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

October 9, 2007 – March 12, 2024 RL34205

Indian Elementary-Secondary Education:
Programs, Background, and Issues
Updated March 12, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL34205

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

Summary
The federal government provides elementary and secondary education and educational assistance
to Indian children, either directly through federally funded schools or indirectly through
educational assistance to public schools that predominantly receive state and local funding. Direct
education is provided by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI), through elementary and secondary schools funded by the BIE. Federal educational
assistance to public schools is provided chiefly through programs of the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). Federal Indian education programs are distinguished by their targeting of
members (or descendants of members) of Indian tribes, which is distinct from targeting
individuals who identify by race/ethnicity as American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). Most of
this Indian education population attends public schools. Most federal data are based on
race/ethnicity, however, which complicates analysis of results for the population served by federal
Indian education programs.
The Bureau of Indian Education-funded education system for Indian students includes 169
schools and 14 “peripheral dormitories” for students attending public schools nearby. Schools and
dorms may be operated by the BIE itself or by tribes and tribal organizations. A number of BIE
programs provide funding and services, supplemented primarily by set-asides for BIE schools
from ED programs. Federal funding for Indian students in public schools flows to school districts
chiefly through ED programs, with a small addition from a single BIE program. Most of the ED
funds are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).
For decades, two perennial Indian elementary and secondary education issues—the poor
condition of BIE facilities and poor academic outcomes from Indian children—have confronted
Congress. Other issues related to Indian elementary and secondary education that Congress and
Administrations have attempted to address are access to Native language instruction, the
administration of BIE programs, and the adequacy of funding.
For at least 40 years, BIE school facilities have been characterized by a high rate of deficiencies
and health and safety concerns. Reports from students and faculty suggest that conditions affect
learning and enrollment. Weaknesses in the management of BIE school facilities and insufficient
funding have contributed to the facilities’ conditions.
Students in BIE schools and AI/AN students in public schools have comparatively poor academic
achievement. Since the 1970s, federal policies to address this issue include permitting greater
tribal control and influence through tribally operated BIE schools and culturally relevant
educational curriculum and Native language instruction, and encouraging collaboration between
states, local educational agencies, and public schools and tribes and parents of Indian students.
ESEA standards and accountability requirements also aim to promote the academic achievement
of students. With respect to BIE schools, Congress has wrestled to find a BIE and/or tribal
administrative structure that will support greater academic achievement of BIE students.

Congressional Research Service

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

Introduction
The federal government provides child development, elementary and secondary education, and
educational assistance to Indian1 children, in a federal school system and in public school systems
that predominantly receive state and local funding. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)2 in the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees the federally funded BIE system of elementary
and secondary schools. The BIE system is funded primarily by the BIE but also receives
considerable funding from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The public school systems of
the states receive federal funding from ED, the BIE, and other federal agencies.
Federal provision of educational services and assistance to Indian children is based not on
race/ethnicity but primarily on their membership in, eligibility for membership in, or familial
relationship to members of Indian tribes, which are political entities. Federal Indian education
programs are intended to serve Indian children who are members of, or, depending on the
program, are at least second-degree descendants of members of, one of the 574 tribal entities
recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by
virtue of their status as Indian tribes.3 The federal government considers its Indian education
programs to be based on its trust relationship with Indian tribes, a responsibility derived from
federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, executive actions, and the Constitution (which assigns
authority over federal-Indian relations to Congress).4 Despite this trust relationship, most Indian
education programs are discretionary and not an entitlement like Medicare.
Different federal Indian education programs serve different, though overlapping, sets of Indian
students, and data on these programs’ students also differ (and overlap). The eligibility criteria for
these programs are not based on self-identified race/ethnicity categories. Rather, eligibility is
based on the recognition of the political status of the groups from which the students are members
or descendants of members. Not every school or school district that enrolls at least one Indian
student receives funding from a federal program that is designed to serve Indian students or that
allots funds based on numbers of Indian students.

1 In this report, the term Indian means members of federally recognized Indian entities, which include tribal entities
within the contiguous 48 states and Native entities within the state of Alaska (the latter term includes, but is not limited
to, Native Villages, Alaska Natives, Eskimos [Inuit and Yupik], and Aleuts of Alaska). The term Indian does not
include Native Hawaiians or other Native Pacific Islanders or indigenous people of Puerto Rico.
2 The BIE was formerly the Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In
2006, the Secretary of the Interior moved the OIEP out of the BIA and made it an agency equivalent to the BIA,
renaming it the BIE. Both bureaus are under the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs. For education programs, this report
uses “BIE” for current information and programs and “BIA” for historical periods.
3 The list of federally recognized tribal entities is published in the Federal Register. The most recent list is U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible to Receive Services
from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs,” 88 Federal Register 54654, August 11, 2023.
4 Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have characterized the role of the federal government with respect to Indian
tribes as involving a trust relationship. Having identified the trust relationship, the Court has upheld congressional
power to provide special treatment for Indians, declaring that “[a]s long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to
the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians, such legislative judgments will not be disturbed”
(Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 555 (1974)). However, the Court has never interpreted the trust relationship to
require any definite action on the part of Congress. When called upon to decide whether an administrative agency has
breached its trust obligation or when called upon to enforce the trust obligation against an agency of the Executive
Branch, moreover, the Court confines its review to whether the agency has a trust obligation imposed upon it by statute.
See, for example, United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).
Congressional Research Service

1

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

Indian children served by public elementary and secondary school systems are also eligible for
the federal government’s general programs of educational assistance, but such programs are not
Indian education programs and will not be discussed in this report.
This report provides a brief history of federal Indian education programs, a discussion of students
served by these programs, an overview of programs and their funding, and brief discussions of
selected issues in Indian education.
Brief History of Federal Indian Education Activities
The following subsections provide a brief history of key periods in the development of federal
Indian education policy.
Civilization and Assimilation
U.S. government concern with the education of Indians began with the Continental Congress,
which in 1775 appropriated funds to pay the expenses of 10 Indian students at Dartmouth
College.5 Through the rest of the 18th century, the 19th century, and much of the 20th century,
Congress acted out of concern for what at the time was considered by some as the civilization of
the Indians, meaning their instruction in Euro-American agricultural methods, vocational skills,
and habits, as well as in literacy, mathematics, and Christianity. The aim of governmental efforts
was to change Indians’ cultural patterns into Euro-American ones—in a word, to assimilate
them.6
From the Revolutionary War until after the Civil War, the federal government provided for Indian
education either by directly funding teachers or schools on a tribe-by-tribe basis pursuant to treaty
provisions or by funding religious and other charitable groups to establish schools where they saw
fit. The first Indian treaty providing for any form of education for a tribe—in this case,
vocational—was in 1794.7 The first treaty providing for academic instruction for a tribe was in
1803.8 Altogether over 150 treaties with individual tribes provided for instructors, teachers, or
schools—whether vocational, academic, or both—either permanently or for a limited period of
time.9 The first U.S. statute authorizing appropriations to “promote civilization” among Indian
tribes was the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793,10 but the Civilization Act of 1819 was
the first authorization and appropriation specifically for instruction of Indian children near

5 Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Vol. II, 1775, May 10-September
20 (Washington: GPO, 1905), pp. 176-177. Congress’s stated intent was to keep the students from returning to their
homes in British Canada.
6 Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1984), pp. 135-136.
7 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., Art. III, December 2, 1794, 7 Stat. 47, 48. The United States agreed not only to construct
gristmills and sawmills for the Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge tribes but also to send persons to instruct the tribes
in their use. See also Alice C. Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, U.S. Bureau of Education Special Report,
Sen. Ex. Doc. 95, 48th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1888), p. 162.
8 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Art. 3d, August 13, 1803, 7 Stat. 78, 79.
9 Nell Jessup Newton, ed.-in-chief, Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 2005 Edition (Newark, NJ: LexisNexis
Matthew Bender, 2005), p. 1356. Congress ended treaty-making with Indian tribes in 1871.
10 §9, Act of March 1, 1793, Chap. 19, 2nd Cong., 2nd sess., 1 Stat. 329, 331. As civilizing factors, the section
specifically authorizes domestic animals, farming equipment, goods, money, and resident agents, but not teachers or
schools.
Congressional Research Service

2

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

frontier settlements in reading, writing, and arithmetic.11 Civilization Act funds were expended
through contracts with missionary and benevolent societies. Besides treaty schools and “mission”
schools, some additional schools were initiated and funded directly by Indian tribes. The state of
New York also operated schools for its Indian tribes. The total number of such treaty, mission,
tribal, and New York schools reached into the hundreds by the Civil War.12
Federal Indian School System
After the Civil War, the U.S. government began to create a federal Indian school system with
central policies and oversight, and with schools funded, constructed, and operated by DOI’s
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).13 In 1869, the Board of Indian Commissioners—a federally
appointed board that jointly controlled with DOI the disbursement of certain funds for Indians14—
recommended the establishment of government schools and teachers.15 In 1870, Congress passed
the first general appropriation for Indian schools not provided for under treaties.16 The initial
appropriation was $100,000, but both the amount appropriated and the number of schools
operated by the BIA rose swiftly thereafter.17 The BIA created both boarding and day schools,
including off-reservation industrial boarding schools on the model of the Carlisle Indian
Industrial School (established in 1879).18 Most BIA students attended on- or off-reservation
boarding schools.19 BIA schools were chiefly elementary and vocational schools.20
An organizational structure for BIA education began with a Medical and Education Division
(1873-1881), the appointment of a superintendent of education in 1883, and creation of an
education division in 1884.21 The education of Alaska Native children, however, along with that
of other Alaskan children, was assigned in 1885 to DOI’s Office of Education, not the BIA.22

11 Act of March 3, 1819, Chap. 85, 15th Cong., 2nd sess., 3 Stat. 516. Previous appropriations for Indian affairs would
have funded education only for children of tribes that signed treaties providing for education.
12 Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, p. 197.
13 Szasz, Margaret Connell, and Ryan, Carmelita, “American Indian Education,” in Wilcomb E. Washburn, vol. ed.,
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4, Indian-White Relations (Washington: Smithsonian, 1988), p. 290.
14 The Board of Commissioners was created by the April 10, 1869, act (16 Stat. 40).
15 Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, p. 167.
16 An Act Making Appropriations for the Current and Contingent Expenses of the Indian Department ..., Act of July 15,
1870, Chap. 296, 41st Cong., 2nd sess., 16 Stat. 335, 359. See also U.S. American Indian Policy Review Commission,
Task Force Five: Indian Education, Report on Indian Education, Committee Print (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 69.
17 Paul Stuart, Nations Within a Nation: Historical Statistics of American Indians (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987),
pp. 135, 165.
18 Founded by Army Captain Richard H. Pratt on an unused Army base in Carlisle, PA, the school’s model of educating
Indian students in an off-reservation manual labor boarding school, away from students’ families and cultures, became
well-known. Pratt, its first superintendent, publicized the school and its emphasis on assimilation. Carlisle was funded
through Indian appropriations bills and private donations. It closed in 1918. See Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian
Education,” pp. 290-291.
19 Prucha, Great Father, pp. 815-816.
20 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” pp. 290-294.
21 Edward E. Hill, comp., Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians
(Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1981), p. 24. See also Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian
Education,” pp. 290, 293.
22 Hill, Guide to Records, p. 112; and Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 297. Authorization for Alaska
Native education was in §13, Act of May 17, 1884, Chap.53, 48th Cong. 1st sess., 23 Stat. 24, 27-28.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Mission, tribal,23 and New York state schools also continued to operate, and the proportion of
school-age Indian children attending a BIA, mission, tribal, or New York school rose slowly.24
Shift to Public Schools
A major long-term shift in federal Indian education policy, from federal schools to public schools,
began in FY1890-FY1891 when the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, using his general authority
in Indian affairs, contracted with a few local public school districts to educate nearby Indian
children for whose schooling the BIA was responsible.25 After 1910, the BIA pushed to move
Indian children to nearby public schools and to close BIA schools.26 Congress provided some
appropriations to pay public schools for Indian students, although they were not always sufficient
and moreover were not paid where state law entitled Indian students to public education.27
By 1920, more Indian students were in public schools than in BIA schools.28 Figure 1 displays
the changing number of Indian students in BIA, public, and other schools from 1900 to 1975. The
shift to public schools accompanied the increase in the percentage of Indian youths attending any
school, which rose from 40% in 1900 to 60% in 1930.29 Comparable data are no longer available.

23 After 1870, most tribal schools were in Oklahoma, operated by one of the “Five Civilized Tribes” (Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole), as they were then called.
24 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 291.
25 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
[Fiscal Year 1890-1891] (Washington: GPO, 1891), p. 71.
26 Prucha, Great Father, pp. 823-825.
27 Prucha, Great Father, pp. 824-825.
28 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, Report on BIA
Education: Excellence in Indian Education Through the Effective Schools Process, Final Review Draft, March 1988, p.
15 (Table 1).
29 Marlita A. Reddy, ed., Statistical Record of Native North Americans (Detroit: Gale Research, 1993), p. 141. The
percentages are of Indians aged 5 to 20 and are based on Census data. Szasz and Ryan state, “In 1928 almost 90 percent
of all Indian children were enrolled in some school.” (“American Indian Education,” p. 294). The discrepancy in
percentages may be related to differing age ranges and differing definitions of the Indian population.
Congressional Research Service

4

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

Figure 1. Number of Indian Students Enrolled in BIA, Public, and Private Schools
1900-1975

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Report on BIA Education. Final Review Draft
(Washington: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1988), Tables 1 and 8, pp. 15, 27.
Notes: BIA data include students in peripheral dormitories but exclude students in Alaska BIA schools. Public
school data are for Indian students living in BIA administrative or service areas.
Snyder Act of 192130
In 1921, Congress passed the Snyder Act31 in order to authorize all programs the BIA was then
carrying out. Most BIA programs at the time, including education, lacked authorizing legislation.
The Snyder Act continues to provide broad and permanent authorization for federal Indian
programs.
This act provides a broad and permanent authorization for federal Indian programs, including for
“[g]eneral support and civilization, including education.” Congress had never enacted specific
statutory authorizations for most BIA activities, including BIA schools. It had instead made
detailed annual appropriations for BIA activities. Authority for Indian appropriations in the House
had been assigned to the Indian Affairs Committee after 1885 (and in the Senate to its Indian
Affairs Committee after 1899). Rules changes in the House in 1920, however, moved Indian
appropriations authority to the Appropriations Committee, making Indian appropriations
vulnerable to procedural objections because they lacked authorizing acts. The Snyder Act was
passed to authorize all the activities the BIA was then carrying out. The act’s broad language,
however, may be read as authorizing—though not requiring—nearly any Indian program,
including education, for which Congress enacts appropriations.

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

5

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

BIA Operations in the 1920s and 1930s
In the 1920s and 1930s, the BIA began expanding some of its own schools’ grade levels to
secondary education. Under the impetus of the Meriam Report and New Deal leadership, the BIA
also began to shift its students toward its local day schools instead of its boarding schools, and, to
some extent, to move its curriculum from solely Euro-American subjects to include Indian culture
and vocational education.32 The Meriam Report of 1928, an influential study of the condition of
American Indians and federal Indian administration, made several recommendations to promote
the advancement and civilization of Indians.33 In addition, in 1931, responsibility for Alaska
Native education was transferred to the BIA.34 In 1934, to simplify the reimbursement of public
schools for educating Indian students, Congress passed the Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Act,35
authorizing the BIA to contract with the states, except Oklahoma, and the territories for the
education of Indians (and other services to Indians).36
ED Indian Education Programs
The first major non-DOI federal funding for Indian education in the 20th century began in 1953,
when the Federal Assistance for Local Educational Agencies Affected by Federal Activities
program,37 now known as Impact Aid, was amended to cover Indian children eligible for BIA
schools.38 Impact Aid pays public school districts to help fund the education of children in
“federally impacted areas.” Further changes to the Impact Aid law in 1958 and the 1970s
increased the funding that was allocated according to the number of children on Indian lands.39
Congressional appropriations for Impact Aid have increased, while the JOM funding decreased
through FY2013.
In 1966 Congress added further non-DOI funding for Indian education by amending the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965,40 the major act authorizing federal
education aid to public school districts. The amendments set aside funds for BIA schools from the
program authorizing assistance to educational agencies for the education of children of low-
income families (now referred to as ESEA Title I-A); School Library Resources, Textbook, and
Instructional Materials (Title II); and Supplementary Educational Centers and Services (Title
III).41

32 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” pp. 294-295; Prucha, Great Father, pp. 836-839, 977-983; and
Margaret Connell Szasz, “W. Carson Ryan: From the Meriam Report to the Indian New Deal,” in Education and the
American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928, 2nd ed. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,
1977), pp. 16-36.
33 Lewis Meriam, The Problem of Indian Administration, Institute for Government Research, Report of a Survey made
at the request of Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and submitted to him, Baltimore, MD, February 21,
1928.
34 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 297.
35 P.L. 73-167, Act of April 16, 1934, 48 Stat. 596, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §5342 et seq.
36 Szasz and Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 295.
37 P.L. 81-874, Act of September 30, 1950, 64 Stat. 1100, as amended; currently codified as Title VII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
38 P.L. 83-248, Act of August 8, 1953, 67 Stat. 530.
39 Larry LaCounte, Tribal Perspective of the Impact Aid Program (Washington: National Indian Policy Center, 1993),
pp. 3-5.
40 P.L. 89-10, Act of April 11, 1965, 79 Stat. 27, as amended.
41 §102, Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, P.L. 89-750, Act of Nov 3, 1966, 80 Stat 1191.
Congressional Research Service

6

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

A congressional study of Indian education in 196942 that was highly critical of federal Indian
education programs led to further expansion of federal non-DOI assistance for Indian education,
embodied in the Indian Education Act of 1972, now known as ESEA Title VI.43 The Indian
Education Act established the Office of Indian Education (OIE) within the U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare (later ED and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
and authorized OIE to make grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) with Indian children.44
The OIE was the first organization outside of DOI (since DOI’s birth in 1849) that was created
expressly to oversee a federal Indian education program.
Impact Aid and ESEA Title VI also promote Indian control in public schools. The 1972 Indian
Education Act amended the Impact Aid program to mandate Indian parents’ consultation in
school programs funded by Impact Aid.45 ESEA Title VI requires that public school districts
applying for its grants prove adequate participation by Indian parents and tribal communities in
program development, operation, and evaluation.46 The Improving America’s Schools Act of
1994 (P.L. 103-382, §9112(b)) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) have
expanded eligibility under the current ESEA Title VI formula grant program to Indian tribes,
Indian organizations, and Indian community-based organizations.47
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975
(ISDEAA)48
Following the termination period of the 1950s and 1960s intended to end the trust relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, federal Indian education policy began to move
toward greater Indian control of federal Indian education programs, in both BIA and public
schools. In 1966, the BIA signed its first contract with an Indian group to operate a BIA school
(the Rough Rock Demonstration School on the Navajo Reservation).49
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA; P.L. 93-638),50 signed
into law in 1975, authorized tribal administration of certain federal Indian programs, including

42 U.S. Congress, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Indian
Education: A National Tragedy, A National Challenge (Washington: GPO, 1969).
43 Title IV of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, P.L. 92-318, Act of June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235, 334, as
amended; currently codified as ESEA Title VI-A.
44 The OIE was transferred to the new U.S. Department of Education in 1980.
45 P.L. 92-318, §411(a),(c)(2), 86 Stat. 334-339; currently codified, as amended, at ESEA §7004. See also Szasz and
Ryan, “American Indian Education,” p. 298.
46 §421(a) of the 1972 act; currently codified at ESEA §6114(c)(4).
47 Indian organizations are defined in 25 C.F.R. §263.20 as organizations that “(1) are legally established—(i) by tribal
or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with state or tribal law; and (ii) with appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles
of incorporation; (2) include in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians; (3) are controlled by a governing
board, the majority of which is Indian; (4) if located on an Indian reservation, operate with the sanction or by charter of
the governing body of that reservation; (5) are neither organizations or subdivisions of, nor under the direct control of,
any institution of higher education; and (6) are not agencies of state or local government.” Indian community-based
organizations are defined in ESEA Section 6112(d)(2) as organizations that “(A) are composed primarily of Indian
parents, family members, and community members, tribal government education officials, and tribal members, from a
specific community; (B) assist in the social, cultural, and educational development of Indians in such community; (C)
meet the unique cultural, language, and academic needs of Indian students; and (D) demonstrate organizational and
administrative capacity to manage the grant.”
48 P.L. 93-638, act of January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §5301 et seq.
49 Prucha, Great Father, p. 1102.
50 P.L. 93-638, Act of January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §5301 et seq.
Congressional Research Service

7

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

BIA and BIE programs. ISDEAA, as amended, allows Indian tribes and tribal organizations, such
as tribal school boards, to assume some control over the management of BIE-funded education
programs by negotiating “self-determination contracts” or Title IV “self-governance compacts”
with BIE. Under a self-determination contract, BIE transfers to tribal control the funds it would
have spent for the contracted school or dorm, so the tribe may operate it. Tribes or tribal
organizations may contract to operate one or more schools.51
In 1975, the ISDEAA added to the JOM program a requirement that public school districts with
JOM contracts have either a majority-Indian school board or an Indian parent committee that has
approved the JOM program.52
Education Amendments Act of 197853
Three years after ISDEAA’s enactment, in Title XI, Part B, of the Education Amendments of 1978
(P.L. 95-561), Congress required the BIA “to facilitate Indian control of Indian affairs in all
matters relating to education.”54 This act created statutory standards and administrative and
funding requirements for the BIA school system and separated control of BIA schools from BIA
area and agency officers by creating a BIA Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) and
assigning it supervision of all BIA education personnel.55
Title XI of this act establishes requirements and guidelines for the BIE-funded elementary and
secondary school system. As amended, the act covers academic accreditation and standards, a
funding allocation formula, BIE powers and functions, criteria for boarding and peripheral dorms,
personnel hiring and firing, the role of school boards, facilities standards, a facilities construction
priority system, and school closure rules, among other topics. It also authorizes several BIE grant
programs, including administrative cost grants for tribally operated schools (described below),
early childhood development program grants (described below), and grants and technical
assistance for tribal departments of education.
Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA) of 198856
The Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA; P.L. 100-297) of 198857 authorized grants as another
means, besides ISDEAA contracts, by which Indian tribes and tribal organizations may operate
BIE-funded schools. The act requires that each grant include all requested funds that BIE would
have allocated to the school for operation, administrative cost grants, transportation, maintenance,
and ED programs. Because ISDEAA contracts were found to be a more cumbersome means of
Indian control of schools, most tribally operated schools are grant-supported schools.58

51 BIE’s formula funding for schools is excluded from “self-governance compacts” (25 U.S.C. §5363(b)(4)(B)).
52 25 U.S.C. §5346.
53 P.L. 95-561, Title XI, Part B, Act of November 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2143, 2316, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 22 (25
U.S.C. §2000 et seq.).
54 P.L. 95-561, Title XI, Part B, Act of November 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2143, 2316, as amended. The quote is from §1130
of the original act (now §1131 of the amended act).
55 Prucha, Great Father, p. 1146.
56 P.L. 100-297, Title V, Act of April 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 130, 385, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 27.
57 P.L. 100-297, Title V, Act of April 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 130, 385, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 27.
58 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 2005 Edition, p. 1361.
Congressional Research Service

8

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

Reduction of and Limitations on BIE School System
Starting in the 1960s, the number of schools in the BIA school system began to shrink through
administrative consolidation, limitations, and congressional closures. For example, all BIA-
funded schools in Alaska were transferred to the state of Alaska between 1966 and 1985,
removing an estimated 120 schools from BIA responsibility.59 The number of BIA-funded schools
and dormitories stood at 233 in 193060 and 277 in 1965,61 but fell to 227 in 1982 and to 180 in
1986 before rising to 185 by 1994;62 it currently stands at 183.63 Since the 1990s, Congress has
limited both the number of BIA schools and the grade structure of the schools.64 In 2006, the
Secretary of the Interior separated the BIA education programs in the Office of Indian Education
Programs from the rest of the BIA and placed them in a new Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
under the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs.65 The number of Indian students educated at BIE
schools has ranged between 41,000 and 48,000 since FY2006.66
Status of Indian and American Indian/Alaska
Native Elementary and Secondary Education
Although there is no source for the status of Indian student educational achievement nationally,
the educational environment and achievements of BIE students and American Indian/Alaska
Native (AI/AN) students are reported. Students who identify their race/ethnicity as AI/AN may
not be members or descendants of members of federally recognized Indian tribes, and not all
members of such tribes may identify as AI/AN. For example, ED’s National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), which collects and analyzes student and school data and produces the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),67 publishes reports on AI/AN students’
characteristics and academic achievements. NCES data are based on race/ethnicity (except most
data on BIE students), so the data will include students who identify as AI/AN even though they
are not members of tribes and do not fall into the eligibility categories of federal Indian education
programs. NCES’s race/ethnicity-based AI/AN student population is not the same as the student
population served by federal Indian education programs. The two populations overlap, but the
degree of overlap has not been determined. NCES data based on race/ethnicity, then, cannot be
assumed to accurately represent the Indian student population intended to be served by federal
Indian education programs.

59 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations for 1994, hearings, part 8, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 168.
60 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Report on BIA Education: Excellence in Indian Education
Through the Effective Schools Process. Final Review Draft (Washington: The Department, 1988), p. 17.
61 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Education, Fiscal Year 1965 Statistics
Concerning Indian Education (Haskell, Kansas: Haskell Institute Publications Service, 1966), p. 15.
62 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, Fiscal Year 1995
Annual Education Report (Washington, DC: The Bureau of Indian Affairs, no date), p. vi.
63 U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Education, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2024 (hereinafter referred to as
the FY2024 Budget), p. BIE-GS-1.
64 The limitations are in the annual BIE appropriations acts.
65 U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2008, pp. IA-EDUC-5 to -6.
66 Budget Justifications FY2006–FY2024.
67 NAEP is often known as the nation’s report card.
Congressional Research Service

9

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

BIE Schools and Students
The BIE funds a system consisting of elementary and secondary schools, which provide free
education to eligible Indian students, and “peripheral dormitories” (discussed below).68 The BIE
is led by a director in Washington, DC, who reports to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. In
addition to positions that manage finance, acquisition, accountability, facilities, and other support
activities, three Associate Deputy Directors (ADDs) provide oversight, guidance, and technical
assistance to the BIE schools. One ADD serves schools serving the Navajo nation, one serves the
remaining BIE operated schools, and one serves the remaining tribally operated schools. Each
ADD works through multiple, field-located Education Resource Centers (ERC) that provide
direct and customized technical assistance to the schools.69
The BIE school system serves students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes or
are at least one-fourth degree Indian blood descendants of members of such tribes, and who reside
on or near a federal Indian reservation or are eligible to attend a BIE off-reservation boarding
school.70 Indian tribes commonly require members to be lineal descendants or related to lineal
descendants of individuals on the original list of members, so BIE Indian students may have less
than one-fourth Indian blood. It is commonly estimated that BIE schools serve less than 10% of
Indian students.
The BIE-funded school system includes day and boarding schools and peripheral dormitories.
The majority of BIE-funded schools are day schools, which offer elementary or secondary classes
or combinations thereof, and are located on Indian reservations. BIE boarding schools house
students in dorms on campus and also offer elementary or secondary classes, or combinations of
both levels, and are located both on and off reservations. Peripheral dormitories house students
who attend nearby public or BIE schools; these dorms are also located both on and off
reservations. Approximately one-third of BIE schools are K-8, one-fifth are K-12, and another
one-seventh are K-6.71
Elementary and secondary schools funded by the BIE may be operated directly by the BIE, by
tribes and tribal organizations through grants authorized under the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act (TCSA) of 1988, or by tribes and tribal organizations through contracts authorized under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) of 1975. In addition, some
schools receive financial assistance from a state or public school district. A few are operated
through a cooperative agreement with a public school district.72 In accordance with state law, the

68 BIE also funds postsecondary institutions and programs not discussed in this report. A small number of BIE-funded
elementary and secondary schools also receive funding as public schools from their states.
69 FY2024 Budget.
70 25 U.S.C. §2007(f). One-fourth degree is the equivalent of one full-blood grandparent out of four. In certain
circumstances, non-Indian students may attend BIE schools (25 C.F.R. §31.3).
71 The remainder of schools serve grades PK-8, PK-12, K-2, K-3, K-4, K-5, K-7, K-9, K-11, 1-8, 1-12, 4-12, 5-8, 6-8,
6-12, 7-8, 7-12, and 9-12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, https://www.bie.edu/schools/
directory, as of November 21, 2023.
72 The Turtle Mountain Elementary and Middle schools in North Dakota are operated by a cooperative agreement
between a public school district and the BIE. The Standing Rock Community School is operated through a Joint
Powers Agreement between the Standing Rock Tribal Grant School and the Fort Yates Public School District (See U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
American Indian and Alaska Native Public Witness Hearing, Testimony of The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 115th
Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2017).
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

three BIE schools in Maine receive state funding.73 In addition, some states provide varying
levels of support to BIE schools.74 There are eight charter schools co-located at BIE schools.75
BIE funds 169 schools and 14 peripheral dorms. Table 1 shows the number of BIE-funded
schools and peripheral dorms, by type of operator. The majority of BIE-funded schools are
tribally operated.76
Table 1. Number of BIE-Funded Schools and Peripheral Dormitories: FY2022
Schools and Peripheral
Tribally
BIE-
Dormitories
Operated
Operated
Total
Total
128
55
183
Elementary/secondary schools
115
54
169
Day schools
90
28
118
Boarding schools
25
26
51
Peripheral dormitories
13
1
14
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2024.
In the mid-1990s, Congress became concerned that adding new BIE schools or expanding
existing schools would, in circumstances of limited financial resources, “diminish funding for
schools currently in the system.”77 As a consequence, the total number of BIE schools and
peripheral dorms, the class structure of each school, and co-located charter schools has been
limited by Congress. Through annual appropriation acts from FY1994 through FY2011, Congress
prohibited BIE from funding schools that were not in the BIE system as of September 1, 1996,
and from FY1996 through FY2011 prohibited the use of BIE funds to expand a school’s grade
structure beyond the grades in place as of October 1, 1995. Appropriations acts since FY2000
have prohibited the establishment of co-located charter schools.
Beginning in FY2012, Congress has begun to loosen restrictions on the size and scope of the BIE
school system. A provision enacted in the FY2012 appropriations act provided an exception for
schools and school programs that were closed and removed from the BIE school system between
1951 and 1972 and whose respective tribe’s relationship with the federal government was
terminated.78 As a result of the FY2012 exception in July 2012, BIE began funding grades 1-6 of

73 Lawrence O. Picus, Allan Odden, and Michael Goetz, et al., An Independent Review of Maine’s Essential Programs
and Services Funding Act: Part 1, Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, Presented to the Maine Legislature’s Joint
Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, North Hollywood, CA, April 1, 2013.
74 North Dakota provides state funding to several BIE schools: Mandaree Day School, Turtle Mountain Elementary
School, Turtle Mountain High School, Turtle Mountain Middle School, Twin Buttes Day School, and White Shield
School (North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, Office of Indian/Multicultural Education, BIE/Tribal Schools
(2019-2020), June 15, 2020, https://www.ndlegis.gov/assembly/67-2021/testimony/HAPPEDU-1013-20210114-1134-
F-BAESLER_KIRSTEN.pdf). BIE schools in Washington may become state-tribal education compact schools,
receiving some state funds in exchange for meeting specified requirements (Washington State Legislature, Final Bill
Report E2SHB 1134, 2013-14).
75 The schools are Blackwater Community School in Coolidge, AZ; Kin Dah Lichi'i Olta’ (Kinlichee) in Ganado, AZ;
Little Singer Community School in Winslow, AZ; Nazlini Community School in Ganado, AZ; Seba Dalkai Boarding
School in Winslow, AZ; Shonto Preparatory School in Shonto, AZ; Hannahville Indian School in Wilson, MI; and
Joseph K. Lumsden Bahweting Anishnabe Academy in Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
76 FY2024 Budget.
77 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, 1995, report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 103-294 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 58.
78 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74).
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 6 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Jones Academy in Hartshorne, OK. Jones Academy was previously funded by BIE as a peripheral
dormitory for students attending schools in grades 1-12, and by the local public school district as
a grades 1-6 elementary school. The appropriations acts since FY2014 have authorized the
Secretary to support the expansion of one additional grade to better accomplish the BIE’s
mission, and appropriations acts since FY2018 have authorized the expansion of more than one
elementary grade in schools with a K–2 grade structure on October 1, 1996. As a result, in 2014
the BIE approved funding for the tribally funded 6th grade of the otherwise BIE-funded
Shoshone-Bannock Junior High.79 In addition, BIE approved the K-2 Blackwater Community
School to offer a 3rd grade in July of 2016 and 4th-5th grades in July of 2018.80 Successively,
appropriations acts since FY2015 have authorized the BIE to approve satellite locations of BIE
schools at which an Indian tribe may provide language and cultural immersion educational
programs as long as the BIE is not responsible for the facilities-related costs. Accordingly, in
AY2015-2016 the Nay-Ah-Shing School in Minnesota opened the Pine Grove Satellite Learning
Center using broadband and reducing transportation times and costs.81
Only Indian students attend the BIE school system, with few exceptions. In SY2023-2024, BIE-
funded schools and peripheral dorms are estimated to serve approximately 47,000 Indian students
in 23 states.82 From SY2018-2019 to SY2021-2022, approximately 49% of BIE schools and
dormitories had an average attendance of fewer than 200 students.83
BIE schools and dormitories are not evenly distributed across the country. From SY2018-2019 to
SY2021-2022, approximately 66% of BIE schools and dormitories and, on average,
approximately 63% of BIE students were located in 3 of the 23 states with schools: Arizona (27%
of students), New Mexico (20%), and South Dakota (17%).84 Table 2 shows the distribution of
BIE schools and students across the 23 states. There are no BIE schools or students in Alaska, a
circumstance directed by Congress (see “Brief History of Federal Indian Education Activities,”
above).85
Table 2. BIE Schools and Peripheral Dormitories and Students: Number and Percent,
by State, Average: SY2018-2019 to SY2021-2022
(in descending order by number of students)
Schools and Dorms
Students
State
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Arizona
54
30%
14,051
27%

79 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
American Indian and Alaska Native Public and Outside Witness Hearing, Mr. Nathan Small, Chairman, Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of the Ft. Hall Reservation Testimony, 114th Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 2015.
80 Blackwater Community School-Akimel O'Otham Pee Posh Charter School Inc., https://bwcs.k12.az.us/ (accessed
May 29, 2020).
81 Holland & Knight, “Launching a Tribal Satellite School Expansion Plan.”
82 FY2024 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-15.
83 Percentage calculated by CRS based on FY2024 Budget, Appendix 1. The three-year averages for student counts are
based on the average daily attendance counts that are calculated for each year.
84 FY2024 Budget, Appendix 1. The three-year averages for student counts are based on the average daily attendance
counts that are calculated for each year.
85 Annual appropriation acts for the Department of the Interior regularly include an administrative provision prohibiting
BIA expenditures to support operation of elementary and secondary schools in Alaska (except through the Johnson-
O’Malley program); see, for example, P.L. 110-161 (121 Stat. 2113).
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17 link to page 18 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Schools and Dorms
Students
State
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
New Mexico
44
24%
10,595
20%
South Dakota
22
12%
8,788
17%
North Dakota
11
6%
4,763
9%
Mississippi
8
4%
2,843
5%
Washington
8
4%
2,352
4%
North Carolina
1
1%
1,474
3%
Oklahoma
5
3%
1,425
3%
Wisconsin
3
2%
1,155
2%
Minnesota
4
2%
731
1%
California
2
1%
683
1%
Michigan
2
1%
641
1%
Montana
3
2%
492
1%
Oregon
1
1%
478
1%
Florida
2
1%
388
1%
Iowa
1
1%
354
1%
Maine
3
2%
347
1%
Wyoming
1
1%
329
1%
Idaho
2
1%
282
1%
Utah
2
1%
254
<1%
Nevada
2
1%
154
<1%
Louisiana
1
1%
133
<1%
Kansas
1
1%
50
<1%
Grand Totala
183
100%
52,761
100%
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Education, Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2024, Appendix 1.
Notes: Student counts are based on the three-year average daily membership, which counts students
attendance during the entire year.
a. Totals may not add due to rounding.
One measure of a school system’s quality and the academic achievement of students is the
average score of students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading
and mathematics assessments.86 Table 3 indicates that average scores on the NAEP assessments
for students in BIE schools were below those of students in public schools. For example, on the
8th grade 2015 NAEP reading assessment the average score for BIE school students was 236
while the average for public school students was 264. Data on BIE schools after 2019 are not
available.

86 The NAEP, directed by the U.S. Department of Education, is the largest nationally representative and continuing
assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since NAEP assessments are
administered uniformly across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Table 3. Average Scores in NAEP Reading and Math, by Assessment, and Type of
School: 2011, 2015, and 2019

Average NAEP Score
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 4
Grade 8
Type of School
Reading
Reading
Math
Math
2019
BIE schools
186
233
215
251
Public schools
204
249
228
263
2015
BIE schools
NRa
236
NRa
252
Public schools
221
264
240
281
2011
BIE schools
182
234
213
250
Public schools
220
264
240
283
Source: B.D. Rampey, S.C. Faircloth, R.P. Whorton, and J. Deaton, National Indian Education Study 2019 (NCES
2021-018) U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2021).
Notes: NAEP assessment results for reading and mathematics are reported as average scores on a 0-500 scale.
a. NR means reporting standards not met.
Public Schools and AI/AN Students
There were approximately 49 million public school students enrolled in elementary and
secondary schools in fall 2020, and approximately 461,000 (0.9%) were AI/ANs. A greater than
average proportion of AI/AN students live in poverty and require services for students with
disabilities. The percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty was 30% for
AI/AN children and 16% for all children in 2021. In SY2021–2022, the percentage of children
ages 3–21 who were served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a
percentage of total enrollment in public schools was 19% for AI/AN students, the highest among
all racial/ethnic groups. The percentage of 16- through 24-year-old AI/AN youth who were not
enrolled in school and had not earned a high school credential was 10% in 2021, compared to 5%
for all 16- through 24-year-olds.87
The educational achievement of AI/AN students in public schools can be deduced from the
average scores of AI/AN and non-AI/AN students on the NAEP. Table 4 presents results of the
2022 NAEP reading and mathematics assessments for AI/AN and non-AI/AN students in grades 4
and 8. The average NAEP score for AI/AN students is consistently lower than that for white,
Hispanic, and Asian students.

87 U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics (hereinafter, Digest of Education Statistics), Tables
102.62, 203.50, 204.40, and 219.85a (accessed February 23, 2024).
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Table 4. Average Public School Scores in NAEP Reading and Math, by Assessment
and Student Race/Ethnicity: 2022

Average NAEP Score
Student
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 4
Grade 8
Race/Ethnicity
Reading
Reading
Math
Math
AI/ANa
197
246
221
258
White
227
268
246
285
Black
199
244
217
253
Hispanic
205
251
224
261
Asian
241
283
259
306
Native Hawaiian/Other
207
254
224
264
Pacific Islander
Two or more races
223
265
239
276
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), available at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/
reading/2022/ and https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/ (February 23, 2024).
a. AI/AN means American Indian/Alaska Native.
Federal Indian Elementary and Secondary
Education Programs and Services
Federal Indian elementary and secondary education programs serve Indian elementary and
secondary students in public schools, private schools, and the BIE system. Except for one BIE
program, public schools do not generally receive BIE funding. Public schools instead receive
most of their federal assistance for Indian education through the U.S. Department of Education
(ED). BIE-funded schools, on the other hand, receive funding both from the BIE and from ED.
The BIE estimates that it provides about 79% of BIE-funded schools’ overall federal funding for
operations (excluding renovation and construction), and ED provides 20%.88 This section of the
report profiles first the BIE programs and second those ED programs that provide significant
funding for Indian education.
BIE Elementary and Secondary Education Programs
Funding for and operation of BIE-funded schools are carried out through a number of different
programs. The major BIE funding programs for operations are forward-funded—that is, the BIE
programs’ appropriations for a fiscal year are used to fund the school year that begins during that
fiscal year.89 Forward funding in the case of elementary and secondary education programs was
designed to allow additional time for school officials to develop budgets in advance of the

88 FY2024 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-11. The remainder is provided by other federal agencies.
89 Federal fiscal years begin on October 1 and end on the following September 30. School years (SY) begin on July 1
(three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year) and end the following June 30. Hence, BIE appropriations for
FY2023 (October 1, 2022-September 30, 2023) are used to fund SY2023-2024 (July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024).
Congressional Research Service

15

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

beginning of the school year. These forward-funded appropriations are specified through
provisions in the annual appropriations bill and other statutory provisions.90
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)91
The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) is the formula-based grant program through
which congressional appropriations for BIE-funded schools’ academic (and, if applicable,
residential) operating costs are allocated among the schools. ISEP grant funds are the primary
funding for basic and supplemental educational programs for Indian students attending BIE-
funded schools. In addition, ISEP grant funds pay tuition to Sevier Public Schools in Utah for
out-of-state Indian students living in the nearby BIE Richfield peripheral dormitory. The ISEP
allocation formula, although authorized under the Education Amendments of 1978, is specified
not in statute but in federal regulations. The formula is based on a count of student “average daily
membership” (ADM) that is weighted to take into account schools’ grade levels and students’
residential-living status (e.g., in boarding schools or peripheral dorms) and is then supplemented
with weights or adjustments for gifted and talented students, language development needs,
supplemental education programs, and a school’s size. The final weighted figure is called the
“weighted student unit” (WSU). A three-year WSU average is calculated for each school and
nationally. Each school receives a portion of the ISEP appropriation that is the same proportion
that the school’s three-year WSU average is to the national three-year average WSU.92
Before allocation under the funding formula, part of ISEP funds is set aside for program
adjustments, contingencies, and appeals. In recent years, program adjustments have funded safety
and security projects, behavior intervention programs, targeted education projects to increase
academic achievement, police services, parental participation projects, technical assistance on
effective teaching practices for at-risk students, behavioral health counselors, and school staff
capacity with respect to budget and programming.
Student Transportation
Student transportation funds provide for buses, fuel, maintenance, and bus driver salaries and
training, as well as certain commercial transportation costs for some dormitory and boarding
school students. Because of largely rural and often remote school locations, many unimproved
and dirt roads, and the long distances from children’s homes to schools, transportation of BIE
students can be expensive. Student transportation funds are distributed on a formula basis, using
commercial transportation costs and the number of bus miles driven (with an additional weight
for unimproved roads).93
Early Child and Family Development (FACE)
BIE’s early childhood development program provides grants to tribes and tribal organizations for
services for pre-school Indian students and their parents.94 The program includes early childhood
education for children under six years old, and parenting skills and adult education for their
parents to improve their employment opportunities. The grants are distributed by formula among
applicant tribes and organizations who meet the minimum tribal size of 500 members. In

90 For example, see 25 U.S.C. §2010(a) and §2506(a).
91 25 U.S.C. §2007.
92 25 C.F.R. Part 39, Subparts A-C.
93 25 C.F.R. Part 39, Subpart G.
94 25 U.S.C. §2019.
Congressional Research Service

16

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

SY2018-2019 before COVID-19 pandemic-related enrollment reductions, the program served
over 2,000 adults and 2,000 children.95
Tribal Grant Support Costs (Administrative Cost Grants)
Tribal grant support costs,96 formerly known as administrative cost grants, pay administrative and
indirect costs for tribally operated TCSA-grant schools. Administrative costs for BIE-operated
schools are funded through BIE program management appropriations. By providing assistance for
direct and indirect administrative costs that may not be covered by ISEP or other BIE funds,
administrative cost grants are intended to encourage tribes to take control of their schools. These
are formula grants based on an “administrative cost percentage rate” for each school, with a
minimum grant of $200,000. For the first time in FY2016, appropriations fully funded the
statutorily determined grant amounts without the need for a ratable reduction.
Education Program Enhancements
Education Program Enhancements allow the BIE discretion to provide targeted improvements
and interventions. Examples of activities funded in recent years include supporting BIE
reorganization efforts, providing leadership training and professional development, funding the
Sovereignty in Indian Education (SIE) Enhancement program, and developing partnerships with
tribally controlled colleges. In addition, funding has been used to develop tribal education
departments.
Juvenile Detention Education
The Juvenile Detention Education program supports educational services for children in BIA-
funded detention facilities. This is not a forward-funded program. The program was funded in
FY2007-FY2011 and has now been funded since FY2016.
Tribal Education Department Grants97
The Secretary is authorized to make grants and provide technical assistance to tribes for the
development and operation of tribal departments of education (TEDs) for the purpose of planning
and coordinating all educational programs of the tribe. Beginning in FY2015, funds have been
awarded to promote tribal control and operation of BIE-funded schools on reservations. Funds
have also been awarded to begin restructuring school governance, build capacity for academic
success, and develop academically rigorous and culturally relevant curricula.
Johnson O’Malley Program (BIE Assistance to Public Schools)98
Under the Johnson O’Malley (JOM) program, BIE contracts with tribal organizations, states,
LEAs, and Indian corporations to meet the unique and specialized educational needs of eligible
Indian students in public schools, private nonsectarian schools, and previously private schools
controlled by a tribe or tribal organization. Eligible Indian students, according to BIE regulations,

95 FY2024 Budget, pp. BIE-OIEP-19.
96 25 U.S.C. §2008.
97 25 U.S.C. §2020. P.L. 95-561, as added by P.L. 107-110.
98 25 U.S.C. §§5342, 5348.
Congressional Research Service

17

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

are members of federally recognized tribes or students who have at least one-fourth degree blood
from a member of a federally recognized tribe.99
Most JOM funds are distributed through tribal contractors—88% as of FY2012.100 Prospective
contractors must have education plans that have been approved by an Indian education committee
made up of a majority of Indians or the parents of Indian students. Funds are to be used for
supplemental programs, such as tutoring, other academic support, books, supplies, Native
language classes, cultural activities, summer education programs, after-school activities, or a
variety of other education-related needs. JOM funds may be used for general school operations
only when a public school district cannot meet state educational standards or requirements
without them, and enrollment in the district is at least 50% eligible Indian students.101 This is not
a forward-funded program.
Facilities Operations
This program funds the operation of educational facilities at all BIE-funded schools, including the
two BIE postsecondary schools, and dorms. Operating expenses may include utilities, supplies,
equipment, custodians, trash removal, maintenance of school grounds, minor repairs, and other
services, as well as monitoring for fires and intrusions. This is not a forward-funded program.
These funds are available at the beginning of the fiscal year for a period of 24 months.
Facilities Maintenance
This program funds preventive, routine cyclical, and unscheduled maintenance for all school
buildings, equipment, utility systems, and ground structures, including those at the two BIE
postsecondary schools. Like facilities operations funds, the funds are available at the beginning of
the fiscal year for a period of 24 months. Appropriations for facilities maintenance were
transferred from the BIA Construction account to the BIE account in FY2012.
National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund
The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152) established the National Parks and Public Land
Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) with mandatory appropriations to address deferred maintenance
for five agencies—Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and BIE. From FY2021-FY2025, LRF
receives annual deposits from federal energy development revenues, up to a cap of $1.9 billion
annually. Deposits to the fund are available as mandatory spending to address “priority deferred
maintenance projects.” The BIE receives 5% of annual deposits.
School Facilities Repair and Construction and Faculty Housing
Funds for repair, improvement, and construction activities for BIE schools, school facilities, and
employee housing are administered by Indian Affairs. Funds are distributed through the following
programs:

99 25 C.F.R. §273.112. In 1990, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada stated that a prior rule
requiring both at least one-fourth degree Indian blood descendancy and tribal membership was too restrictive.
100 FY2013 Budget, p. IA-BIE-31; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education: Actions
Needed to Improve Management of a Supplemental Education Program, GAO-20-308, April 2020, p. 6.
101 25 C.F.R. Part 273.126.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 link to page 46 link to page 46 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

• The Replacement School Construction program replaces entire school campuses
based on a priority list of schools in need of construction.
• The Replacement Facility Construction program replaces single academic related
buildings.
• The Facilities Improvement and Repair program funds major and minor facilities
improvement, facility condition assessments, targeted projects, and compliance
projects.
• The Employee Housing Repair program funds major repairs of employee housing
located near some BIE schools.
• The Replacement/New Employee Housing program funds new or replacement
teacher housing at remote locations where alternative housing is limited or
current facilities are in critical need of replacement.
Construction and repair may be implemented either by Indian Affairs or by tribes under the
ISDEAA or the TCSA. In order to prioritize projects and guide expenditures, the BIA maintains a
comprehensive condition assessment within its Facilities Management System.
ISDEAA Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing
ISDEAA Section 105(l) requires DOI to lease facilities from tribes and tribal organizations upon
their request if such facilities are used by the tribe or tribal organization in support of their
ISDEAA contract or compact or TCSA grant.102 Indian Affairs administers the lease program.103
The lease covers facility operating costs such as rent, depreciation, reserve funds principal and
interest, and operation and maintenance expenses, repairs, and alterations. In FY2019, the BIE
began its first leasing agreement for school facilities with the Gila River Indian Community for
the Gila Crossing Community School. The BIE has since entered into another leasing agreement
with the Gila River Indian Community for the Casa Blanca Community School. In FY2019 and
FY2020, ISDEAA Section 105(l) education facilities lease costs were funded through facilities
operations.104
BIE and BIA Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriations
As illustrated in Figure 2, total BIA and BIE spending on elementary-secondary education and
construction has increased 95% over the 10-year period of FY2014-FY2023, from $712 million
to $1.386 billion. Appropriations for ISEP formula funds have risen 25% over the same period,
from $384 million in FY2014 to $482 million in FY2023. Appropriations over the same period
for education construction and facilities, excluding ISDEAA Section 105(l) education facilities
lease costs, have risen 527%, from $55 million in FY2014 to $396 million in FY2023. For
background on the increase in education construction funding, see the “BIE School Construction
and Repair” section.

102 25 C.F.R. §900.69-900.74.
103 In FY2019 and FY2020, the lease costs were supported through the BIE Facilities Operations budget line item.
104 FY2021 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-16.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25

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

Figure 2. Appropriations for BIE Operations and Facilities, FY2014-FY2023
(dollars in millions)

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Budget
Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2015-2019; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Education, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2020-2024.
Notes: Education Construction includes a small amount of funds for BIE postsecondary institutions.
BIE appropriations for elementary and secondary education are divided between program funds,
expended through the BIE, and construction and related spending carried out through the BIA.
Table 5 shows detailed appropriations for BIE programs and BIA education construction for
FY2014-FY2023.

Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26
Table 5. Appropriations for BIE Elementary-Secondary Education Programs and BIA Education Construction:
FY2014-FY2023
(current dollars in thousands)

FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
BIE Elementary-Secondary
636,720
656,092
667,721
715,695
720,805
726,552
753,531
771,378
793,227
882,742
Education
Elementary/Secondary (forward-
518,318
536,897
533,458
575,155
579,242
582,580
596,893
617,901
638,865
706,185
funded)
ISEP Formula Funds
384,404
386,565
391,837
400,223
402,906
404,165
415,351
426,838
440,784
481,636
ISEP Program Adjustments
5,324
5,353
5,401
5,412
5,457
5,479
5,489
5,585
5,844
6,539
Tribal Education
—
2,000
2,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
5,000
5,003
5,889
Departments (TEDs)
Student Transportation
52,796
52,945
53,142
55,995
56,285
56,413
56,991
58,143
59,616
70,007
Early Childhood
15,451
15,520
15,620
18,659
18,810
18,810
18,852
21,000
21,655
25,267
Development
Tribal Grant Support Costsa
48,253
62,395
73,276
80,165
81,036
82,935
83,407
86,884
89,450
95,822
Education Program
12,090
12,119
12,182
12,201
12,248
12,278
14,303
14,451
16,513
21,025
Enhancements
Elementary/Secondary Programs
118,402
119,195
134,263
140,540
141,563
143,972
156,638
153,477
154,362
176,557
Facilities Operationsb
55,668
55,865
63,098
66,219
66,608
68,795
74,897
69,785
70,189
80,888
Facilities Maintenanceb
48,396
48,591
55,887
59,043
59,552
59,774
60,906
61,999
62,421
73,544
Juvenile Detention Education
—
—
500
500
500
500
500
553
554
555
Johnson-O’Malley Program
14,338
14,739
14,778
14,778
14,903
14,903
20,335
21,140
21,198
21,570
Education Managementc
20,354
20,464
25,151
35,050
35,254
35,355
42,607
48,300
59,888
67,192
BIA Education
55,285
74,501
138,245
133,257
238,245
238,250
248,257
344,277
344,330
346,887
Constructionb,d
Replacement School
954
20,165
45,504
45,504
105,504
105,504
115,504
115,504
115,504
116,504
Construction
CRS-21

link to page 26 link to page 26

FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
Replacement Facility
—
—
11,935
11,935
23,935
23,935
23,935
23,935
23,935
23,935
Construction
Replacement/New Employee
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,000
1,000
1,500
Housing
Employee Housing Repair
11,935
3,823
7,565
7,567
13,574
13,576
13,578
13,581
13,589
13,595
Education Facilities Improvement
50,513
50,513
73,241
68,251
95,232
95,235
95,240
95,257
95,302
96,353
and Repair
Legacy Restoration Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
95,000
95,000
95,000
Funds Appropriated in
—
—
—
—
—
—
46,089
620,500
—
—
Response to the COVID-19
Pandemice
Disaster Relieff
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
90,465
Total: BIE Elementary-
712,359
751,057
831,117
884,002
994,304
1,000,157 1,090,484
1,784,455 1,197,445
1,387,286
Secondary Education and
Education Construction
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2015-2019; and U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Years 2020-2024.
Notes:
Abbreviations: BIA–Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIE–Bureau of Indian Education, ISEP–Indian School Equalization Program
a. Tribal grant support costs were previously entitled Administrative Cost Grants.
b. Appropriation includes funds for BIE postsecondary education institutions.
c. A portion of Education Management supports the BIE postsecondary schools and postsecondary programs.
d. BIA Education Construction excludes Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA) Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing expenses for BIE
schools.
e. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) appropriated $69 mil ion to the BIE for Indian education programs to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The BIE allocated $46.1 mil ion to elementary and secondary schools (Bureau of Indian Education, BIE Listening Session
presentation, July 2, 2020). The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) appropriated $850 mil ion to the BIE for programs and activities funded by the BIE.
The BIE allocated $620.5 mil ion for elementary and secondary education (U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, BIE Implementation of American Rescue
Plan (ARP) Funding, https://www.bia.gov/service/american-rescue-plan-act/bie-implementation-arp-funding).
f.
The Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (Division N of P.L. 117-328) provided $90,465,000, to remain available until expended, for necessary
expenses related to the consequences of flooding at the To'Haji lee Community School.
CRS-22

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

U.S. Department of Education Indian Elementary and Secondary
Education Programs
ED provides funding specifically for the elementary and secondary education of Indian children
to both public and BIE schools. ED’s assistance specifically for Indian education is not to be
confused with its general assistance for elementary and secondary education nationwide. Indian
students benefit from ED’s general assistance as they attend public schools. This section covers
ED Indian assistance—that is, assistance statutorily specified for Indians or allotted according to
the number of students who reside on Indian lands, many of whom are Indian—not general ED
assistance that may also benefit Indian students.
ED Indian education funding to public and BIE schools flows through a number of programs,
most authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95),105 or the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, although other acts also authorize Indian education assistance. Major ED Indian
programs are profiled below. Some general ED programs have set-asides for BIE schools, while
other programs either may be intended solely for Indian students, may specifically include Indian
and non-Indian students, or may mention Indian students as a target of the assistance. In most
instances, BIE schools are included in the definition of local educational agency (LEA) in the
ESEA106 and IDEA,107 so many ED programs may provide funding to BIE schools even when the
programs have no BIE set-aside or other specific provision for BIE schools, but these programs
are not discussed here. Tribes, tribal organizations, the BIE, and BIE schools are also specifically
eligible to apply for certain programs, which are not described here.
ESEA Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies
Title I, Part A, of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to LEAs for the education of disadvantaged
children. ESEA Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-
achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively
high concentrations of students from low-income families. ESEA reserves 0.4% for the outlying
areas and 0.7% for DOI unless the set-asides result in the states receiving less than their aggregate
FY2016 amount, in which case the provisions under ESEA prior to the enactment of ESSA are in
effect.108 DOI funds are for BIE schools and for out-of-state Indian students being educated in
public schools under BIE contracts (e.g., students in peripheral dorms).

105 For more information about ESEA programs, see CRS Report R45977, The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): A Primer.
106 ESEA, §8101(30)(C).
107 IDEA, §602(19)(C).
108 ESEA Title I-A, as in effect prior to the enactment of the ESSA, provided a set-aside of 1% of Title I-A
appropriations for DOI and the outlying areas. The portion of the 1% provided to DOI was the amount determined by
the Secretary of Education to be needed to meet the special educational needs of the Indian students. Prior to FY2017,
the DOI share had been approximately 70% of the total set-aside, as calculated by CRS from “Fiscal Year 2001-2016
State Tables for the U.S. Department of Education: State Tables by Program,” U.S. Department of Education, Budget
Service, http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html.
Congressional Research Service

23

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

ESEA Title I-B State Assessment Grants
The ESEA authorizes formula grants to states to support the development and implementation of
state assessments and standards as required under ESEA Title I-A. ESEA Title I-B, as amended
by ESSA, provides a set-aside of 0.5% for BIE.
ESEA Title II-A Supporting Effective Instruction
The ESEA authorizes formula grants to states that may be used for a variety of purposes related to
the recruitment, retention, and professional development of K-12 teachers and school leaders. The
ESEA Title II-A program, as amended by ESSA, provides a 0.5% set-aside of appropriations for
programs in BIE schools.
ESEA Title III-A English Language Acquisition
Title III, Part A of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to states to provide programs for and
services to English learners (ELs), also known as limited English proficient (LEP) students, and
immigrant students. The program is designed to help ensure that ELs and immigrant students
attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic achievement in English, and meet the
same state academic standards that all students are expected to meet. The program provides a set-
aside equal to the greater of 0.5% of appropriations or $5 million for the Native American and
Alaska Native Children in School program. The set-aside is available to eligible Indian tribes,
tribally sanctioned educational authorities, Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander
Native language educational organizations, BIE elementary and secondary schools, and consortia
of BIE elementary and secondary schools.
ESEA Title IV-B 21st Century Community Learning Centers
Title IV, Part B, of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to states for activities that provide
learning opportunities for school-aged children during non-school hours. States award
competitive subgrants to LEAs and community organizations for before- and after-school
activities that will advance student academic achievement. The program provides a set-aside of
no more than 1% of Title IV-B appropriations for the BIE and the outlying areas. The portion of
the 1% that goes to the BIE is determined by the Secretary of Education.
ESEA Title VI-A Indian Education Programs
ESEA Title VI-A authorizes several programs for the education of Indian children. The programs
serve Indian students, the children and grandchildren of members of federally recognized tribes,
members of state recognized tribes and their children and grandchildren, and additional
individuals considered to be Indian.109
Title VI, Part A, Subpart 1 of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, authorizes formula grants for
supplementary education programs to meet the educational and cultural needs of Indian students.
LEAs, Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Indian community-based organizations, consortia of
the aforementioned entities, and BIE schools are eligible for grants. For an LEA to be eligible, at
least 10 Indian students must be enrolled or at least 25% of its total enrollment must be Indians

109 ESEA, §6151(3). Additional individuals considered to be Indian are (1) members of tribes whose federal recognition
was terminated after 1940, and their first and second degree descendants; (2) members of an organized Indian group
that received a grant under the program as it was in effect before the passage of the Improving America’s Schools Act
of 1994 (P.L. 103-382); and (3) individuals considered to be Indian by the Secretary of the Interior, for any purpose.
Congressional Research Service

24

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

(exempted from these requirements are LEAs in Alaska, California, and Oklahoma and LEAs
located on or near an Indian reservation). An LEA’s application must be approved by a local
committee of family members of Indian students and other stakeholders.
The Indian Education programs also authorize special competitive grant programs. One provides
demonstration grants to develop innovative services and programs to improve Indian students’
educational opportunities and achievement. Another competitive program provides for
professional development grants to colleges, or tribes or LEAs in consortium with colleges, to
train Indian individuals as teachers or other professionals.
In addition, the Indian Education programs authorize national programs. For example, grants to
tribes for education administrative planning and development are authorized. Funds are also
authorized for the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE), which advises the
Secretary of Education and Congress on ED programs that benefit Indian children.
ESEA Title VI-C Alaska Native Education Equity
Title VI, Part C, of the ESEA authorizes competitive grants to Alaska Native organizations,
educational entities with Native experience, and cultural and community organizations for
supplemental education programs that address the educational needs of Alaska Native students,
parents, and teachers. Grants may be used for development of curricula and educational materials,
student enrichment in science and math, professional development, family literacy, home
preschool instruction, cultural exchange, dropout prevention, and other programs.
ESEA Title VII Impact Aid
Title VII of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, authorizes Impact Aid Basic Support Payments.
Impact Aid provides financial assistance to school districts whose tax revenues are significantly
reduced, or whose student enrollments are significantly increased, because of the impacts of
federal property ownership or federal activities. Among such impacts are having a significant
number of children enrolled who reside on Indian lands,110 which are defined as Indian trust and
restricted lands,111 lands conveyed to Alaska Native entities under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971,112 public lands designated for Indian use, and certain lands used for low-
rent housing. However, the students residing on Indian lands need not be Indian. Impact Aid
funds are distributed by formula directly to LEAs and are used for basic operating costs, special
education, and facilities construction and maintenance.
There is no requirement that the funds be used specifically or preferentially for the education of
Indian students. There is, however, a requirement that Indian children participate on an equal
basis with non-Indian children in all of the educational programs and activities provided by the
LEA, including but not limited to those funded by Impact Aid. There is also a requirement that
the LEA consult with the parents and tribes of children who reside on “Indian lands” concerning
their education and to ensure that these children receive equal educational opportunities. A few
BIE schools receive Impact Aid funding. ED indicates that about 105,000 students residing on
Indian lands were used to determine formula allocations under Impact Aid for FY2022.113 The

110 ESEA, §7013(7).
111 Trust lands and restricted lands are not taxable by states or local governments, including LEAs. Trust lands are lands
held by the federal government in trust for an Indian tribe or individual; restricted lands are lands held by an Indian
tribe or individual subject to federal restrictions on alienation.
112 P.L. 92-203, Act of December 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688; 43 U.S.C. §1601 et seq.
113 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request, Impact Aid, p. 13.
Congressional Research Service

25

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

amount of Impact Aid funding going to LEAs based on the number of children residing on Indian
lands makes it the largest ED Indian education program.
IDEA Part B Special Education Grants to States
Part B of the IDEA authorizes formula grants to states to help them provide a free appropriate
public education to children with disabilities.114 States make subgrants to LEAs. Funds may be
used for salaries of teachers or other special education personnel, education materials,
transportation, special education services, and occupational therapy or other related services.
Section 611(b)(2) of the IDEA reserves 1.226% of state-grant appropriations for DOI. Each
appropriations act since the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-149) has limited the DOI set-aside to
the prior-year set-aside amount increased for inflation.115 As a consequence, in FY2022 the DOI
set-aside was 0.75%.116 Section 611(h) of the IDEA directs the Secretary of the Interior to allocate
80% of the set-aside funds to BIE schools for special education for children aged 5-21 and 20%
to tribes and tribal organizations on reservations with BIE schools for early identification of
children with disabilities aged 3-5, parent training, and provision of direct services.
IDEA Part C Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities
Part C of the IDEA authorizes a grant program to aid each state in implementing a system of early
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.117 Section 643(b)
of the IDEA reserves 1.25% of state-grant appropriations for DOI to distribute to tribes and tribal
organizations for the coordination of assistance in the provision of early intervention services by
the states to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families on reservations served by BIE
schools.
MVHAA Education for Homeless Children and Youths
Title VII, Part B, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MVHAA; 42 U.S.C.
§§11431-11435) authorizes the Education for Homeless Children and Youths (EHCY) program.
The program provides assistance to state educational agencies (SEAs) to ensure that all homeless
children and youths have equal access to the same free appropriate public education, including
public preschool education that is provided to other children and youths. The program provides a
1.0% set-aside of the appropriation to DOI for services provided by BIE to homeless children and
youths.
Perkins Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP)
Title I of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV; P.L. 109-
270), as amended by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act
(Perkins V; P.L. 115-224), authorizes formula grants to states to support the development of

114 For more information on IDEA Part B, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions.
115 The inflation index has been either as specified in Section 619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA or the percent change in the
IDEA appropriations from the prior year.
116 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Special Education, p. 28.
117 For more information on IDEA Part C, see CRS Report R43631, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Part C: Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 32 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

career and technical skills among students in secondary and postsecondary education.118 The
program provides a 1.25% set-aside for the Native American Career and Technical Education
Program (NACTEP). Eligible entities for NACTEP funds include federally organized Indian
tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, and consortia of such, as well as BIE
schools.119
ED Elementary and Secondary Indian Education Funding
ED Indian education funding primarily supports public schools. Less than a quarter of ED Indian
education funds are set aside for BIE schools (see Figure 3); however, this constitutes a
significant source of BIE school funding.
The overall ED Indian education program funding during the FY2014-FY2023 period increased
from FY2014 ($1.050 billion) to FY2023 ($1.452 billion) (see Table 6). Funds appropriated in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic provided an additional $0.123 billion in FY2020 and $0.354
billion in FY2021.
Impact Aid is the largest single ED elementary and secondary Indian education program, as
Figure 3 illustrates. The second-largest funding stream comprises the various BIE set-asides from
several ESEA formula grant programs, especially IDEA Part B and ESEA Title I-A. The ESEA
Indian Education programs provide approximately 13% of the total funding.

118 For more information on Perkins V, see CRS Report R47071, Strengthening Career and Technical Education for
the 21st Century Act (Perkins V): A Primer.
119 BIE schools may not carry out secondary-level CTE programs with NACTEP funds, because they are eligible to
receive money through the states.
Congressional Research Service

27

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

Figure 3. Distribution of ED Funding for Indian Education Programs: FY2014-FY2023
(dollars in millions)

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service, unpublished tables,
transmitted on various dates, 2015-2023; and U.S. Department of Education, FY2024 Budget Justification, pp. C-
14.

Congressional Research Service

28

Table 6. Estimated Funding for Department of Education’s Indian Elementary-Secondary Education Programs:
FY2014-FY2023
(current dollars in thousands)
Education
Department
(ED) Programs
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
Total ED
1,049,657
1,060,280
1,119,481
1,164,397
1,243,064
1,276,957
1,435,424
1,471,414
1,383,579
1,451,980
Indian
Elementary-
Secondary
Education
Programs
Subtotal of ED
217,872
216,883
225,198
233,190
240,458
242,337
247,873
250,851
264,007
272,625
Funds Set-
Aside for the
BIE
Percentage of Total
21%
20%
20%
20%
19%
19%
17%
17%
19%
19%
ESEA Title I-A
92,597
93,711
99,640
108,184
110,284
110,984
114,134 115,723 122,723
128,673
Grants to Local
Educational
Agencies
IDEA Part B
93,805
94,009
94,170
94,881
96,818
97,500
99,028 100,006 100,006
106,376
Special Education
Grants to States
ESEA Title II-A
11,690
11,690
11,690
10,228
10,228
10,228
10,606 10,662 10,796
10,895
Improving
Teacher Quality
State Grants
ESEA Title IV-B
8,055
7,892
8,244
8,231
7,756
7,819
7,998 8,061 8,572
8,506
21st Century
Community
Learning Centers
CRS-29

Education
Department
(ED) Programs
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
ESEA Title IV-A
—
—
—
2,000
5,473
5,821
6,020
6,070
11,351
6,866
School Support
and Academic
Enrichment State
Grants
IDEA Part C
5,414
5,414
5,661
5,661
5,802
5,802
5,802 5,990 6,127
6,667
Grants for Infants
and Families with
Disabilities
ESEA State
1,845
—
1,845
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
1,846
Assessment
Grants
MVHAA Title VII-
650
650
700
770
850
935
1,015
1,065
1,140
1,290
B Homeless
Children and
Youth
ESEA Title II-B-2,
—
—
—
950
950
950
960
960
960
970
Sec. 2222
Comprehensive
Literacy
Development
Grants
ESEA Title VI-B
425
425
440
440
452
452
465
470
488
538
Rural Education
ESEA Title I,
3,091
3,091
2,808
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Section 1003
School
Improvement
Grants
ESEA Title IV-A
300
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Safe and Drug-
Free Schools
CRS-30

Education
Department
(ED) Programs
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
Subtotal of
831,785
843,396
894,282
931,208
1,002,606
1,034,620
1,064,551
1,097,563
1,119,572
1,179,355
Other ED
Funds for
Indian
Education
Percentage of Total
79%
80%
80%
80%
81%
81%
74%
75%
81%
81%
ESEA Impact
591,392
592,642
626,138
632,779
696,285
715,909
751,344
769,049 790,482
826,874
Aid—Basic
Support
ESEA Indian
100,381
100,381
100,381
100,381
105,381
105,381
105,381
105,381 109,881
110,381
Education—LEA
Grants
ESEA Indian
17,993
17,993
37,993
57,993
67,993
67,993
67,993
67,993 70,000
72,000
Education—
Special Programs
Voc. Rehab. For
37,201
39,160
43,000
43,000
40,189
43,000
45,250
50,650
50,650
50,650
AIs with
Disabilities
ESEA Alaska
31,453
31,453
32,453
32,453
35,453
35,453
35,953
36,453 37,953
44,953
Native Education
Equity
ESEA Impact
19,827
19,827
20,688
21,360
21,830
21,830
21,530
21,081 20,853
20,853
Aid—Disabilities
ESEA Impact
—
17,406
—
17,406
—
17,406
— 17,406 —
18,406
Aid—
Construction
“Discretionary"
Perkins Native
13,970
13,970
13,970
13,970
14,907
15,782
16,032
16,685 16,686
17,873
American Career
and Technical
CRS-31

link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37
Education
Department
(ED) Programs
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
Education
Program
ESEA Indian
5,565
5,565
5,656
6,565
6,865
6,865
7,365
7,865
9,365
12,365
Education—
National
Programs
ESEA Title III-A
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
English Language
Acquisition
ESEA Impact
8,703
—
8,703
—
8,703
—
8,703
— 8,703

Aid—
—
Construction
“Formula"
Special Ed. Parent
300
—
300
300
—
—
— —
—
—
Info. Centers
Subtotal of
—
—
—
—
—
—
123,000
353,685
—
—
Funds
Appropriated
in Response to
the COVID-19
Pandemic
Percentage of Total
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
24%
0%
0%
Education
—
—
—
—
—
—
123,000
245,640
—
—
Stabilization
Funda
ESEA Alaska
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
85,000
—
—
Native Education
Equityb
ESEA Indian
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
20,000
—
—
Education –
Special Programsc
CRS-32

link to page 37
Education
Department
(ED) Programs
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
IDEA Part Cd
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,045
—
—
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service, unpublished tables, transmitted on various dates, 2015-2023; U.S. Department of Education, FY2024 Budget
Justification, pp. C-14; https://www.bie.edu/sites/default/files/documents/BIE%20FY%202024_0.pdf (accessed on June 4, 2020); Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA; Division M of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 [P.L. 116-260]); and American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
Notes: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. Abbreviations: ED—U.S. Department of Education. ESEA—Elementary and Secondary Education Act. IDEA—
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. LEA—Local educational agency (school district). MVHAA—McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Perkins—Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.
a. The CARES Act established the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally," and the
CRRSAA reauthorized the ESF. Under the CARES Act, ED was required to reserve 0.5% of the total appropriation of $30.75 bil ion for the BIE. The BIE allotment
was disbursed as fol ows: 70% to BIE elementary and secondary schools, 20% to tribal col eges and universities (TCUs), and 10% for emergency needs determined
by the BIE (U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of the Interior, Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) – Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), June 11-12, 2020). Under the CRRSAA, ED also was required to reserve 0.5% of the total ESF
appropriation of $81.88 bil ion for the BIE. The statutory language further specified that 60% of the funds be allocated for BIE-funded elementary and secondary
schools and the remaining 40% of funds be distributed to TCUs. For more information regarding ESF, see CRS Report R47027, Education Stabilization Fund Programs
Funded by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA: Background and Analysis.
b. Section 11006(3) of the ARPA provided $85.0 mil ion for awards to entities eligible to receive grants under the ESEA Alaska Native Education program for activities
authorized under the ESEA Alaska Native Education program.
c. Section 11006(1) of the ARPA provided $20.0 mil ion for awards to tribal education agencies for activities authorized under the ESEA Title VI-A-2 Indian Education
program that provides demonstration grants to develop innovative services and programs to improve Indian students’ educational opportunities and achievement.
d. Section 2014 of the ARPA provided $3.0 bil ion for awards under the IDEA. Of the funds, DOI received $3,045,220 for IDEA Part C (U.S. Department of Education,
IDEA American Rescue Plan Funds, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/arp/index.html).
CRS-33

link to page 13 link to page 13 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

Issues in Indian Education
Some of the issues of concern with regard to Indian education pertain to the comparatively poor
academic outcomes of Indian students, the effect of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
on Bureau of Indian Education schools, the poor condition of BIE school facilities, and the
allocation of Johnson O’Malley funds. The federal government has been actively engaged in
addressing these issues in a holistic manner in hopes of ultimately increasing the academic
achievement of Indian students.
In 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14049, White House Initiative on Advancing
Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and
Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities. Among its purposes, the order is intended to
foster a federal response that tackles the legacy of federally supported Indian boarding schools,
promotes Native languages, addresses the educational inequities evidenced by the COVID-19
pandemic, and improves the educational outcomes of Indian children. The order tasks each
federal agency represented on the White House Council on Native American Affairs with
developing a plan to advance the order’s purpose and monitoring its progress.
In recent years, Congress has also supported efforts to address these issues. Beginning in 2012,
Congress appropriated funds specifically to promote tribal self-determination with respect to
public schools. Several ESEA provisions adopted through ESSA are designed to increase Indian
and tribal influence in public schools. In recent years, authorizing and appropriating committees
have held hearings on the condition of BIE school facilities, the effect of the COVID-19
pandemic on BIE schools, ways to promote Native languages, strategies to improve educational
outcomes of Indian students, and Indian boarding schools. In addition, Congress has enacted
legislation to address several of the issues.
Poor Academic Achievement and Outcomes
There are significant gaps in educational outcomes for Indian students in BIE schools and
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in public schools compared to other students.
For more information on educational outcomes, see the earlier section entitled “Status of Indian
and American Indian/Alaska Native Elementary and Secondary Education.” As specified in the
ESEA, “it is the policy of the United States to fulfill the federal government’s unique and
continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of
Indian children.”120 Title 25 of the U.S. Code also refers to “the federal responsibility for and
assistance to education of Indian children.”121
Native Language Instruction and Revitalization
Many federal policies during the civilization and assimilation era and before the current era of
self-determination contributed to Native language loss.122 In recent decades, there have been
consistent calls to increase the use of Native language instruction to increase cultural relevance
and improve overall academic performance. One argument contends that language, culture, and

120 ESEA, §6101.
121 25 U.S.C. §5301(b)(2).
122 Kauffman and Associates, Inc., Bureau of Indian Affairs Native Language Revitalization, White House Council for
Native American Affairs, Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, White House Initiative for Native
Americans Tribal Colleges and Universities, Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families,
Literature Review Draft, August 2023.
Congressional Research Service

34

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

identity are intertwined and thus are important to the tribal identity. A counter argument is that
Native language instruction detracts from the core curriculum. The Native American Languages
Act (P.L. 101-477), as amended, established federal policy to encourage and support Native
languages through instruction, exceptions to teacher certification requirements, and comparability
with foreign languages. Several administrations have issued executive orders intended to assess
the role of Native language and culture on educational strategies and academic achievement
and/or expand opportunities for AI/AN students to learn their Native language.123 Congress has
expanded program authorities and appropriated funds to permit Native language instruction,
preservation, and revitalization.
There is not consensus in the research literature regarding the relative effectiveness of Native
language instruction. One commonly cited review of research studies with control groups, for
instance, suggests that bilingual instruction in some instances was found to improve English
reading proficiency in comparison to English immersion, but in other instances it had no impact.
This review focused principally on studies conducted prior to 1996 and that examined instruction
for Spanish-speaking elementary school children, and many of the studies have limitations. The
one study of Indian Native language students included in the review found no significant
difference in English reading outcomes between bilingual and English-immersion instruction.124
Some longitudinal studies prior to 2007 indicated that Native language immersion students
achieved higher scores on assessments of English and math than Native students who did not
receive Native language immersion.125 However, a more recent review of the literature suggests
that rigorous Native language and culture programs sustain non-English academic achievement,
build English proficiency, and enhance student motivation.126
Table 7 lists federal programs that support Native language instruction in the context of formal
elementary and secondary education. For most programs, Native language instruction or the
development of Native language instructors is one of many allowable activities. Several of the
programs are competitively awarded, which may disadvantage tribes with fewer resources to
develop applications. The programs that primarily support Native language instruction received
approximately $45 million of funding in FY2023.127
Table 7. Selected Federal Programs that Support Native Language Instruction
Federal Agency
Program
Authority
Programs that Primarily Support Native Language Instruction
Department of Education
Native American Language (NAL@ED) Program
ESEA, Title VI-A-3

123 See, for example, Executive Order 13336, “American Indian and Alaska Native Education,” 69 Federal Register
25296, May 4, 2004; and Executive Order 14049, “White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity,
Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities,” 86
Federal Register 57317, October 4, 2021.
124 Robert E. Slavin and Alan Cheung, “A Synthesis of Research on Language of Reading Instruction for English
Language Learners,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 75, no. 2 (Summer 2005), pp. 247-284.
125 Mary Eunice Romero-Little, Teresa L. McCarty, and Larisa Warhol, et al., “Language Policies in Practice:
Preliminary Findings from a Large-Scale National Study of Native American Language Shift,” TESOL Quarterly, vol.
41, no. 3 (September 2007), pp. 607-618.
126 Teresa L. McCarty, and Alica Wiley Snell, The Role of Native Languages and Cultures in American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian Student Achievement, Arizona State University, under a contract from the U.S.
Department of Education, July 2011.
127 U.S. Department of Education FY2024 Budget Justification, Indian Education; American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(P.L. 117-2); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FY2024 Budget Justification, Administration for
Children and Families; and Explanatory Statement to Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328).
Congressional Research Service

35

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

Federal Agency
Program
Authority
Department of Education
Native American Language Resource Centers
Native American Language
Program
Resource Center Act of
2021 (P.L. 117-335)
Department of Health and
Emergency Grants for Native American Language
Esther Martinez Native
Human Services
Preservation and Maintenance
American Languages
Preservation Act of 2006
Department of Health and
Esther Martinez Immersion
Esther Martinez Native
Human Services
American Languages
Preservation Act of 2006
Department of Health and
Native American Language Preservation and
Esther Martinez Native
Human Services
Maintenance Programs
American Languages
Preservation Act of 2006
Department of the Interior
Living Languages Grant Program (LLGP)
Snyder Act; FY2020–FY2023
Interior Appropriations Bil s
Department of the Interior
BIE Native Language Immersion Grants at BIE
FY2020–FY2023 Interior
schools
Appropriations Bil s
Programs that May be Used to Support Native Language Instruction
Department of Education
English Language Acquisition
ESEA, Title III-A
Department of Education
Indian Education Formula Grant Program
ESEA, Title VI-A-1
Department of Education
Demonstration Grants for Indian Children
ESEA, Title VI-A-2
Department of Education
Indian Education Professional Development
ESEA, Title VI-A-2
Department of Education
Alaska Native Education Equity Program
ESEA, Title VI-C
Department of the Interior
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
Education Amendments of
1978, §1127
Department of the Interior
Education Program Enhancements
Snyder Act; Education
Amendments of 1978, §1127
Department of the Interior
Johnson O’Malley (JOM)
Johnson-O’Malley Act
Department of the Interior
Early Child and Family Development (FACE)
Education Amendments of
1978, §1139
Source: CRS compilation of statutory provisions, Federal Register Notices, and budget documents.
Notes: ESEA–Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
a. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Living Languages Grant Program (LLGP);
Solicitation of Proposals,” 85 Federal Register 31544-31548, May 26, 2020.
Of the various opportunities for Native language learning, some schools offer classes taught in
Native languages. Approximately one-quarter of BIE schools were Native language immersion
schools in 2019. Also in 2019, 42% of BIE 4th graders and 64% of BIE 8th graders reported
attending classes taught in an AI/AN language at least once per week. This exposure is
significantly higher than that of AI/AN students in public schools. Of those in public schools with
at least 25% AI/AN enrollment in 2019, 26% of 4th graders and 25% of 8th graders reported
attending classes taught in an AI/AN language at least once per week.128

128 B.D. Rampey, S.C. Faircloth, R.P. Whorton, and J. Deaton, National Indian Education Study 2019 (NCES 2021-
018), U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2021).
Congressional Research Service

36

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

In 2015, the BIE introduced a Native language policy framework for BIE-operated schools,
including college and preschool programs. The policy is intended to require the integration of
Native language instruction to the extent that Native language standards exist. Consistent with
this set of aims, DOI, ED, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) signed a
memorandum of understanding to work together to encourage instruction in and preservation of
Native languages.129 BIE regulations updated in 2020 describe the ability of tribal governing
bodies and school boards to create Native language academic standards and assessments.130 In
March 2020, the BIE announced that it intends to provide guidance on the use of content
assessments in a Native language for ESEA Title I-A compliance purposes that would increase
flexibility in the use of Native languages for instruction in all subjects.131
Despite the number of programs that may be used to support Native language learning, the extent
to which these programs have resulted in access to Native language instruction and Native
language fluency has not been documented.
Discipline, Violence, Crime, and Alcohol and Drug Use
Tribal representatives have indicated that violence and alcohol and drug use are serious
community issues that affect students and their ability to learn. A high incidence of substance use,
depression, interpersonal violence, and suicide are not conducive to learning.132 This environment
affects Indian students enrolled in BIE and public schools.
ED and the General Accountability Office (GAO) have indicated that AI/AN students enrolled in
public schools are overrepresented among out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and other
disciplinary actions.133 Such actions may be related to poverty and mental health issues in
addition to potential discrimination. Suspensions and expulsions can have negative educational
consequences.
A February 2010 evaluation of violence prevention policies and measures at BIE schools by
DOI’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found areas of concern for potential violence and
deficiencies in the policies and procedures for preventing and managing incidents.134 According
to the OIG evaluation, in recent years 6% of public high school students carried a weapon on
campus, whereas 37% of BIE middle school students reported the same. The OIG evaluation
found that many BIE schools had open campuses—little or no fencing, inadequate security access

129 Brian Drapeaux, Director, Bureau of Indian Education, Lillian Sparks, Commissioner, Administration for Native
Americans, and William Mendoza, Executive Director, White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native
Education, Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Education On Native Languages, November 30, 2012.
130 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System,” 85
Federal Register 17030, March 26, 2020.
131 Ibid.
132 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and
the Indian Health Service, The National Tribal Behavioral Health Agenda, December 2016.
133 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Protecting Civil Rights, Advancing Equity: Report to the
President and Secretary of Education, Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY
13–14, Washington, DC, 2015; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities
for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities, GAO-18-258, March 2018.
134 The committee report accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) directed DOI
to provide such grants. For more information, see U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,
Evaluation Report—School Violence Prevention, Report No. NM-EV-BIE-0003-2008, Washington, DC, February
2010.
Congressional Research Service

37

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

procedures, and flawed camera surveillance systems. The OIG recommended that the BIA and
BIE
• establish safety policies and accurate incident tracking systems,135
• evaluate campus safety and security,
• correct weaknesses or require tribal operators to correct weaknesses,
• address safety as a criterion for tribes to maintain operating grants and contracts,
and
• implement staff training to prevent and manage incidents.
Follow-up inspections in 2014 indicated the need for improvement in several areas. Emergency
preparedness and security plans failed to cover all applicable topics. Violence prevention training
for staff and students also failed to cover all applicable topics. BIE schools need to evaluate and
implement necessary safety measures.136
The BIE collaborates with HHS to provide behavioral health services and assistance. In 2016, the
BIE and Indian Health Service (IHS) entered into an agreement to establish local partnerships for
IHS-operated mental health programs to provide mental health counseling to students attending
BIE-operated schools. The agreement encourages tribes and tribally controlled BIE schools to
also participate in local partnerships.137 Also in 2016, HHS, DOI, and the U.S. Department of
Justice entered into an agreement to coordinate efforts in the prevention, intervention, and/or
treatment of alcohol and substance use disorders.138 As a result, the HHS Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration maintains BIE Tribal Action Plan regional points of
contact to support coordination and technical assistance.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the BIE initiated its Behavioral Health and Wellness Program
in an effort to provide culturally relevant and evidence-based virtual counseling and onsite crisis
services at all BIE schools for staff and students. In 2023, the BIE extended its contract for the
services an additional five years.139
Broadband and Computer Access
Access to high-speed internet (broadband) and computers is of increasing importance in
elementary and secondary education. The internet may be used for online standardized
assessments (some BIE students must be bussed offsite for assessments),140 in-home instructional
access, and access to various educational resources and content. To this end, schools need
broadband access for multiple students concurrently, and students need access at home. Calendar

135 The evaluation indicated that reporting of incidents in the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) is
inconsistent and inaccurate.
136 Kimberly Elmore, Management Advisory - Summary of Bureau of Indian Education Violence Prevention
Inspections, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report No. 2015-CR-074, June 15, 2016.
137 Interagency Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service and the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education and Bureau of Indian Affairs-Office of Justice Services,
December 2016.
138 Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), December 6,
2016.
139 Bureau of Indian Education, “Interior Department Announces Behavioral Health and Wellness Program for Tribal
Schools,” press release, June 29, 2023, https://www.bie.edu/news-article/interior-department-announces-behavioral-
health-and-wellness-program-tribal-schools.
140 FY2021 Budget, p. BIE-OIEP-23.
Congressional Research Service

38

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

year 2022 Census data indicate that, on average, 93% of the population are in a household that
has a computer and a broadband internet subscription, but American Indians and Alaska Natives
have the lowest rate of access at 88%.141 Census defines a computer to include desktop computers
and smartphones. Smartphones may not be adequate for completing remote learning lessons,
which means the data may overestimate access to remote learning. In addition, 28% of persons on
tribal lands lack broadband access compared to 2% of Americans in urban areas.142
There are three primary sources of funding to improve broadband access on tribal lands.143 The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Universal Service Fund (USF) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provide significant funding for
broadband deployment; however, tribal entities and BIE schools may receive limited funding in
proportion to their need. The BIE Education IT appropriations program element provides internet
connectivity for BIE-operated schools and some tribally operated BIE schools. In addition, in
FY2020 BIA set aside funds from the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020 (P.L. 116-
94) for grants to tribes to perform feasibility studies for the deployment or expansion of
broadband.144 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government appropriated $78
billion to address the digital divide and broadband availability, a portion of which was available
to Indian tribes, tribal colleges and universities, BIA, BIE, and/or the IHS.145
BIE School Issues
BIE school-specific issues include how to define an effective academic accountability system for
BIE schools, construction and repair of BIE schools, and BIE management and administration.
Federal Administration and Organization
The structure and administration of the BIE school system has long been considered a contributor
to poor educational outcomes. A landmark 1928 report, known as the Meriam Report, found that
underfunding and paternal federal policy contributed to deficient boarding school student diets,
low qualification standards and salaries for teaching staff, student labor to maintain schools, and a
prescriptive and unresponsive curriculum. Another milestone report in 1969, known as the
Kennedy report, recommended a promotion of the status of BIA within DOI but declined to make
a recommendation regarding what it characterized as the long-standing and most serious issue of
the ineffective internal organization of the BIA.146 The 1969 report highlighted that education was
not the BIA’s highest priority and called attention to a lack of centralized authority, data, and

141 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2022: ACS 1-Year Estimates Subject Table S2802, available at
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S2802?d=ACS+1-Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&vintage=2022&
hidePreview=true.
142 Federal Communications Commission, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC 20-50, April 24, 2020, p. 18.
143 See also CRS Report R44416, Tribal Broadband: Status of Deployment and Federal Funding Programs.
144 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “National Tribal Broadband Grant; Solicitation of Proposals,”
85 Federal Register 7580-7584, February 10, 2020.
145 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (P.L. 116-136) provided $100 million for broadband
programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260)
provided $6.2 billion for broadband programs at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and USDA; the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(P.L. 117-2) provided $7.2 billion for broadband programs at the FCC; and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) provided $64.4 billion for broadband programs at the FCC, NTIA, and USDA.
146 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Indian
Education: A National Tragedy - A National Challenge, Pursuant to S. Res. 80, 91st Cong., 1st sess., November 3, 1969,
S.Rept. 91-501 (Washington: GPO, 1969).
Congressional Research Service

39

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

information; a clear chain of command; educational expertise among administrators; and a high
quality, motivated, and stable teaching staff. Additional organizational assessments were
conducted in 1992,147 1999,148 and 2012.149
Since 2013, GAO has published several reports on DOI management of BIE schools. GAO has
maintained DOI management of Indian education programs on its high-risk list of government
programs since 2017.150 It found fragmented administrative structures, a lack of clear roles and
poor coordination between responsible offices, frequent turnovers in leadership, and inadequate
procedures and internal controls.151 In addition, GAO indicated that the small enrollment of many
BIE schools makes it more difficult for them to acquire all of the necessary educational and
personnel resources.152 The BIE has an inadequate number of staff to oversee school
expenditures, and staff have inadequate training and written procedures with which to fulfill their
administrative obligations.153 For example, insufficient BIE staff expertise and oversight have
resulted in special education services required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act either not being provided or not being appropriately documented.154 As of April 2023, the
BIE has made progress in addressing several weaknesses but still needs to ensure schools
consistently make up missed special education and related services, reduce staff vacancies,
provide adequate capacity to oversee schools, and establish sufficient monitoring to ensure
schools provide students needed services.155
Federal administration of BIE schools is complicated by statutory provisions. While the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and Tribally Controlled Schools Act
support the federal policy of tribal control, DOI management of tribally operated schools is
necessarily limited by the two laws. In contrast, state educational agencies may establish
standards, processes, and programs for public schools to implement. BIE administers TCSA
grants, which are limited to schools, but BIA administers ISDEAA contracts, which may include
other funding streams such as funds for roads and economic development. Also, the requirement

147 Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization, 1992 Report to the
Secretary of the Interior and the Appropriations Committees, December 1992.
148 National Academy of Public Administration, A Study of Management and Administration: The Bureau of Indian
Affairs, August 1999.
149 Bronner, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for Support Functions, March 2012.
150 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to Be
Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas, GAO-23-106203, April 2023.
151 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to
Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-342T, February 27, 2013; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian
Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-774, September 24,
2013; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Further Actions on GAO Recommendations Needed to Address
Systemic Management Challenges with Indian Education, GAO-15-539T, April 22, 2015.
152 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to
Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-342T, February 27, 2013; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian
Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-774, September 24,
2013.
153 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education Needs to Improve Oversight of School
Spending, GAO-15-121, November 13, 2014; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Further Actions on GAO
Recommendations Needed to Address Systemic Management Challenges with Indian Education, GAO-15-539T, April
22, 2015.
154 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Education: Actions Needed to Ensure Students with Disabilities
Receive Special Education Services, GAO-20-358, May 22, 2020.
155 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to Be
Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas, GAO-23-106203, April 2023; and Letter from U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Priority Open Recommendations: Department of the Interior, to The Honorable Deb Haaland,
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, May 11, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

40

link to page 18 link to page 19 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

for tribal consultations supports self-determination and may improve results and acceptance, but
it slows change, implementation, and innovation.
Several options have been considered to address these long-standing administrative,
organizational, and ultimately student achievement issues.
• Similar to the transfer of BIA-funded schools in Alaska to the state of Alaska, the
remaining BIE schools or students could be transferred to the states, which have
established and known governance systems. AI/AN students in public schools
demonstrate higher academic achievement than BIE students, which lends some
support for this option. However, AI/AN students in public schools on average
score lower than white and Asian/Pacific Islander students in public schools
(Table 3 and Table 4). In addition, AI/AN students in public schools and BIE
students may not be comparable populations.
• Some stakeholders have suggested colocating or transitioning BIE schools to
tribally operated charter schools. As charter schools are public-state schools, this
option is similar to the aforementioned option of transferring BIE schools to the
states except that charter schools provide greater autonomy to the operator than is
available to traditional public schools.
• Some stakeholders have suggested transferring the BIE school system to ED
because ED is the federal agency whose mission is educational excellence and
equal access. Transferring BIE to ED may be difficult as some tribal stakeholders
advocate for DOI-Indian Affairs maintaining responsibility for Indian affairs and
the fact that ED does not have experience operating a school system.
• The Administration and Congress have initiated DOI reorganizations and
restructurings to address the issue directly. The proposals have variously tried to
centralize or decentralize authority and responsibility, improve options for high-
quality personnel recruitment and retention, delineate all of the education
functions into a separate or independent organization, share support functions
between BIE and BIA to leverage expertise, publish policy/procedures manuals,
and improve tribal participation.
In 2014 following results of the American Indian Education Study Group, DOI ordered a
restructuring of BIE in order to address many outstanding issues, in particular encouraging
greater tribal control, improving student achievement, and increasing communication within the
BIE and with its stakeholders. The reorganization is designed to provide greater support and
technical assistance to tribally operated BIE schools in order to promote more effective teachers
and principals, better respond to resource needs, and foster family and community support for
students. The reorganization is also designed to ensure the budget is aligned with expected
outcomes and processes.156
During the 114th Congress, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs approved the Reforming
American Indian Standards of Education Act of 2016 (S. 2580), which proposed to create an
independent Indian education agency that would be within DOI and that would be directed by a
presidential appointee. The explanatory statements to accompany the FY2014, FY2016, FY2017,
and FY2018 appropriations acts instructed DOI to present a plan to reorganize Indian Affairs such

156 Secretary’s Order 3334, “Restructuring the Bureau of Indian Education,” Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, June
12, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

41

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

that all Indian education functions are administered by and accountable to an independent BIE.157
The explanatory statement to accompany the FY2020 appropriations act accepted the proposal for
an independent BIE with a separate budget. The FY2021-FY2023 explanatory statements have
required quarterly reports from the BIE on the reorganization’s progress and BIE’s capacity.
Academic Accountability Under ESEA
The ESEA, as amended by ESSA in 2015, requires DOI to develop regulations for defining BIE
school standards, assessments, and an educational accountability system under ESEA Title I-A,
and it permits BIE schools to waive such regulatory requirements if the tribal governing body or
school board of a BIE school determines the regulations to be inappropriate. From AY2016-2017
through AY2019-2020, the BIE received waivers from implementing an accountability system
that met ESSA requirements.
The final BIE regulations were published in March 2020 and were to go into effect for AY2020-
2021.158 The rules call for unified BIE assessments for English language arts, math, science, and
tribal civics, and the option for tribal-level Native American language academic standards and
assessments. The BIE is to use commercially available English language arts, math, and science
standards until they can be modified to meet unique BIE needs. Tribal governing bodies and
school boards can waive in part or whole any part of the academic accountability system. The
Miccosukee Tribe has had an alternative system since AY2014-2015, while the Navajo Nation has
since AY2015-2016.
In part because of the COVID-19 pandemic, BIE’s implementation of the new off-the-shelf
assessments was delayed to AY2020-2021 and AY2021-2022. As of August 2023, the BIE has not
fully implemented its new accountability system consistent with its plan and regulations.159
BIE School Construction and Repair
For over 40 years, BIE school facilities have been characterized by a large number of old
facilities with a high rate of deficiencies.160 Some facilities are in poor condition and do not meet
health and safety standards.161 Reports from students and faculty suggest that conditions affect
learning and enrollment. GAO and DOI have reported several weaknesses in the management of
BIE school facilities.162 Construction activities have historically been managed by either the BIA

157 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Explanatory Statement, To accompany House
Amendment to Senate Amendments to H.R. 244 (Rules Committee Print 115-16, showing the text of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017.), 115th Cong., 1st sess.
158 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System,” 85
Federal Register 17009-17030, March 26, 2020.
159 Bureau of Indian Education, Agency Plan: Bureau of Indian Education: The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, 2023 Amended Agency Plan; and Letter from U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to Tony Dearman, Director, Bureau of Indian
Education, August 25, 2023.
160 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Should the Bureau of Indian Affairs Continue to Provide Educational
Services to Indian Children?, CED-80-72, April 23, 1980, pp. 24-25; and U.S. General Accounting Office, School
Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools Funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs, GAO/HEHA-98-47,
December 31, 1997.
161 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the
Oversight and Support of Education Facilities, GAO-15-389T, February 27, 2015.
162 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the
Oversight and Support of Education Facilities, GAO-15-389T, February 27, 2015; U.S. Government Accountability
Office, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

42

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

or Indian Affairs. The weaknesses include a lack of consistent and complete facilities condition
information, inadequate implementation of procedures to address facilities’ deficiencies,
insufficient staffing, inadequate staff training, inconsistent oversight, insufficient internal controls
and procedures, and poor communication. Several efforts have been employed to address
facilities’ deficiencies.
In addition to management concerns, annual funding levels have been insufficient to reduce
estimates for eliminating facilities in poor condition. In 2016, DOI estimated that the replacement
cost of BIE school facilities exceeded $4.6 billion and that the cost to correct known deficiencies
exceeded $430 million.163 At the end of FY2019, BIE reported 71 schools in poor condition, 43 in
fair condition, and 65 in good condition.164 In August 2023, BIE reported that in addition to the
schools to which funding has been allocated, 68 schools are in poor condition and in need of
replacement at an estimated cost of $6.2 billion.165
Prioritization of Facilities
The BIE is responsible for BIE school facilities, including replacement, improvement, and repair
of existing school facilities, and repair of education employee housing. In response to ongoing
facilities needs and unsafe conditions, Congress has established requirements of DOI in an effort
to facilitate addressing the issues. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, P.L. 107-110) required
that DOI establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to report on BIE schools’ needs for school
and school facilities replacement and repair, and to develop formulas to distribute funds to
address these needs.166 Congress has periodically directed the BIA to develop replacement school
priority lists. As of March 2023, work is incomplete on the most recent congressionally requested
replacement school construction lists developed in 2004 (14 schools) and 2016 (10 schools).167
More recently, in each year from 2019 to 2023, BIE developed school replacement priority
lists.168
Oversight of Water Systems
In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with the BIA and
BIE to address alleged violations of waste, water, air, toxics, and community right-to-know laws
at schools and public water systems. The alleged violations are related to the labeling, storage,
and release of wastes; asbestos management plans; and drinking water monitoring and
contaminant levels. The original settlement required BIA and BIE to correct alleged violations at
72 schools and 27 water systems and implement an environmental compliance auditing program
and an environmental management system (EMS) to improve environmental practices at all of its

407T, February 15, 2017; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Key Actions Needed to Ensure
Safety and Health at Indian School Facilities, GAO-16-391T, March 16, 2016; and U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Inspector General, Condition of Indian School Facilities, Report No.: C-EV-BIE-0023-2014, September
2016.
163 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Condition of Indian School Facilities, Report No.: C-
EV-BIE-0023-2014, September 2016.
164 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, Site Assessment Analysis for FY2020; data as of the
end of FY2019 Q4.
165 U.S. Department of Education, Transcript of National Advisory Council on Indian Education meeting, March 30,
2023, p. 37.
166 25 U.S.C. §2005(a)(5).
167 FY2024 Budget. pp. BIE-CONST-16- BIE-CONST-17.
168 FY2024 Budget. pp. BIE-CONST-16- BIE-CONST-21.
Congressional Research Service

43

link to page 22 link to page 22 Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and Issues

BIE schools. The consent agreement was modified in 2014, expanding the list of BIA/BIE
facilities subject to the consent agreement.169
Construction Bonds
In addition to annual appropriations, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5) authorized Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs; 26 U.S.C. §54F).170 QSCBs
were a tax credit bond program that made bond proceeds available for the construction,
rehabilitation, or repair of a public school facility or for the acquisition of land for a public school
facility. Treasury allocated $200 million in each of 2009 and 2010 to DOI for Indian tribal
governments to construct or repair BIE-funded schools. The authority to issue QSCBs was
repealed beginning in 2018. No tribe took advantage of the program partly because many tribes
are unable to sell bonds because they are high risk entities; although the allocation remains
available.171
ISDEAA Section 105(l) Facilities Leasing
A 2016 court decision, Maniilaq Association v. Burwell,172 required that IHS enter into a “lease,”
upon request, with any tribe or tribal organization furnishing a facility that supports ISDEAA
programs and that under any such lease, Indian Health Service (IHS) reimburse “the Tribe or
Tribal Organization for its reasonable facility expenses.” The decision is applicable to BIE. Once
a lease agreement is entered into, meeting the annual costs becomes a legal funding entitlement.
The popularity and ongoing costs of such leases are unknown. The FY2022-FY2024 President’s
budgets proposed shifting the costs to indefinite mandatory funding to reflect the entitlement
nature of the leases.173
Trust Fund Accounts
Another approach to funding facilities construction and renovation is the establishment of a trust
fund account from applicable contributions that can be used for these purposes. In 2000, DOI was
directed to establish a charitable, nonprofit foundation called the American Indian Education
Foundation, later renamed the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education
(Foundation).174 The Foundation was established to raise private contributions but has not been
functional. The National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (see “National Parks
and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund”) is providing funds for a limited period (FY2021-
FY2025). The Foundation was intended to support the mission of the BIE and further the
educational opportunities of American Indians who attend BIE-funded schools. It was to be a
federally chartered nonprofit corporation accepting and administering charitable donations that
further the educational opportunities of Indian children attending BIE-funded schools. The
Foundation was established in July 2004, but it lacked start-up capital, lacked operational funds,

169 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Settlement with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to Resolve
Violations at Schools in Indian Country,” https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/settlement-department-interior-doi-
resolve-violations-schools-indian-country.
170 For more information about QSCBs, see CRS Report R40523, Tax Credit Bonds: Overview and Analysis.
171 Letter from Jon Tester, United States Senate, Tim Johnson, United States Senate, and Al Franken, United States
Senate, to Honorable Sally Jewel, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, May 19, 2014.
172 Maniilaq Ass'n v. Burwell, 72 F. Supp. 3d 227 (D.D.C. 2014) and Maniilaq Ass'n v. Burwell, 170 F. Supp. 3d 243
(D.D.C. 2016).
173 FY2024 Budget. p. IA-PTL-3.
174 Title XIII of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (P.L. 106-568). 25 U.S.C. §5421 et seq.
Congressional Research Service

44

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

and was unable to raise money.175 In March 2023, the Foundation held its first board meeting.176
As of November 2023, the Foundation is seeking a Lead Executive Officer to head the
organization.177
Additional Potential Options
There are several potential options for addressing poor facilities at BIE schools. Some that are
routinely suggested or have been suggested by organizations like GAO include the following:
• additional funds for maintenance, improvement, and construction could be
appropriated to cover the estimated cost of bringing facilities into good
condition;
• public-private partnerships could be formed to fund and/or provide expertise to
affect facilities improvement and construction;178
• implementation of a DOI-based unit or organization that would execute
appropriate communication, procedures, internal controls, oversight, and staffing
to properly manage BIE facilities;179 and
• congressional and administrative oversight of measured progress in facilities’
improvement and construction may affect outcomes.180
Public School Indian Education—Johnson O’Malley (JOM)
Program Freeze and Modernization
From FY1995 until enactment of the Johnson-O’Malley Supplemental Indian Education Program
Modernization Act (JOM Modernization Act; P.L. 115-404), program administration was subject
to the JOM freeze. By statute, JOM funds are distributed to contractors by formula, based on a
count of Indian students and average per-pupil operating costs. Student counts for allocating
funds were frozen in FY1995.181 The intention was to include the JOM funds in each tribe’s
recurring base funding, tribal priority allocations (TPA), in an effort to stabilize funding for tribes
and provide them additional control and flexibility in the use of the funds. Because there is a
statutory prohibition on changing a tribe’s base funding, JOM allocations were based on FY1995

175 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Amending the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act to Modify Provisions Relating to the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, To
accompany S. 1231, 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 29, 2005, S.Rept. 109-118.
176 The White House Domestic Policy Council, 2023 Progress Report for Tribal Nations, p. 67,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023.12.04-TNS-Progress-Report.pdf.
177 National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, https://www.nfeaie.org/opportunities (as available on
November 20, 2023).
178 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Explanatory Statement, To accompany House
Amendment to Senate Amendments to H.R. 244 (Rules Committee Print 115-16, showing the text of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017.), 115th Cong., 1st sess, p. 30.
179 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial
Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-407T, February 15, 2017.
180 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to
Improve Indian Education, GAO-13-342T, February 27, 2013.
181 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 1995, Report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 17, 1994, H.Rept. 103-551, pp.
54-55; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 1995, Report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 28, 1994, S.Rept. 103-294, p.
55.
Congressional Research Service

45

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

student counts.182 Over time, the JOM freeze resulted in an inequitable allocation of funds and
restricted new contractors from program access.183
In an effort to distribute funds in accordance with more current student counts and to reach
additional students, Congress has generally taken four steps—direction to BIE, legislative
amendments, a GAO review, and increased funding.
• FY2012-FY2019 appropriations conference reports directed the BIE to count the
number of students participating in and eligible to participate in the JOM
program and recommend a methodology to distribute funds in the future.184
Despite BIE requests to current and prospective JOM contractors, some did not
report actual or potential participants.
• In December 2018, the JOM Modernization Act was enacted, requiring the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive estimate of actual and
potential JOM participants, requiring contractors to report participation numbers
in order to receive JOM funding, adjusting over time the amount of funds
allocated to contractors based on eligible student counts, and increasing program
access for new contractors depending on appropriations levels.
• Congress requested that GAO review the JOM program, resulting in an April
2020 GAO report on issues in the implementation of JOM. In part because JOM
is administered by several BIA offices, the BIE is unable to compile a complete
list of contractors and has not defined roles and responsibilities for BIA staff. The
BIE does not provide training to contractors to help them administer the program.
GAO recommended that BIE “maintain an accurate and complete list of JOM
contractors, develop JOM training, and clearly define roles and responsibilities
and identify staff for carrying out JOM functions.”185
• Explanatory statements to accompany the FY2020-FY2023 appropriations acts
have directed BIE to provide training and capacity building activities and
implement GAO’s recommendations.
JOM distributions in FY2024 and subsequently are to be based on “the actual count of JOM
eligible students within a JOM contractor’s tribal service area or school district.” 186 Congress
may continue monitoring the extent to which the oversight and actions impact the program’s
scope and effect.

182 25 U.S.C §450j-1(b)(2). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Tribal Consultation of Indian
Education Topics,” 60 Federal Register 53932, October 18, 1995.
183 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, To Direct The Secretary of the Interior to Conduct an Accurate
Comprehensive Student Count for the Purposes of Calculating Formula Allocations for Programs Under the Johnson-
O'Malley Act, and for other Purposes, Report to accompany S. 943, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., January 24, 2018, S.Rept.
115-201.
184 See for example, U.S. House of Representatives, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen of New
Jersey, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate
Amendments on H.R. 244,” Congressional Record, vol. 163 (May 3, 2017), p. H3881.
185 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Indian Education: Actions Needed to Improve Management of a
Supplemental Education Program, GAO-20-308, April 2020.
186 FY2024 Budget. pp. BIE-OIEP-7-BIE-OIEP-8.
Congressional Research Service

46

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

Author Information

Cassandria Dortch

Specialist in Education Policy

Acknowledgments
This is a substantially revised version of a report originally written by Roger Walke, former CRS Specialist
in American Indian Policy.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL34205 · VERSION 17 · UPDATED
47

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 12, 2024

HTML · PDF

Jul. 28, 2020

HTML · PDF

Jun. 16, 2017

HTML · PDF

5% changed

Aug. 18, 2015

HTML · PDF