tribal government has little to do with the schools. It provides no

regulatory, advisory, or direct management role. In addition, the Tribe does not provide any

extra funding or any support to the schools. The current governmental structure is not providing

the resources and support the schools need to effectively serve their students.

School staff, administrators, and Governing Board members are all working very hard, but they

are working in silos, which are neither efficient nor strategic. This report will address that issue

and a variety of academic and administrative areas, including education services, human

resources, family engagement, finance, transportation, safety and security, and technology.

School administrators are overwhelmed, unable to share what is working in their schools and

what is not; and they are not empowered to cooperate and share costs, which would free up

additional funds for instruction. Additionally, because governing boards and school

administrators are not working collaboratively, they are not fulfilling their school improvement

objectives in systemic ways.7

Without adequate support, schools are unable to address instructional and non-instructional

issues that affect students, such as chronic attendance problems, high teacher turnover,

housing instability, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy, family separation, trauma, and the

needs of special education students.8

In addition, the Hopitutuqayki on the Hopi reservation is not under the control of the Hopi Tribal Council,

and there was previously a Mission School. However, even though the Mission School is closed, it is

mentioned in the Ordinance #36.

For more details see Chapter 2: Education Leadership and Chapter 3: Educational Service

Delivery.

For more details see Chapter 3: Educational Service Delivery, Chapter 7: Family Engagement, and

Chapter 9: Community Support.

As a result, students are not doing well academically, as reflected in their performance on

AzMERIT and other tests (DIBELS, etc.). There is no uniform curriculum across elementary

schools. Poor student performance at the elementary grades leaves many unprepared

academically for junior high or high school. In the survey we conducted, only 38 percent of Hopi

Junior/Senior High School administrators and teachers reported that the high school does a

good job preparing students to succeed after graduation. Fewer than 50 percent of the Hopi

Senior High School students surveyed indicated that their school does a good job preparing

students for employment. Many parents and community members describe academic

challenges for those who attend college.9

Interviews, data review, and survey results all indicate that enrichment and in-school supports

are also insufficient. Few schools have adequate supplemental programs or enrichment

programs, including field trips, strong gifted programs, consistent and sustained language

programs, STEM, or special education resources. The alternative, vocational, or college-level

opportunities are inadequate compared with best practices. Only two schools have federallyfunded after-school programs, while a few others have more limited programs. Schools would

all like more programs, as would students and parents who have shared their preferences about

the kinds of programming they would like to see in the Public Works surveys administered for

this project (and provided as appendices to this report) and the 2016 Hopi Foundation survey.

While there is a near-consensus that Hopi language, culture, values, and traditions are all very

important, they are integrated into the Hopi schools to different degrees. There is no consistent

curriculum for Hopi language, no support or guidance from the Hopi Tribe on how to teach it,

and no funding mechanism to create or provide resources. Even the single Hopi language class

at the high school keeps changing its format. Stakeholders across the reservation expressed

concerns that students are no longer speaking enough Hopilavayi.10

Many parents enroll their children in schools other than their neighborhood schools, and often

send them to high schools outside of Hopi. Of the 526 on-reservation high school students in

2016, more than one-quarter (27 percent) attended school off-reservation.11 These data

indicate a significant level of parent dissatisfaction with the quality of their Hopi schools.

As a result of widespread dissatisfaction, many Hopi recognize a need for stronger involvement

in the schools by some kind of central authority:

For more details see Chapter 3: Educational Service Delivery and Chapter 9: Community Support.

See Chapter 5: Integration of Hopi Culture and Language.

HOYI Data Dashboard, Hopi Foundation, January 2016.

•

An overwhelming majority of community members who responded to a Community

Member Survey administered in December 2017 – January 2018 agree that the

Tribal educational entities should do more to support their schools. For example, 90

percent strongly agree or agree that “The Hopi Department of Education should do

more to support PreK-12 schools.”

•

77 percent of community members surveyed strongly agree or agree that “The Hopi

Board of Education should have a stronger role in Hopi Education.”

Community members also commented as follows:

•

“Hopi Tribe’s Education Office…role could be to develop a system that encourages

communications/partnerships/involvement of everyone so that all students

understand that high school will be challenging. Close the communications gap that

exists today.”

•

“There is a disconnect with the Hopi Tribe Education Office and the Hopi schools,

improve the communication and collaboration between these two entities.”

•

“Get a separate Education Office that will assist the local schools as well as assisting

students who wish to attend off-reservation.”

•

“The School Board needs to step up and meet its responsibilities!“12

Exactly how that support and/or oversight should be structured is more controversial. Many

community members, parents, and leaders want a comprehensive, centralized education

system to improve Hopi schools (See Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1

Parent and Community Member Comments in Support of Centralization

Community Member Survey Responses to the Question,

“What role do you think the Hopi Tribe should play in the educational system on the

reservation?”

The schools need to be restructured in order to pool resources and services for the children so that

they can obtain quality, professional educational services.

Single education system and School Boards that are there for the kids and have at least a High school

education background.

Unified schools.

Third party support.

Full responsibility!!!

The Hopi Tribe should be there to support schools and a potential unified school district to seek

Community Member Survey Responses to the Question,

“What role do you think the Hopi Tribe should play in the educational system on the

reservation?”

additional funds to support schools.

If they are Hopi controlled, then definitely the Tribe should be there supporting their children from Head

Start to high school.

The Hopi Tribal Education Department should step up and fulfill its responsibility to regulate all schools

on Hopi.

Incorporating a unified school system.

The Tribe gave the schools grant status, they should be more involved.

A Huge role since most schools are now grant schools and not BIA. The Hopi Department of Education

along with the Hopi Board of Education should have some part of overseeing the elementary schools. I

understand that the current situation with the Hopi Department of Education only services the Hopi

Head Start, Child Care, and Higher Education Programs.

Assist with helping schools, function as a school district.

Some oversight.

Holding administration accountable to ensure all staff from administration to support staff are qualified

to fulfill their role and responsibility of their position; and to continue to grow and support their

professional development. Uniting all schools to one district, at the same time, allowing for them to

maintain their unique individualized specialty areas.

Parent Survey Responses to the Question, “What role do you think the Hopi Tribe should play

in the educational system on the reservation?”

Becoming one "unified" district will eliminate the competition to be the "best" and focus on the

academic growth of all students, Pre-K to 12 grade. If we were unified, there would no gaps and

deficiencies across all grade levels.

Encourage schools to work together to align curriculum so that Hopi has a streamlined education

system that meets the needs of all Hopi children

Source: Public Works Community and Parent Surveys, December 2017 – January 2018.

On the other hand, many other stakeholders voiced concerns about the Tribal government’s

capacity to manage the schools. The Hopi Board of Education has been defunded and only

recently revived, and the current Department of Education and Workforce Development has not

satisfied the Ordinance #36 requirements to compile an Annual Report on Hopi education or

those to set goals and standards. In addition, the Tribe is facing financial challenges, including

the Navajo Generating Station closure and the resulting significant loss of tribal jobs and

programs,13 and it has not satisfied its BIA audit requirements yet. Figure 1-2 lists some of

those concerns as expressed by community members and parents.

Figure 1-2

Community Member and Parent Comments

Voicing Concerns about Tribal Control of Schools

Community Member Responses to the Question, “What role do you think the Hopi Tribe

should play in the educational system on the reservation?”

Should leave it up to the schools and not interfere.

https://www.hopi-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/12-5-17-Vol-25-No-23.pdf

Tribal Politics has no play in the education system of the Tribe but to provide support and source for

funding.

I am unsure of what this question refers to as the "Hopi Tribe." The Hopi Education Department should

be available as a resource for any needs when they arise. But not to run as a "board" because the

community members who are board members have more connection to the communities where schools

are. The finances of Hopi Schools should stay at the school and should not be run by the Tribe. I feel it

could possibly be turned over when and if the tribal finances are in order, audits complete and an

educated finance staff is on board. Finance staff need to be willing to learn new methods and be willing

to change ways that are no longer working, they also need to follow established procedures and

become more in tune to consequences their actions take on the Tribe.

The Tribe can't even take care of themselves (Tribal Council), so how do we expect them to handle the

school? Schools should be better to handle without Tribe interfering. Tribal Council ultimately makes the

final decision and I would not trust them to make decision on behalf of the schools.

Hopi Tribe has not been able to demonstrate that it can run the education system...so no role, other

than the Hopi Education System Oversight Board should provide both the Hopi public and Hopi Tribal

Council an Annual Report on the State of our Education.

Stay out of our educational system! Not have any good track record of successful governance. Leave to

local village/community parents and members to decide and administer schools. keep career politicians

out of our decision-making process!

Have an "arms-length" governance structure. As it stands, the Hopi Tribe does not have the capacity to

govern our Hopi schools. The department lacks resources to provide well rounded and fair

representation to all Hopi schools. Current staffing needs of the department are lacking and getting full

cooperation and attention from the department is not possible.

Hopi Tribe's Education Office is weak in all areas. Don't know what their role currently is.

Parent Responses to the Question, “What role do you think the Hopi Tribe should play in the

educational system on the reservation?”

Stay out of our decision-making process. Leave to local parents and community members to keep our

individual schools unique. Do not consolidate schools from one area to another! Offer only technical

assistance when asked and support requests for additional resources.

Becoming one "unified" district will eliminate the competition to be the "best" and focus on the academic

growth of all students, Pre-K to 12 grade. If we were unified, there would no gaps and deficiencies

across all grade levels.

Encourage schools to work together to align curriculum so that Hopi has a streamlined education

system that meets the needs of all Hopi children

Source: Public Works, Parent and Community Member Surveys, December 2017 – January 2018.

Clearly, the individual schools need support from outside their own building from a central entity.

But there are serious challenges in determining, agreeing on, structuring and funding any such

entity. Meeting and overcoming these challenges will require a two-step process:

1. Decision-making about a long-term system.

The first six issues addressed in this chapter lay out a framework of options, recommendations,

and considerations for community dialogue, decision-making, and implementation of a Hopi

comprehensive educational system.

•

Hopi Schools Governance;

Providing Oversight – How to Structure a Central Board;

•

Leadership – The Superintendent Position;

Central Authority Responsibilities – Plenary vs. Limited;

Funding a Central Authority; and

Curricular Control

2. Building support capacity in the short-term to enable eventual transition to

whatever system is decided on for the long-term.

The final issue this chapter addresses, Building Capacity and Trust in Tribal Educational

Leadership, describes immediate steps to take to build capacity and a data system that will

support the decision-making process and help the Hopi to achieve success in the long-term.

The Hopi people should continue to obtain community input and evaluate the potential options

about how to design a comprehensive educational system. This process is estimated to take no

longer than six-to-ten months to complete.

Sovereign Authority - As one individual responded in the Community Survey:

All the schools on Hopi are PL 100-297 (Grant) schools, and currently the local

governing boards develop and implement policy, which has led to schools operating in

silos. However, the Hopi Tribal Council is ultimately the "grantee," and is ultimately

responsible for the demise or success of each school. Therefore, the schools should be

accountable to the Hopi Tribe. – Source: Public Works Community Survey, December

2017.

In the eyes of federal and state authorities, “sovereignty” over the education system, as with all

matters on Hopi, is vested in the Tribe. How the Tribe might treat that “sovereignty” internally is

another matter, however – just as is the case with state governments.

Some Tribal Education Codes make it very clear, right up front, that as a sovereign nation, the

Tribe has “inherent sovereignty” over the education on its reservation. It is particularly notable

that the Tribes that make this declaration are the same Tribes that do not actually control or

manage the schools, instead referring to this inherent sovereignty to require student data

reporting from the schools, for example, the Navajo Nation. In reality, the Navajo are still

having difficulty collecting such confidential information.

Thus, the real governing question is how much sovereignty – or, more practically, authority –

over education do the Hopi people wish to devolve from the Tribal government to some other

governing entity, whether reservation-wide or more localized?

Finding

The current Hopi educational system isn’t working well, and the Hopi’s locally controlled

schools need more support; however, the Tribal government lacks the financial ability or

administrative capacity to provide it.

For example:

•

Because Hopi schools are independent, peers are not learning from each other.

Schools are not optimizing resources because they are failing to achieve economies

of scale.

Community members and school staff alike want more support from a reservationwide entity.

There is no synergy between schools, oversight over individual schools, or

accountability for poor academic performance or ineffective governance.

According to Section 5.1 of the Hopi Education Code (Ordinance #36), “The basis of the

organization of the Hopi Comprehensive Education System are the local school boards each

distinguished from the other in terms of attendance area, education services provided, and

source of financial support.”

Nevertheless, as evidenced by the findings presented throughout this report – including parent,

community, administrator/teacher, and student surveys included in their entirety as appendices

to this report – there is widespread recognition that the current school structure is not working

as well as the Hopi people would like. While most voice the need for some sort of change, there

remains a constituency in support of retaining total independence on local school boards to

design and direct the conduct of education in each individual school.

•

A majority of community members surveyed (59 percent) agree or strongly agree

with the idea of a unified school system: “All the Hopi schools should be part of one

system.”

•

Administrators and teachers who responded to the survey are more divided in their

preferences: Less than half (43 percent) agree or strongly agree that, “The current

structure, with the local governance board, works effectively,” while a smaller

percentage (36 percent) disagree or strongly disagree with that statement. A

significant minority (21 percent) neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

There is a general recognition among the Hopi of a need for greater coordination between the

individual schools, and greater centralization of administrative and “back office” functions. Yet

even those most invested in the Tribal government doubt the capacity of the Tribal government,

and specifically the Hopi Department of Education and Workforce Development in its current

form, to take on the task of central oversight of education. The Department lacks the staffing as

well as the expertise; it has focused historically on early childhood and workforce – the two

outer ends of the educational pipeline – and not the oversight of K-12 schools. Nevertheless,

just over one-third (36 percent) of community member survey respondents “support the current

structure of Hopi schools, where each school has its own governance board.”14

There remains a range of possible governance structures that move beyond the status quo of,

essentially independent village schools, without bringing all the schools under the complete

control of the Tribal government. We therefore move to consider some sort of central entity

other than one directly controlled by the Tribal government.

Research & Best Practices:

Possible governance structures range along a continuum from wholly-independent individual

schools at one end (as is not the case), to schools entirely and tightly controlled by the highest

political authority at the other. Many alternatives and gradations lie in between. No one answer

is the answer; in fact, the entire spectrum of such arrangements can be found in schools across

the country, and especially in tribally-controlled schools. Some Tribes have placed full control of

the schools under the central Tribal government’s control – others, like Hopi, have entirely

decentralized systems.

There are a variety of effective education management structures, ranging from partnership to

full control, with most Tribes falling somewhere in between. Each of these models will be

described in more detail in the sections that follow:

•

Partnership Model: Some Tribes, such as the Nez Perce, have only public schools

on their reservations, so their partnership is based on a comprehensive strategic

framework, which includes native culture, language instruction, education standards,

and family engagement.

•

Partner, Liaison, and Individual Tribally-Controlled Schools. Some partner

mostly with public schools but have a single tribal school or an alternative school or

immersion school, such as the Coeur d’Alene or the Confederated Salish &

Kootenai Tribes, where the Tribal council intends to undertake various “education

initiatives,” such as providing a clearinghouse for all education materials regarding

the Tribes, developing a K-12 curriculum, and supporting a teacher pipeline. To

support these initiatives, the Tribal Education Department (TED) serves as the

Source: Public Works, Community Surveys, December 2017 - January 2018.

liaison to the public school education programs, as well as managing a variety of

programs.

•

Some Tribally-Controlled Schools: Some Tribes, such as Hopi, Gila River, Oglala

Sioux on Pine Ridge have Tribally-controlled schools, but no comprehensive

educational system.

•

Collaboration: A good example is the Jemez Department of Education, which

conducted a “Vision 2010” comprehensive strategic planning approach and is

responsible for maintaining the collaborative working relationships between the Tribe

and educators.

•

Nominal Central Control: Some Tribes assert nominal central control over

individual schools, but exercise this authority mainly through oversight and reporting

requirements observed largely in the breach. For instance, the Navajo local “School

Governing Boards” have responsibility for establishing policy and overseeing the

operations of a local school, and the Tribal government, acts more like a State

Educational Agency (SEA), relies primarily on a system of data collection from the

schools and reporting to the Tribe. The Sioux Tribes work similarly: According to

their Education Code, the Standing Rock Sioux Department of Education requires

the local boards to compile required data, have educators participate in professional

development, and ensure administrators participate in on-site assessment evaluation

teams. According to their code, the Rosebud Sioux schools are responsible for

providing the Tribal education department with written educational data annually,

participating in the “human network system,” ensuring that their administrators

participate effectively in on-site assessment evaluation teams, and including the

Department in their processes for reviewing curriculum, education standards, and

educational policies and programs – but, other than the threat of a failed re-election

bid, there are no real accountability mechanisms to require the school boards to

satisfy their requirements.

•

Voluntary Consortium: The Standing Rock Sioux employ an effective Consortium

model, set up after an extensive community process and tribal Education Code

review. The Jemez operate something more resembling a school “consortium.”

While the individual school principals consider themselves “the world’s smallest

school district” and their “own local educational agency,”15 they are active and willing

players with the Tribal Department of Education. “System-wide” teacher planning

“Jemez Pueblo Charter Schools Soaring to New Heights,” Harlan McKosato, Indian Country Today:

indiancountrymedianetwork.com, May 27, 2014.

days take place once per month; there is an annual tribal retreat to look at school

plans and set goals; and there are administrator meetings every month.

•

Unified School District: Others have fully formed school districts. The Choctaw,

meanwhile, have an extremely centralized system. The Choctaw Tribal

School System consists of six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high

school. Previously, Choctaw had several school boards and dissolved all of them

and consolidated into one board in 1989. They operate as a school district with a

central office of 40 staff serving the schools. In the case of the Cherokee, the tribal

schools are overseen by the Cherokee Board of Education. Employing a hybrid

model, the Mille Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians Commissioner of Education has

managerial control over the schools.

Along with a desire for Tribal standards and consistency, most of the Tribal Education Codes

maintain clear language highlighting the autonomy of the local school boards. Each set their

own school policies, review and approve the local school financial plan, and hire and fire school

staff.

Every Tribe the review team visited grappled with similar tensions as to its school governance

structure, trying to find balance between the roles of the Tribe and of the local community

schools. The rest of this chapter will set forth the issues for decision-making: define roles,

responsibilities, and funding mechanisms (see Figure 1-3 on the following page).

Figure 1-3

Governance Options

Governance Options for Consideration by TED Advisory Committee

Strengths

Maintain and

strengthen current

structure

Create a

voluntary

consortium

Set up a

centralized

structure to

provide support

Unify schools under a

district model with a

central authority

Maintains local

autonomy;

Can be

organized and

funded locally.

Provides support

and maintains

autonomy.

Structure is most likely

to be successfully

implemented.

No guarantee

that participants

attend meetings,

information, or

reach

consensus.

No guarantee of

implementation.

Tribal-wide entity must

build capacity, trust, and

leadership, or it will take

away autonomy without

providing schools any

tangible benefits.

Need a

coordinator and

a written

agreement.

Need leadership,

funding, staff,

and an

accountability

mechanism to be

implemented

with fidelity.

Need code-change,

funding, and an

accountability

mechanism.

Minimal cost.

Weakness

Lack of accountability;

Insufficient capacity;

Strengthening efforts

may not happen.

Action

Items

Need an accountability

mechanism, so these

actions are implemented

with fidelity in a timely

manner.

Recommendation 1.1

The Hopi Tribal Council Chair should support the TED Advisory Committee and hold an

inclusive community dialogue on the following options regarding how to move forward

with their school system:

•

Option 1: Maintain and strengthen the current local autonomy structure

•

Option 2: Set up a consortium for sharing ideas and resources;

•

Option 3: Create a centralized entity that provides support for the schools;

and/or

•

Option 4: Create a central authority that provides oversight and consistency in

the schools.

Implementation

The Hopi Tribal Council Chairman should expand the TED Advisory Committee to include

representatives from the Chairman’s office, HEC, Department of Education and Workforce, HBE

and local Governing Boards, school administrators, PTO leaders, Village CSAs, and leaders of

community organizations (like HEEF, Hopi Foundation, and First Mesa Youth Center), among

other relevant education leaders.

The TED Advisory Committee should review the Visioning Statements provided by Public

Works and start discussions about this framework during the visioning sessions scheduled for

May 2018. Implementation guides for each of the proposed options are presented below:

Option 1: Maintain and strengthen the current local autonomy structure.

If the Hopi people decide to maintain and strengthen the current local autonomy structure, then

the capacity-building steps (detailed the final issue of this chapter, Building Capacity and

Trust in Tribal Educational Leadership) presented would be helpful to achieve higherperforming schools. The Hopi Department of Education could also pursue grants that may help

to implement a School Improvement model in the schools, provide training for new family

engagement strategies, strengthen strategic planning skills, or other recommendations made in

this report. Also, as noted in this chapter and in the following Leadership chapter, the Hopi

Board of Education and the local governing boards can take steps to strengthen their roles in

policymaking and oversight. In the long-term, however, if the system lacks effective compliance

or accountability mechanisms, the Hopi people may find that these actions may be insufficient to

provide enough administrative support and oversight for school administrators and local school

boards.

Option 2: Set up a consortium for sharing ideas and resources.

As an alternative, a consortium modeled after the Standing Rock Sioux consortium, represents

a more sustained and systematic way to bring together education leaders. With minimal funding

for a coordinator, it can play a critical role in bringing busy administrators to the table to

collaboratively plan and share resources. This could be set up quickly, perhaps with funding

from a one-time grant, and voluntary participation from school administrators across the

reservation. A consortium will not solve all the compliance and accountability issues, it would

allow time for Hopi leadership institutions to build capacity, bring stakeholders together, address

certain administrative or curricular issues, and help to increase buy-in for a centralized,

reservation-wide entity.

Option 3: Create a centralized entity that provides support for the schools.

As another alternative to a “central authority,” the Hopi could set up a system whereby a Triballevel entity serves only to support, but not to control, the schools. As set up in the tribal

Education Codes of the Hopi, as well as Rosebud Sioux, Navajo, Standing Rock Sioux, HoChunk, Skokomish, this model can provide financial support, trainings, research, and

coordination, but those supports are not guaranteed. The Navajo Nation is moving toward using

a State Educational Agency (SEA) model of oversight and technical assistance for its schools.

In the case of Coeur d’Alene and Gila River Indian Community, with limited code authority, their

education departments provide significantly more supports, i.e. annual in-service days for

hundreds of teachers, a coordinated early educational approach, and/or an education pipeline to

collect data and support students throughout their educational careers. See also Figure 1-4,

which provides more details on the varied educational codes.

However, in many cases, including that of Hopi, the requirements are not consistently met or

remain entirely unsatisfied. If the Hopi want to use this model, but update and strengthen it,

community leaders need to consider which tribal-level institutions are more likely to be able to

satisfy the requirements included in an updated Ordinance #36, and they need to include critical

capacity building, clear definitions of roles, and realistic compliance mechanisms. Alternatively,

the Hopi people may want to set up accountability mechanisms that are stronger or more

frequent than board elections.

Option 4: Create a central authority that provides oversight and consistency in the

schools (School District Model).

The Hopi could consider implementing the most traditional approach to unifying schools: a

school district model. For example, even though BIE still funds their schools, Choctaw,

Cherokee, and Mille Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians have set up educational systems that serve as

unified school districts, and the Gila River Indian Community is in the process of moving toward

this model.

Fiscal Impact

If the Hopi decide to maintain and strengthen the current system, then the costs would be fairly

limited, with new expenditures needed only for additional consultants or trainings described in

the subsequent chapters. Sharing strategies, which can be coordinated by the Education

Department’s Office Manager, is also already funded by the TED grant, and could be

implemented with existing funds.

Changes to the Hopi Code could be made with existing resources, using the TED grant to pay

for the consultant, as already determined.

If, on the other hand – as determined by the Hopi Tribal Council and the Hopi people, and

dependent on the proposed structure and additional responsibilities authorized by the Hopi

Board of Education – a schools’ superintendent and additional staff are required, the cost to

implement a comprehensive educational system could range dramatically from funding just one

staff coordinator to a fully-staffed school district central office. Some of these funds could be

provided by grants received from the federal government and nonprofit organizations. Funding

considerations should be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

Option 1: Maintain and Strengthen Local Governance

Finding

Because Hopi schools are independent, peers are not learning from each other.

Currently, Hopi schools are operating independently of each other. As a result, based on onsite

interviews, school administrators and staff members who share the same roles are not learning

from each other. For instance, in the November 2017 elementary principals’ focus group, the

CSAs and principals wanted an opportunity to share more about curriculum development,

especially on how they handled the phonics element, which they all agreed has not be

adequately addressed in the textbooks and they all had researched, separately, how to best

supplement phonics instruction. Similarly, business office managers, transportation directors,

technology specialists, and food services managers are not sharing strategies, pooling

resources, or obtaining the best pricing for products or supplies. As a result, school

administrators and staff alike are working less efficiently and less effectively than if they learned

from each other and/or collaborated.

Research & Best Practices: In the Gila River Indian Community, the education director

brings together K-12 educators once a year at an annual in-service training. In addition, peer

groups meet quarterly to review standards and share strategies. In Choctaw, which works as a

unified school district, each grade level of teachers also meets quarterly to review student data

and discuss how to surpass curriculum challenges.

Recommendation for Option 1:

If the Hopi people want to maintain the current local autonomy structure, then the

education leadership should take steps to strengthen it through collecting updated

information, building trust and capacity, and providing clear mechanisms for oversight

and accountability.

As previously discussed, to build information, trust, capacity, and accountability, the Hopi

education leadership should begin to take some actions immediately, regardless of whether

they ultimately keep the current structure as-is or change it entirely. This includes collecting and

updating information, establishing a dedicated TED Advisory Committee on the Tribal Council

that is not responsible for health issues as well; clarifying roles of all the leadership entities

(HEC, HBE, TED, local governing boards, etc.), building leadership capacity, including

complying with the current Ordinance’s requirements for reservation-wide goals and preparing

an annual report; and other organizational changes; as well as providing opportunities for

networking among peer groups (i.e. administrators, teachers, etc.). See Figure 1-4 below.

Figure 1-4

Option 1: Considerations if Maintaining Current Structure

Collect and update data from schools and students

Strengthen Oversight

Create a Tribal Council "Education Committee" from the current Health

and Education Committee - to provide more oversight over the

Department of Education and Wokrforce Development

Clarify the roles of the Education Committee, Hopi

Board of Education, and the Education Department

Comply with

Ordinance #36

Compile information and draft an annual

report

Set reservation-wide goals and standards

Local Governance

Consider governing board membership to require the inclusion of

educators

Provide training on

strategic leadership

Review governing board bylaws

Clarify roles of the local governing boards

Create peer groups

and set up networking

meetings

Design an

accountabiliity

mechanism, with

measurable outcomes

and consquences, so

these actions are

implemented with

fidelity in a timely

manner

Share strategies

Pool resources

Draft a Comprehensive Education Plan with objectives,

measurements, and timelines, and

Implementation

Capacity building and accountability would be needed to strengthen the current system. This

would include continued data collection, especially regarding current student achievement rates.

It would also require stronger oversight from the Hopi Tribal Council’s committee structure, from

the Hopi Board of Education, and from the Department of Education and Workforce

Development. At minimum, the Hopi Tribal Council should consider splitting its current HEC

committee into an “Education Committee” and a “Health and Welfare Committee,” whereby both

committees should still work together. This would give the “Education Committee” more time to

focus its oversight solely on education. Capacity building is discussed further in this chapter

under Building Capacity and Trust in Tribal Educational Leadership.

Furthermore, the Hopi Board of Education and the Governing Board members should receive

additional training to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Post-selection training

requirements for Board members at all levels are desirable, to ensure that members have the

appropriate knowledge of the issues on which they will be asked to make decisions. The Bureau

of Indian Education, NAGSA and the State of Arizona all provide training for Governing Board

members that has been described as helpful, but not sufficiently effective to produce long-term

changes in oversight, operations, and student achievement. Nor do they appear to have

provided sufficient guidance on performance evaluation for school leaders and others.

Additional training can help to prepare Governing Board members for these critical and complex

responsibilities, particularly in the case of the Hopi schools, where each is independent.16

Boards made up of community members will be better able to focus on and bring knowledge

and understanding to the critical business of school improvement and policy-making if there is

mandated training. Both new Board members and experienced members should receive

regular, ongoing training focused on the critical roles and responsibilities related to instruction,

evaluation, governance, finance, and applicable laws and regulations – along with leadership,

team-building and communications training.17

On the local schools’ level, even under a unified Hopi school system, individual schools would

maintain a lot of their autonomy, especially regarding their finances. That means that the local

governing boards must build their capacity to provide more effective oversight of their schools,

See Eadens, Schwanenberger & Clement, Making the Case for Arizona School Board Training.

International Research in Higher Education. 2016.

http://www.ncpeapublications.org/images/2015_Conference_Papers/Eadens_Schwanenber_school_boar

d_training.pdf

School Board Trainings: Mandatory vs. Voluntary. Forecast: Emerging Issues in Public Education (NYS

School Boards Association) http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/forecast%20pdf/forecast1003.pdf;

Making the Case for Arizona School Board Training, 2016

regardless of future governance choices. At minimum, the Boards must satisfy the following

objectives:

•

Review and revise the Governing Board bylaws to change their board member

qualifications to ensure that some board members are educators or have extensive

experience or knowledge on educational matters;

•

Be more strategic in their governance, micromanage less, and delegate more

responsibilities to their school administrators (within the realm of their strategic planning

documents as described in Chapter 2: Education Leadership);

•

Work collaboratively with Tribal agencies and other Hopi organizations to address issues

that relate to the whole child and create fully “community” schools (as described in

Chapter 9: Community Support).

Greater detail support this recommendation can be found in Chapter 2: Education

Leadership.

Regardless of whether the Hopi decide to set up a hierarchical “central authority, a consortium,

or maintain the current governmental structure, school stakeholders need to come together to

network, learn from each other, and share strategies on a regular, sustained basis. At minimum,

this applies to the following stakeholder groups:

•

Governing Boards: With representatives from each local governing board, the Hopi

Board of Education can serve this role well as a vehicle to share strategies, but they

must not be reserved only for the representatives that attend Board meetings. All

Board members must have opportunities – on a regular basis – to share strategies

and learn from each other.

•

School Administrators: As the review team witnessed in the elementary principals’

meeting on November 6, 2017, the school administrators considered the

conversations about important administrative and academic issues productive.

Public Works has set up a Principals Advisory Council to solicit their insights during

the course of study; the review team recommends that they maintain it, meeting at

least monthly – and ideally weekly – on a chosen topic of interest, and share

strategies. For most policy areas, it would be appropriate for the junior and senior

high school principals to participate as well.18

For more details, see Chapter 2: Education Leadership.

•

Teachers: In the Mississippi Band of Choctaw schools, grade-level teachers get

together, review data, and discuss strategies at the end of every quarter (at least four

times a year). This can be accomplished through teacher in-service days (i.e. “student

holidays”) or paid substitute teachers.

•

Parents: According to interviews, the Hopi Department of Education Office Manager is

already considering setting up a Hopi-wide Parents Advisory Council for PAC members

to share strategies.

The review team recommends that the Department of Education’s Office Manager, originally

hired to support the TED grant, help to set up meetings and bring together stakeholders to

share strategies. Subsequent chapters will present detailed recommendations on how other

education peer groups, such as finance or human resource directors may benefit from

collaboration.

Option 2: Consortium Model

Finding

Schools are not optimizing resources because they are failing to achieve economies of

scale.

Throughout the study, the review team heard administrators and staff members alike wondering

what their peers in other schools were doing, and agreeing that there were places they could

share resources. Subsequent chapters on Food services, Finance, and Technology describe

myriad examples where schools could set up joint purchasing agreements or memoranda of

understanding to save money.

Research & Best Practices:

The Standing Rock Sioux and the Jemez use a consortium model; it has been highly regarded

and considered very effective.

Recommendation for Option 2:

If the Hopi wanted to set up an official organizing body for the sharing of strategies and

potential pooling of resources, the schools should set up a consortium.

If the TED Advisory Committee decides to employ the consortium model, it must have full buy-in

from the school administrators and local governing boards because it requires voluntary

participation and funding from the schools. Considerations include those noted in Figure 1-5.

Figure 1-5

Option 2: Considerations for Implementing a Consortium Model

Decide structural set-up of a

consortium

Consortium

Hold regular meetings between

school administrators

Decide administrative and

curricular issues that

consortium will address

Develop organizational bylaws

Consider Hopi Board of

Education

Educational leadership to set

up oversight and accountability

mechanisms for consortium

Consider Hopi Education

Department

Implementation

If the TED Advisory Committee decides to set up a consortium, all school administrators should

meet, decide what issues they want to address, and move forward on the respective legal and

financial decisions.

Fiscal Impact

To design and manage a consortium would require a coordinator, at minimum. This could be

done with resources pooled from schools’ current budgets.

Option 3: Supportive Entity with Some Oversight

Overview: If the Hopi people choose a centralized entity that supports and/or oversees Hopi

schools reservation-wide, they need to clarify the role of the Tribe (if any), the role of the entity,

its leadership structure, and its administrative and academic responsibilities. Under this section,

we will describe a Tribally-managed, “centralized” entity that provides support, but limited

oversight. This is different from a fully unified school district or “central authority”. It is more like

a State Educational Agency (SEA) model, providing technical assistance and oversight from

afar, but not directly managing or overseeing the schools. In either case, the Hopi would need to

decide the structure of that entity, but that comes next in the decision-making process.

Finding

Community members and school staff alike want more support from a reservation-wide

entity.

Survey data suggests that community members and school staff alike want more support from

the Board of Education and from the TED. As noted earlier, the school administrators and staff

are working diligently to teach students, and local Governing Boards are meeting monthly to

oversee that process, but are not achieving the results they hoped to achieve.

According to survey results, Hopi administrators, teachers, high school students, parents, and

community members want a change that improves the education for Hopi students. They are

not sure exactly how that change should be structured.

When parents were asked if “The Hopi Board of Education provides strong leadership,” only 28

percent agreed or strongly agreed. However, when asked if the Hopi Board of Education should

have a stronger role in Hopi Education and do more to support PreK-12 schools, survey

respondents answered clearly in the affirmative. (See Figure 1-6.) These survey results are

consistent with the interviews conducted onsite, where stakeholders asked for “more support”

from the Tribal entities.

Figure 1-6

Community Member Survey on Question of Tribal Support for Schools

Percentage who

Statement

Strongly Agreed or

Agreed

The Hopi Board of Education should do more to support PreK-12 schools.

89.5%

The Hopi Board of Education should have a stronger role in Hopi Education.

76.6%

Source: Public Works Community Member Survey, December 2017 – January 2018.

When asked if the Hopi Department of Education should play specific roles, the administrators

and teachers made it clear that they too wanted Tribal assistance, albeit in some policy areas

more than others. (See Figure 1-7 on the following page.)

Figure 1-7

Administrator and Teacher Survey – Desired Functions of a Hopi Department of Education

Percentage who

The Hopi Department of Education should:

Strongly Agreed or

Agreed

Develop partnerships with nearby colleges and universities to provide

79.3%

more opportunities for Hopi students.

Assist and support Hopi students through high school and college.

77.2%

Support family engagement in each child’s education

77.2%

Provide a consistent curriculum for Hopi language.

71.4%

Provide special education support and/or services

70.2%

Coordinate community engagement in the schools through volunteer and

68.4%

other activities.

Align pre-school through high school.

68.4%

Provide professional development to administrators, teaches, and other

66.7%

instructional staff

Coordinate student transportation to schools

57.1%

Provide curriculum guidance for teachers

45.6%

Set standards and assessments for Hopi students

41.1 %

Source: Public Works, Teachers/ Administrators Survey, December 2017 – January 2018.

Research & Best Practices:

The following seven Tribes use a model dependent upon local schools’ autonomy, with a tribalentity providing some collaborative, guidance, monitoring, or reporting function.

•

Hopi: The current Hopi Ordinance #36 relies on the local school boards and upon

representatives of those local boards to form a Hopi Board of Education (HBE),

which is called upon to play an important role in assessing reservation-wide

educational needs, setting reservation-wide education goals, setting education

standards, and preparing an annual report “on the status and future development of

the Hopi Education System.” The Hopi Department of Education shall provide

administrative support to the HBE, and the Director of that department sits on the

HBE as an “ex officio” member. “This support will include the selection of an

individual, agency, or university by the Director, Hopi Department of Education, with

concurrence of the Superintendent of Education, Hopi Agency, to provide technical

assistance” (Ordinance #36, page 5).

•

Rosebud Sioux: The Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council establishes tribal curriculum,

education standards, and policies. The Tribal Council also hires and supervises the

Department of Education, who enforces the code. Because the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

do not have a centralized or unified system of schools, the Department of Education

satisfies its duties by requiring the local school boards to submit data and reports

showing that they complied. According to the Code, the Department of Education

also participates in on-site evaluations of the local schools. The Code is also clear

Administrator and teacher opinions on the role of the Department of Education in curriculum and

standards are more divided than other areas. For instance, less than half (46%) strongly agreed or

agreed the Department should, “Provide curriculum guidance for teachers,” but even fewer (32%)

disagreed or strongly disagreed; 23% neither agreed nor disagreed.

that the schools should follow the tribally-developed curriculum and standards,

parental involvement requirements, and educator certification rules.

•

Navajo Nation: The Navajo Nation has the most detailed Education Code, as

amended in 2005. Most notably, it sets up a system with a Tribal Council’s Education

Committee, a Board of Education, and a Department of Diné Education, who all have

very specific authorities and responsibilities. The code gives the Department of

Education the authority to inquire into the educational situation of Navajo students in

any school or educational program serving the Navajo Nation. Within that framework,

however, it still leaves most of the responsibilities to the local school boards.

•

Standing Rock Sioux: The Health, Education, and Welfare (“HEW”) Committee of

the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council has the authority to develop educational

standards and other activities. It supervises the Department of Education, whose

function is mainly to coordinate, conduct research, act as a technical assistant

provider to the schools, and compile an annual report.

•

Oglala Sioux. While the Oglala Sioux Code details how the Department of

Education is to be managed, and includes requirements for curriculum, language,

culture, and teacher certification, it mostly delegates those requirements to the local

school boards.

•

The Ho-Chunk Nation: In 2009, the Code established a Department of Education to

establish programs to provide financial and supportive services to Tribal members in

support of their educational goals, and to provide for effective communication and

dissemination of Tribal information. The President shall also establish a Board of

Directors to serve in an advisory capacity to the Department of Education. It shall be

involved in the Department’s strategic planning and shall consult during the annual

budgeting process.

•

Skokomish: The Skokomish Education Ordinance establishes the “Skokomish

Education Committee,” which acts in an advisory capacity to the Tribal Council. The

Ordinance gives the committee authority to examine education issues, gather facts,

and establish the necessary comprehensive planning process. The Ordinance lists

the Committee’s duties, to include drafting tribal education goals, developing

materials, meeting with school boards to discuss those goals, monitoring the

problems and progress, working with non-education tribal programs (i.e. law

enforcement, tribal court, and social services), and working in cooperation with the

Cultural Committee to identify and gather materials on tribal history, language,

culture, and values.

See Figure 1-8, which summarizes the different Tribes’ models, as described by their written

Education Codes, although not necessarily implemented with fidelity.

Figure 1-8

Chart of Supportive Roles played by Tribes, According to Tribal Education Codes

Hopi

Rosebud

Sioux

Navajo

Standing

Rock

Sioux

Oglala

Sioux

Tribe sets goals, education

standards, and/or curriculum

Tribe requires an annual

report on the schools

Local Boards must submit

data and reports to the Tribe

HoChunk

Skokomish

TED coordinates, conduct

research, and/or act as a

technical assistant provider to

the schools

TED develops materials

TED works in cooperation

with other Tribal agencies

Requires onsite evaluations

of schools

Tribe can inquire into

students’ educational

situation

Provide financial and

supportive services to Tribal

members in support of their

educational goals

Provide for effective

communication and

dissemination of Tribal

information

Work in cooperation with the

Cultural Committee to identify

and gather materials on tribal

history, language, culture,

and values

Meet with School Boards to

discuss education goals,

monitoring the schools’

problems and progress

Source: Tribal Codes and Public Works Tribal Education Code Report, December 2017.

Recommendation for Option 3:

If the Hopi want to set up a centralized entity that provided some support and limited

oversight of the schools, the Tribe should consider strengthening the current entity or

creating a new one.

If employing the model used by six other Tribes, described above, the Hopi leadership would

need to consider how to strengthen the capacity of the current Hopi Department of Education

and Workforce Development. This could include Tribal Education Code changes, increased

funding for additional managers and technical assistance support staff, training, and oversight

mechanisms as provided by the Hopi Board of Education and/or the HEC.

Implementation

If the TED Advisory Committee were to select this hybrid approach, it would need also to make

decisions about structure and substance:

1. Structure: Should the current Education Department be authorized and have its

capacity strengthened to do so, or whether a new office (perhaps under the Hopi

Board of Education) should be created for the sole purpose of fulfilling these

objectives? Does either structure require the employment of a “schools’

superintendent," at minimum, or department managers and a full staff? How does

the Tribe fund those programs?

2. Substance: What administrative and policy areas would be supported and/or

supervised by this new entity? Does this include only assistance in School

Improvement, as described in Chapter 3: Educational Service Delivery? Does it

provide assistance with human resources recruitment, as noted in the Chapter 4:

Human Resources Management? Does it help to support family and community

engagement, as noted in those chapters? Does it help schools to share resources

and save money, as described in Chapters 10-13 (Finance & Budget,

Transportation, Safety & Security, and Educational Technology)?

After making those decisions, the TED Advisory Committee would need to consider legal

issues, such as making changes to the Hopi Education Code.

There are two important factors to consider: (1) Whether they have a Tribal Council Advisory

Committee, a Tribal Department of Education, or a Tribal-level Board of Education, none of the

entities actually manages or controls the schools. Power remains in the hands of the local

school boards. (2) Despite the Education Code language, this model provides limited

accountability mechanisms requiring compliance from the Tribal-level institutions or from the

local School Boards and principals.

Figure 1-9

Option 3: Considerations for a Centralized Entity

Education Code changes

Consider strengthening

the Hopi Education

Department

Funding for program

managers and technical

assistance

Hybrid Approach

Leadership training

Oversight mechanisms

Same factors as above

Consider creating a new

office

Also hire a

"Superintendent" and

staff

Consider ways to use this

model to provide School

Improvement assistance

Fiscal Impact

The cost estimates are dependent upon the scope of the centralized entity envisioned.

Option 4: Central Authority/Unified School District

Finding

There is no synergy between schools, oversight over individual schools, or

accountability for poor academic performance or ineffective governance.

In the review team’s onsite interviews and survey results, many Hopi leaders and stakeholders

expressed a strong interest in bringing together the Hopi schools into a more traditional school

district model, with the hopes of achieving the most synergy, accountability, and effectiveness

for the future of Hopi education. According to some stakeholders, this model would allow the

Hopi people to fuse their long-held cultural traditions and language with the needs for their

students to learn 21st Century skills. With the employment of an experienced schools’

superintendent, Hopi schools could come together as a unified school system.

If the Hopi decide to set up a district-wide authority, there are a variety of models describing

how that authority might best be constituted.

Best Practices & Research:

Four Tribes have employed a more rigorous oversight model to their local schools.

For instance, the Navajo Nation has created a complex, and direct governance structure, as

illustrated in Figure 1-10 on the following page. The Department of Diné Education is the

administrative agency within the Navajo Nation with authority to implement the educational laws;

it is under the immediate direction of the Navajo Nation Superintendent of Schools, subject to

the overall direction of the Navajo Nation Board of Education. The Navajo Nation Council’s

Education Committee, however, has oversight authority over the Board of Education (also

known as the “Navajo School Board”), and, in turn, the Department of Diné Education, and thus

over the implementation of education legislation. In some cases, the Navajo model is

considered more of a State Education Agency (SEA) model, and less of a school district model.

Although the Code gives the Department the authority to inquire into the educational situation of

Navajo students in any school or educational program serving the Navajo Nation, the code

mandates that the Department “shall seek to work cooperatively with schools serving the Navajo

Nation,” and still leaves most responsibilities to the local School Boards.

Figure 1-10

Navajo Nation Education Central Governance Structure

Navajo Nation Council's Education Committee

Can implement education legislation, approve opening, closure, or

consolidation of schools, and education initiatives or programs

Navajo Board of Education

Monitor schools, write quarterly and annual reports, propose

budgets and plans of operation

Superintendent of Schools

Department of Diné Education

Local School Governing Boards

Alternatively, the Hopi could follow the more traditional models of school district governance:

•

Mississippi Band of Choctaw: The Mississippi Band of Choctaw have unified

districts of schools, under the Tribe, but do not rely on their tribal codes for its

authority.

•

Eastern Band of Cherokee: The Eastern Band of Cherokee similarly runs a unified

system of the Cherokee Central Schools (CCS). It sets up a Board of Education that

oversees a Superintendent of Schools.

•

Mille Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians: The Mille Lac Band amended its Education

Code, to establish an elected consolidated school board, which has the power to

establish educational policy and exercise general supervision over all Band “0-12

School Programs.” The code gives day-to-day supervisory authority to the

Commissioner of Education. The “Band Assembly” retains all appropriation authority

over all education-related funds.

Even though the Choctaw and Cherokee systems operate as unified school districts, they differ

in their governance structures. The Choctaw manage their district-wide school superintendent

via the Tribal Council and its Education Department. This provides Tribal support to the schools,

but can also add layers of bureaucracy (especially during the hiring process), as illustrated in

Figure 1-11 on the following page.

Figure 1-11

Choctaw Education Central Governance Structure

Choctaw Tribal Council

Director of

Programs

Division of Education

Other programs, i.e.

Social Services, Courts

Director of Schools

Oversees the Choctaw schools

In the Cherokee model, an independently-elected school board hires and oversees the school

superintendent, who in turn oversees the high school, middle school, and elementary schools –

eliminating a layer of bureaucracy although imposing on the elected school board members a

greater need for experience in education policy and capacity to oversee a school

superintendent.

Using somewhat of a hybrid model, the Mille Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians combine the elected

school board of the Cherokee with the tribal control of the Choctaw. As in the Cherokee model,

the Mille Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians Commissioner of Education has day-to-day supervisory

authority and general supervision over schools’ 0-12 programs and personnel; she directly

supervises the principals of the Nay Ah Shing schools (elementary, high school, and the satellite

Pine Grove Center). As distinguished from the Cherokee model, and more like the Choctaw

model, the elected School Board is an independent subdivision of the Executive Branch of the

Tribal government, and the Band Assembly retains all appropriation authority over all educationrelated funds.

Recommendation for Option 4:

In consideration of a centralized entity that would provide more consistent support to

Hopi schools, the Hopi people will need to decide:

•

What reservation-wide entity should play that role;

Would that entity hire and oversee a unified “school district” superintendent;

Over which administrative and curricular areas that superintendent would

provide support and/or oversight; and

How the Tribe would fund such a centralized entity.

The TED Advisory Committee should first decide which model it wants to employ, and then

determine how to make that model work. If the Hopi people only want a uniform Hopilavayi

curriculum, they do not need to set up a traditional school district model. On the other extreme,

if the Hopi people want a schools’ superintendent who will truly oversee and provide support to

the school administrators and/or school boards, then a consortium is insufficient, as it relies on

voluntary participation.

See Figure 1-12 on the following page for the final considerations, especially if the Hopi want to

set up a more traditional “school district” model.

Figure 1-12

Option 4: Considerations for a School District Model

HBE

What reservation-wide entity

should play that role

Education Department

Unified School District

Would that entity hire and

oversee a unified “school district”

superintendent

Administrative Areas

Would the Hopi develop a unified

academic curriculum?

Over which administrative and

curricular areas that

superintendent would provide

support

Would the Hopi set up unified

Hopi language and cultural

materials, standards, and

strategies?

Whether such an entity would

also oversee the schools as a

central authority, or just provide

support

Can the tribe contribute funding?

How the Tribe would fund such a

centralized entity

Can the Tribe find a sufficient

source of sustainable grant

funding?

Will the schools contribute

funding if they save enough from

consolidated activities?

Implementation

1. Setting up a school system under the Hopi Board of Education

Based on onsite interviews, the Hopi seem most inclined to follow the model of the

Cherokee, with a “School District Model” under an elected school board, not under

direct Tribal Council control. In the Hopi context, this would consist of a quasiindependent entity – what is known in Hopi as a “regulated entity” – like the current

Hopi Board of Education (the current HBE exercises little real authority over the

schools, and certainly does not govern a school “system”). As a supporter of strong

Tribal authority stated, the goal of this effort is not central dictation of educational

content but rather, “parity of management and operations from Keams Canyon to

Moencopi.”

2. Hiring a Schools’ Superintendent.

There was consensus among stakeholders that the Hopi wanted a superintendent

who was knowledgeable and could infuse promising practices, energy, and

leadership into the Hopi schools, providing support, consistency, and oversight.

3. Choosing which issues to address.

As the local Governing Boards would still provide financial and other oversight to

local schools, the school district would not necessarily manage every aspect of

schools. Instead, the TED Advisory Committee should discuss and decide which

administrative and curricular functions to put under the new system. See the

recommendations in the rest of the report for suggestions.

4. Funding the new school system. This issue is one that the Tribe must consider

most seriously, and also recognize that it may change over time.

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact is dependent on decisions made above.

Issue: Providing Oversight – How to Structure a Central Board

If the TED Advisory Committee recommends that the Hopi educational system should be

designed using one of the first three options of strengthening current governance, setting up a

consortium, or providing more centralized support, then the Hopi Department of Education and

Workforce Development could be an appropriate venue for oversight. The review team presents

data collection and capacity building recommendations associated with the implementation of

these options throughout this report. The Hopi could also work with the other TED consultant to

make any necessary Tribal Education Code changes to provide sufficient accountability

mechanisms.

If the Committee decides to set up a unified school district, the Hopi Board of Education would

be the appropriate entity to provide oversight. Potential considerations about the Board’s

membership structure are laid out here.

Finding

The current Hopi Board of Education does not have the capacity to support or oversee all

Hopi schools effectively.

When discussing any kind of centralized entity, all stakeholders interviewed, including high-level

Hopi education officials, preferred using the “regulated entity” model of governance, where such

a school board would hire and oversee the schools’ superintendent. That leaves the Hopi Board

of Education as the assumed “regulated entity” that could be held responsible for a unified

school district.

Even though the Hopi Board of Education (HBE) has representatives from the local Governing

Boards and is essentially independent of the Tribal Council, transforming the HBE into an

institution that oversees a superintendent who manages seven schools and complies with all

federal, state, and Tribal laws would face many impediments.

The HBE, only revived since 2016, has not yet fully realized its current authority, let alone

assume greater responsibility. This also raises the question of the HBE’s – or any other such

“regulated entity’s” – composition and selection. It would require significant capacity-building,

identification and dedication of new funding resources, and creation of new staffing support.

Indirectly Elected: The Hopi Board of Education is currently an indirectly elected board. Its

members are chosen by the School Boards of the various schools. This selection method

reflects a general Hopi preference for village-based, rather than Tribal-wide, governance. The

Tribal government itself is largely constituted this way, with only the Tribal Chair and Vice Chair

elected from the population as a whole, while the rest of the Tribal Council members represents

their respective villages. Such a board structure could also allow for Tribal Council appointees,

thereby including both a village-by-village perspective and a Tribal-wide perspective.

The deficiencies of this structure are that (1) some villages choose to not send representatives

to Tribal-wide organizations, including the Tribal Council and HBE, thereby effectively

disfranchising not just those who do not want to participate in Tribal-wide decision-making but

also those who do; (2) it is, obviously, less democratic; and (3) it potentially reflects local board

politics rather than community priorities and concerns.

The alternative would be direct election of the HBE by Hopi voters – whether at-large, by

“district” (school or village), or, as with the Tribal Council, a combination thereof. For the

foregoing reasons, some arrangement of this sort would represent a better governance solution,

but Hopi politics and tradition probably militate in favor of continuing the current indirect-election

nature of the Hopi Board of Education. Similarly, while a Tribal-wide perspective might be

appropriate for an authority explicitly constituted to serve Tribal-wide, rather than village/schoolspecific, interests, Hopi politics and tradition probably militate in favor of continuing the current

village/school-based nature of the Hopi Board of Education.

Membership: There are few requirements for membership on any Hopi school board or the

HBE, other than enrollment as a Hopi Tribal member, and, in some cases, an exclusion of

individuals employed by the Hopi Department of Education and Workforce Development. In

onsite interviews, stakeholders have suggested that education officials ought to possess some

qualification indicating knowledge of and interest in education systems, including potentially

minimum educational requirements.

Need for More Policymaking: Governing board members of the Hopi schools, like school

board members in districts throughout the United States, play a vital role in the local education

system. Of prime importance should be policymaking and the core business of improving

teaching and learning. Yet, most Board members are not educators, and are not knowledgeable

of best practices or how to help the school to comply with and implement sound educational

policies. Critics on the Hopi Reservation assert that Governing Boards are both ineffective and

inefficient. In particular, they claim that Board members tend to lose sight of their role as

policymakers and end up micromanaging – delving into hiring and administrative areas best left

to the chief school administrator. Almost none of the Governing Board members interviewed

mentioned teaching and learning among their primary concerns as Board members: The areas

of responsibility and time commitments most commonly described by Board members relate to

hiring of the school leader and staff and particular aspects of school operations – including

facilities, transportation, finance, and teacher housing.

Research & Best Practices:

Using these Tribes as examples, there are a variety of ways to structure the oversight

mechanism of a school system:

•

Tribal Control: Under the Eastern Band of Choctaw Tribe, the managerial structure

flows directly from the Tribe, from the Tribal Council to the Education Department to

the Superintendent and his staff, who manage the schools.

•

Elected Board Control: Using a different structure, the School Board of the Eastern

Band of Cherokee in North Carolina – which more closely resembles the likely

Hopi model – consists of seven members elected from each of the Cherokee

communities, as well as one member appointed from the Tribal Council. As

distinguished from other Tribal educational structures, the Cherokee have chosen to

have a centralized Tribal school authority whose Board is independent from the

Tribe. Similarly, in the Mille Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians code, its elected

consolidated School Board has the power to establish educational policy and

exercise general supervision over all Band “0-12 School Programs.” The Code gives

day-to-day supervisory authority to the Commissioner of Education.

•

Hybrid Model: Consolidated School Board with Elected and Appointed

Members. The Navajo Board of Education again presents a more complex mode,

consisting of 11 members in a mixed format: five are elected for four-year terms and

six are appointed to six-year terms by the President of the Navajo Nation and

confirmed by the Education Committee of the Navajo Nation Council. Furthermore,

the Navajo Board of Education, for instance, as noted above, contains both elected

and appointed members. The appointees need to meet certain qualifications: one

school administrator, one teacher, two parents, and two members who are

recognized for their knowledge of traditional Navajo culture; the five elected Board

members, however, must have four-year college degrees, at minimum. None can

have been convicted of a felony or of any crime involving child abuse or neglect.

•

School Board with Appointed Members: Santa Clara Pueblo, which operates a

single school – Kha’p’o – serving approximately 100 students in grades preK-6, has

a unique structure utilizing an independent school authority that is wholly appointed.

Kha’p’o is a Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) school that made the transition to tribal

control in July 2016. It reports to a school board appointed by the tribal council. The

school board, not the Tribe, is the grantee named with the BIE as the fiscal agent.

The principal reports to the school board, and the principal hires school staff. The

tribal council remains a “very important voice in the community that is weighing in all

the time on how the school develops.”20 This leadership structure is the one that the

Santa Clara community has decided offers them the appropriate balance between

tribal freedom to manage educational decision-making and tribal support from the

BIE.

Site interviews, September 26, 2017.

Recommendation 1.2

If the Hopi decide to design a reservation-wide education system, they should consider

oversight, capacity building, and training functions to provide long-term accountability.

Assuming that the Hopi were to employ the traditional model, then the Hopi Board of Education

would be the regulated entity responsible for oversight over a unified school district. Under that

assumption, the HBE can still look and feel different than the one of today. For example, to

satisfy its more official objectives, we recommend considerations of (1) structure and process

for determining the Hopi Board of Education membership, (2) qualifications, and (3) ongoing

training.

Implementation

HBE School Board Membership: To build its capacity over the long-term, the Hopi people

should consider changing the Hopi Board of Education membership requirements.

•

Under models of both direct Tribal control and independent education entities,

composition of the school governing authority can consist of either directly or

indirectly elected members – or both.

•

The possibility of a mixed board – comprised of village/school representatives,

Tribal-wide elected representatives, and at least one representative of the Tribal

government – should be considered.

•

The Committee should review the hybrid models used by other Tribes and

supplement their current membership through some combination of appointment or

membership qualifications.

Training and Proving Oversight: Hopi school governing board members should be required to

participate in wide-ranging and ongoing training focused on understanding and fulfilling their job

responsibilities around school improvement and hiring and evaluation of school leaders, as well

as operations and applicable federal, state and Hopi laws, rules, and regulations. They should

be able to provide oversight for operations and long-term strategic planning and policy-making.

For more details on how to structure and provide appropriate training, please refer to the

discussion and recommendations later in this chapter under Curricular Control, and in

Chapter 2: Education Leadership.

Fiscal Impact

Changes in board membership requirements can be implemented with existing resources.

Board training can also be conducted within existing budget frameworks.

Issue: Leadership – The Superintendent Position

While the Junior/Senior High School Superintendent provides both supervision and support to

the Junior and Senior High School Principals, the elementary principals have no one to turn to

for either supervision or support. While four of the elementary school leaders have extensive

experience, others are new and without experience or expertise. Principals from Moencopi Day

School, Second Mesa Day School, and Hopi Junior/Senior High School all started in those roles

in summer or fall 2017, as well as the HJSHS Superintendent, who became a school

administrator on Hopi in July 2017.

As demonstrated in the following chapters, conversations with school administrators and other

stakeholders since June 2017 suggest that the schools need administrative and curricular

supports that they are not receiving.

Finding

The schools need administrative and curricular supports that they are not receiving, and

that could be provided by a schools’ superintendent.

Research & Best Practices:

Recent research has highlighted the importance of the role of the superintendent and surveys

demonstrate how and why an effective superintendent could support the Hopi school leaders.

Surveys of district members of the Council of Great City Schools indicated that the top five tasks

that principal supervisors reported performing were visiting schools, convening principals to

discuss instructional issues, evaluating principals, coaching principals, and conducting

professional development with principals.

The support in which these principal supervisors reported being involved included conversing

with principals about student performance data, visiting classrooms with principals, conversing

with principals about their performance, conversing with principals about teacher performance,

and assisting principals in responding to issues raised by parents or the community.21 Every one

of these tasks and each method of support provided by these principal supervisors – most of

whom are superintendents – would provide the Hopi community with an opportunity to improve

their schools and the education their children experience.

This model exists among the Eastern Band of Cherokee, whose School Board has hired a

superintendent responsible for supporting and evaluating the three principals. The

Rethinking Leadership: The Changing Role of Principal Supervisors. Wallace Foundation, 2013.

superintendent has a staff of 75, all of whom provide support to the schools. Under the

superintendent’s guidance and with significant community involvement, the three schools share

a strategic plan and all integrate Cherokee culture, history, and other priority areas into their

teaching and learning. Similarly, in the Mississippi Band of Choctaw, the schools’

superintendent manages the school district, provides support and oversight to all schools and

their staff.

Recommendation 1.3

Regardless of the organizational structure chosen, the Hopi should consider hiring a

superintendent who will oversee all schools and support all school leaders.

An experienced and expert instructional leader can provide meaningful support to school

leaders without a need for the schools to be engaged in identical teaching practice or

implementing the same curriculum. The purpose of engaging the services of a superintendent

would be to provide individual, school-based, job-embedded support to help the principals

improve the teaching and learning within their schools, and also to provide group support and

an opportunity for the principals to learn together – thus also serving the need for professional

development and professional learning.

The fact that the Hopi schools currently have different visions, priorities, frameworks, and

curricula does not preclude the use of a single superintendent. In fact, many districts have

schools that follow different curricula, different focus areas, and different approaches to teaching

and learning.

Under either the consortium or the regulated entity/school district framework, a staff coordinator

or superintendent needs to be hired to provide the required support. This person’s qualifications

would include experience as a recent educator and administrator, knowledge of best practices,

school improvement, and the ability to work collaboratively with others. The superintendent will

need to be a strong leader who can inspire, bring people together, and obtain grants. Likely,

such a superintendent will need administrators and a staff.

Implementation

In designing a reservation-wide schools’ superintendent role, the Hopi must consider whether

that role is providing support, has authority for ensuring compliance, or both.

1. A Centralized District, Under Superintendent’s Supervision

Whatever entity is designated, either the TED or the HBE, the Tribe should consider hiring a

superintendent to supervise and provide much needed support to all school leaders and the

communities they serve.

•

If the Hopi decide that they want a management structure for the schools overseen

and supported by a superintendent, they would need to provide the authority to hire

a superintendent to the Hopi Board of Education.

•

If a schools’ superintendent is to be hired, the Tribe and/or the Board of Education

would need to re-define the role of the schools’ Governing Boards and allocate

responsibility for overseeing the schools between the Governing Boards and the

superintendent.

•

It is possible that the engagement of a superintendent would also include the

engagement of additional staff members as well, all of whose salary, benefits, and

perhaps housing must be provided. The process of working with the Governing

Boards to redefine their responsibilities should also be supported by experts.

•

If the Tribe prefers a superintendent to oversee all the schools, it may first want to

consider whether the role of junior/senior high school superintendent should be

expanded for this position. Accordingly, the Tribe (or the Board of Education) must

consider whether it wants to institute a formal superintendent position to support the

elementary (K-6) schools in addition to the current superintendent of the junior and

senior high schools (the HJSHS), or whether it would create a superintendent

position over both the elementary and junior/senior high levels.

2. A “De Facto” Superintendent

Given the difficulties of constructing a central school authority on Hopi that is sufficiently

independent of the existing Tribal government, while also possessing sufficient internal capacity

effectively to oversee the complexities of K-12 education, the Hopi community may wonder if

there is some alternative that could combine central expertise with a more light-handed role in

governing the independent individual schools.

Alternatively, the Hopi schools can rely more on the current role of the Hopi Junior/ Senior High

School Superintendent. In fact, Hopi already has a de facto system of centralized school

governance for grades 7-12. There is only one junior high and one high school. These schools

operate under the same basic model of the village elementary schools – with their own Boards

elected independently of the Tribal government, choosing their own educational leaders, and

carrying out their own internal operations.

Yet their very existence also exerts an indirect influence on the elementary schools, creating a

potential model of central – but light-handed – authority. These schools’ Boards,

administrations, teachers, parents and student bodies all know that, eventually, virtually all their

students will be attending Hopi Junior High School, where they all will be expected to meet a

Hopi-wide standard of achievement and study a Hopi-wide curriculum. Individual schools can

(and to some extent do) ignore this reality – but doing so puts their students at an eventual

disadvantage. There is thus some incentive for cross-school, cross-village cooperation in

curriculum and standards – the most fraught areas of educational policy – as well as in

management.

Either way, such an informal district-wide superintendency would require additional staffing to

address the additional requirements of coordinating the six elementary schools.

3. Providing Centralized Support or a Central Authority

In addition to providing support, the Hopi need to discuss what role the regulating entity

(HBE/superintendent of schools) will play in oversight, compliance, and ensuring accountability

for data collection, student performance, and School Improvement. That may be an evolving

conversation as the HBE/superintendent sets up data systems to track students and

performance, builds administrative capacity (ideally through collaboration), provide more funding

(it’s easier to ask for more if you’re funding it, they can’t just say, “I’m sorry, we don’t have the

resources or the time.”), and build trust and relationships.

Applying a State Education Agency model, the Navajo Nation is using data as a means to

ensure compliance and accountability of the schools. Others, like the Rosebud Sioux, draft an

annual report which reports on student performance data from each school.

The questions to consider include:

•

Can the Superintendent hire or fire school principals?

What mechanisms can the Hopi put into their legal Code to ensure enforcement and

school improvement?

What oversight are the school stakeholders willing to allow from a tribal-level entity?

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact will depend on whether the Hopi hire one reservation-wide schools’

superintendent, or a full staff to support the Department of Education.

Issue: Central Authority Responsibilities – Plenary vs. Limited

Overview: Hopi education already possesses some of the traits that improve school

governance but are politically controversial. By definition, Hopi has building-based

management. Budgets are set entirely at the school level, not by a remote central office; Section

7 of the Hopi Education Code (Ordinance #36) authorizes local boards to determine policy and

work, review and approve the local school financial plan, and appoint and discharge local school

staff. No resources are being expended on a central bureaucracy.

Hopi’s challenge is how to construct a school “system” where none currently exists, and to

leverage resources beyond the individual school buildings to provide the needed education

infrastructure.

Finding

If a Tribal-level central authority is constituted, its responsibilities, and the roles, powers

and duties of the local schools, still can vary widely across a range of substantive areas

There is already widespread recognition in Hopi of the advantages that accrue from crossschool cooperation in a host of areas such as purchasing; personnel recruitment and retention;

transportation; facilities and maintenance; housing; professional development; and technology.

Such cooperation will result in economies of scale that could free up dollars to be spent on

improved classroom instruction.

If a Tribal-level schools’ authority is constituted, whether it is under direct Tribal control or a

“regulated entity,” whether its Governing Board is directly or indirectly elected (or appointed),

whether its authority is exercised primarily by the board or by a strong superintendent, its

substantive responsibilities, and the roles, powers and duties of the local schools, still can vary

widely across yet another spectrum of possibilities.

The following discussion addresses whether a central authority (if Hopi establishes one) should

be plenary – with central authority over all aspects of school administration – or could be limited

to certain functions and what are the advantages and disadvantages of a central authority in

various specific areas.

The proper degree of centralization in school administration is a subject of widespread debate.

There is substantial evidence worldwide that jurisdictions with uniform curricular standards and

student expectations perform better than those without, arguing for the centralization of authority

over such substantive issues at the highest level, and most encompassing jurisdiction, possible.

In general, when student and school performance improves, more responsibility for

implementing these standards and meeting these expectations is devolved – to school building

administrators, classroom teachers, and, ultimately, families and students themselves.

Moreover, the growth of central bureaucracy has been shown to be both a costly and

counterproductive factor in school administration. In addition to standard-setting, functions that

achieve efficiency gains from economies of scale should be administered centrally – those that

do not, should not be.

Research & Best Practices:

Despite a desire for Tribal standards and consistency, most of the Tribal Education Codes also

maintain clear language highlighting the autonomy of the local School Boards, especially to set

school policies, review and approve the local school financial plan, and hire and terminate

school staff. Other Tribes exhibit a range of locally-delegated responsibilities.

•

The Navajo Nation delegates to school boards the responsibility to develop written

policies regarding school governance, personnel, parental involvement, staff

conduct, student conduct, teacher evaluation, residential policies, fiscal and budget

management policies, graduation requirements, and academic policies. The

Department of Diné Education maintains more of a supporting role, working in

collaboration with the schools to establish standards, monitor and report, and collect

achievement data and test results.

•

Oglala Sioux local School Boards are required to draft a written School Philosophy

document, line of authority, code of ethics, personnel policies handbook, fiscal and

accounting process, community involvement policies, Parent Advisory Council

procedures, and employment contracts. Local School Boards must develop a

Comprehensive Educational Plan, a Disaster Plan, and a School Board Policy

Manual.

•

Rosebud Sioux require local School Boards to “ensure that their schools and staff

cooperate with the Tribal Education Department,” but similarly to the Navajo, leave

autonomy to set policy for their schools for the most part to the local School Boards –

including curriculum, education standards, and educational policies and programs;

and attaining tribal education standards. These standards, however – as well as a

Tribal curriculum and Tribal educational programs – are set at the Tribal level.

•

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council establishes School Boards and their

schools, which must cooperate with the Department of Education, including

compiling required data, having educators participate in professional development,

and ensuring administrators participate in on-site assessment evaluation teams.

They must also ensure that the schools attain Tribal education standards.

The Navajo code, for instance, leaves “adequate bus transportation systems” to the local school

boards, but it also notes that, “The Navajo Nation, through the Education Committee and the

Transportation and Community Development Committee, shall work in a joint and cooperative

effort with the states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to adopt adequate bus routes, to avoid

excessively long bus travel and to develop a comprehensive school transportation plan.”

At the other end of the spectrum, the Choctaw have delegated several tasks that many Tribes

and districts centralize – such as spending decisions up to at least a certain dollar amount,

authorizing travel, training, and curriculum, and day-to-day operations – but all hiring and firing

decisions (including contractors) are centralized not in a Tribal school authority, or even at the

Tribal Council level, but in the Tribal Chief. Principals can make a recommendation, but the

Chief makes the decision. The majority of their teachers are board certified and the Tribe pays

for this. Positions cannot even be announced publicly until the Tribal chief reviews and give the

go light. It’s a tight screening process to ensure schools get the best staff. The Choctaw feel that

this allows them to impose very strict internal controls on personnel decisions to maintain the

integrity of the process and for uniting the schools, their students, and the population generally

as one people. They in fact recommended to us that all Tribes centralize their human resource

functions.

The Standing Rock Sioux strike a more nuanced position. With the support of a Sovereignty in

Indian Education grant, the Tribe hired consultants to perform an analysis of school governance,

academics, and finance and human resources at both the BIE-funded schools and the Tribe to

determine whether the Tribe had the capacity to manage the tribal schools and whether any of

those functions should be consolidated under the TED. The consultant recommended that the

Tribe manage human resources for all the tribal-controlled schools, that Tribal schools should

continue to manage their own finances, and that the school superintendents should meet and

compare academic policies and procedures to determine which should be in all schools. The

consultants determined that the schools reall

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

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.