University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Best practices for applying for a P.L. 93-638 or a P.L. 100-297 grant: tribal sovereignty in action or an illusion of control?

(USC Thesis Other)

Best practices for applying for a P.L. 93-638 or a P.L. 100-297 grant: tribal sovereignty in action or an illusion of control?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 1
Best Practices for Applying for a P.L. 93-638 or a P.L. 100-297 Grant:
Tribal Sovereignty in Action or an Illusion of Control?
Shayla Rae Yellowhair
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2023
Copyright 2023 Shayla Rae Yellowhair
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 2

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to gather information that would inform tribes of the key
activities and barriers surrounding the 638 and 297 process in education. The goal of the study
was to determine what are, if any, the best practices, major learning areas and barriers that were
experienced by the tribes who have current 638 or 297 contracts in place over their schools and
educational system or have attempted, both successfully and unsuccessfully, to submit an
application. There were four research questions developed around the decisions, relationships,
resources, and tasks/activities of the tribes during the pre-application process. The research
questions were: 1) What are the key activities during the pre-application planning phase of the
638 or 297 process? 2) What are the barriers experienced during the 638 or 297 pre-application
planning phase and in what ways, if at all, were the barriers mitigated? 3) In what ways, if at all,
was the pre-application planning phase used to develop culturally responsive approaches to
implementing a tribally-held educational system? 4) To what extent have implementation plans
been realized by tribes? In total, there were six participants who were interviewed that
represented four tribes. Two of the tribes successfully submitted a 297 application, and two tribes
were not successful in submitting a 297 or 638 application. Findings from this study included
nine key activities, four major barriers and potential mitigation strategies for their barriers, and
four strategies used to incorporate culturally responsive pedagogies in their application and
implementation. The four recommendations from this study were: 1) Choosing a guardian of the
process to work in tandem with an advisory council, 2) The application is a minimum; it is
necessary to go beyond the 638 and 297 application questions and create a comprehensive school
site plan, 3) Community conversations are at the heart of this process, 4) Seek to use the
application as an opportunity to redesign the education for Native students.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 3

Dedication
I dedicate these words, thoughts, and prayers to my four little birds:
Isabel, Kellen, Kylie, and Presley.
You are who I prayed for.
You are the culmination of all the prayers of those who came before me,
from time immemorial.
You are Tódik'ǫzhí
Born for Ta'neeszahnii
Your maternal grandfather is Bįįh bitoo’nii
Your paternal grandfather is Honágháahnii
That is how you are Diné People.
May you four remember that you are never alone,
That the Holy People are always around you, keeping you safe.
May you four forever remember who you are and where you come from.
I love each of you with all my heart.

May you four forever walk in beauty.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 4

Acknowledgements
I want to thank my husband Brant and my babies for always believing that I was not only
capable of doing this, but that I could do it well. Thank you for allowing me to grow, even if it
meant eating dinner alone in the room during my classes. I love you all so much. I can’t wait to
see what our future holds.
Thank you to my family: mom, dad, Megan and Roman, for reminding me that what I do
is important. Thank you for loving me no matter how difficult I was, traveling around the world
when all I needed was to be home within the four sacred mountains. Thank you for supporting
me in all my education, even when it didn’t make sense for this Diné girl to learn French. I truly
appreciate you all.
Thank you to the Yellowhairs for your support and encouragement. I am honored to be a
part of your family. Thank you for your help with the kiddos and for all the love you have shown
my family.
Thank you to Team Awesome for always making sure I met deadlines, taking care of
myself, and for the prayers that you sent when I needed them the most (especially you JP, with
your inside connection). Nicky and JP, you both are some of the best people out there and I am
honored to have gone through this program with you.
Thank you to my colleagues at the Department of Diné Education for keeping me on my
toes and allowing me to grow amongst and with you. May the work we do today enrich the lives
of our kids tomorrow and beyond. On to SEA!
Finally, thank you to my dissertation chair and committee: Dr. Courtney Malloy, Dr.
Kathy Stowe, and Dr. Cathy Krop. It has been an honor to work with you. Thank you for the
push I needed, for reminding me that my confidence can and should be endless, and for
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 5

partnering in my work in a way that sheltered my heart when this work was really heavy. I hope
that our paths cross again in the future!
‘Ahxéhee’

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 6

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 6
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ............................................................................................ 10
Background and Context................................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 14
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 15
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 16
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 19
Pre-Colombian Era through Colonial Period 1500s-1700s .................................. 20
Removal and Relocation Era 1800s-1880s ........................................................... 22
Allotment and Assimilation Era 1880-1920s ........................................................ 23
Reorganization and Termination Era 1920s-1960s............................................... 25
Self Determination and Self-Governance Era: 1960s-Present .............................. 27
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 31
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies .................................................................................... 32
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Tribal Sovereignty .................................... 32
Identity and Place ..................................................................................... 33
Curricula Aligned with Cultural Norms ................................................... 34
Language Revitalization ........................................................................... 36
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 38
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 39
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 39
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 40
Method- Interviews ............................................................................................... 41
Participants ............................................................................................... 41
Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 42
Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................... 42
Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 43
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 43
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 43
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 45
Research Question 1: What are the Key Activities During the Pre-application
Planning Phase of the 638 or 297 Process? .......................................................... 45
Activity 1- Activating Community Members. ............................................ 46
Activity 2 - Gathering Feedback through a Variety of Mechanisms ........ 47
Activity 3 - Analyzing and Using the Type of Feedback Provided ........... 49
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 7

Activity 4 - Creation of Advisory Council as an Extension of the Tribe ... 52
Activity 5 - Communicating with Tribal Leadership and Administration. 54
Activity 6 - Researching All Aspects of the Application ........................... 55
Activity 7- Developing a Timeline Based on Needs and Research ........... 57
Activity 8 - Building Key Relationships .................................................... 57
Activity 9 - Adjusting the General Process Based on Tribal Government
Needs ......................................................................................................... 60
Summary for Research Question 1 ........................................................... 61
Research Question 2: What are the Barriers Experienced During the 638 or 297
Pre-application Planning Phase and in What Ways, if at all, were the Barriers
Mitigated? ............................................................................................................. 62
Barrier 1- Operations and Logistics ......................................................... 62
Barrier 2-Tribal Governance .................................................................... 69
Barrier 3- High Turnover in Tribal Government ..................................... 72
Barrier 4- Understanding Stakeholder’s Perception of the Narrative ..... 73
Summary of Research Question 2 ............................................................. 75
Research Question 3: In what ways, if at all, was the pre-application planning
phase used to develop culturally responsive approaches to implementing a
tribally-held educational system? ......................................................................... 75
Strategy 1- Creating More Speakers of their Tribal Languages .............. 76
Strategy 2- Using Culturally Responsive Education as Foundation to
Application ................................................................................................ 77
Strategy 3- Finding a Facilitator who is Familiar with Native
Communities ............................................................................................. 78
Strategy 4- Building Cultural Competence in the Facilitator .................. 79
Summary of Research Question 3 ............................................................. 81
Research Question 4: To what Extent have Implementation Plans been Realized
by Tribes?.............................................................................................................. 82
Tribes that Completed Conversions of 297 schools .................................. 82
Tribes that Did Not Complete their Applications ..................................... 83
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 84
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 86
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 87
Researcher Reflections...................................................................................................... 90
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 92
Recommendation 1: There needs to be a guardian(s) of the process; this person
works in tandem with an advisory council or devoted team with knowledge of the
operations of the school. ....................................................................................... 93
Recommendation 2: The application is a minimum; the team needs to create and
write a plan that is akin to comprehensive school site plan, local control
accountability plans, or a charter school plan, aligned to the needs of the tribe. . 95
Recommendation 3: Community conversations are a must, with students at the
center of these conversations. ............................................................................... 97
Recommendation 4: Use the opportunity of 638 and 297 to reinvent what
education looks like for tribal communities.......................................................... 98
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 8

Recommendations for future research ............................................................................ 100
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 101
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 101
References ................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix A: 638 and 297 Interview Protocol ........................................................................... 113
Appendix B- 638 and 297 application questions. ....................................................................... 114
Appendix C: Grant Checklist ...................................................................................................... 116

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 9

List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of some of the major events and eras of Federal Indian policy……………..20
Table 2. Rough step process followed by most facilitators…………………………………...…61

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 10

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
From the beginning of contact between Indigenous tribes and the federal government, the
creation of treaties between sovereign nations has dictated the ways in which both parties
communicate, govern, and negotiate. Treaties are the foundation of the government-to-
government relationship between tribes and the federal government (Bureau of Indian Affairs,
n.d.). For the 574 federally recognized tribes in the United States, treaties placed the
responsibility of healthcare, welfare, education, public safety, and other social systems on the
shoulders of the federal government (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2017).
In federal Indian policy, trust responsibilities of the federal government are meant to
fulfill promises dictated by treaties around land, assets, and resources (Bureau of Indian Affairs,
2017.) From the signing of treaties in the 1800s, these trust responsibilities dictate the ways in
which many Native people receive health care, land, access to natural resources, and education
(Indian Affairs (IA), n.d.). Public Law 93-638 (P.L. 93-638), known as the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, allows for tribes to contract with the
federal government to control the funding and other fiduciary obligations (trust responsibilities)
that were given in exchange for the land that was amassed by the federal government from
contact to the present day.
In 1988, Congress passed the “Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988”, which were
amendments to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5301 et
seq). These amendments are also referred to as Public Law 100-297 (P.L. 100-297). Under P.L.
100-297, eligible tribal organizations or tribes can apply for grants to fund their own tribally
controlled schools. This law essentially allows for tribes to create locally controlled boards of
education or trustees to oversee the functions of a school. Through the funding, congress
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 11

declared its “commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Government’s unique and
continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian People for the education of
Indian children” (25 USC §2501 (b)). This study examines the ways in which tribes have
attempted to take back the educational responsibilities through the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA, or the Public Law 93-638) and the Tribally Controlled
Schools Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-297). Implied in the submission of a 638 or 297 application is the
assertion of their inherent sovereignty and power to control what their children learn and how
they learn it. According to Lomawaima (2000), this power to define the education of their
children is a recent occurrence; since treaty signing it has been up to the BIA to define the goals
of what schooling means for Indigenous children. Being able to recreate an educational system
or school in the eyes of the parents of a tribe has the potential to allow for a more culturally
responsive and relevant educational experience that is aligned to the traditional beliefs, language,
customs, and ceremonies of Indigenous people. The importance of recapturing the power of
defining education cannot be understated, given the history of Native people in the United States.
Background and Context
The basic requirement for either the P.L. 93-638 application or the P.L. 100-297
application is answering a list of questions regarding the demographics of the school, tribal
leadership, and ways in which the tribe or tribal organization will meet the requirements and
laws to run a school. The contents of the application for P.L.93-638 and P.L. 100-297 can be
found in Appendix B. Many tribes use the Public Law 93-638 as a legislative vehicle to either
administer all or portions of the systems and facilities set up by the federal government or
assume control of those services completely (Indian Health Service, n.d.). This law allows tribes
to assert their sovereignty and provide for contracting of services in health, public safety, social
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 12

services and education. Since 1975, there have been numerous federally recognized tribes that
have used the P.L. 93-638 process to contract with the federal government and take over the
provision of services that had been previously governed by treaties. With the passing of P.L.100-
297, tribes or tribal organizations are also able to apply for the grants to fund schools and the
functions that were either previously managed by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) or the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Based on the law that is used, the schools are either called
contract schools (with P.L. 93-638) or tribally controlled grant schools (with P.L.100-297).
Regardless of the distinction between contract and grant schools, the BIE continues to be the
vehicle in which the funding flows through to the schools, rather than funding being diverted to
the tribe directly from the federal government. Within the United States, there are a total of 183
BIE contract and Tribally Controlled Grants Schools that are funded through the BIE and BIA.
By cutting the middleman that is BIE/BIA, tribes would recapture potentially billions of dollars
and redirect the money to meet the goals of a culturally responsive education that is aligned with
their cultural language and traditions.
There is an inherent interest, gain, and opportunity for tribes that choose either the 638 or
297 process to incorporate language, culture, and beliefs into their schools and school systems.
According to Brayboy and Castagno (2009), there are two predominant ways in which native
children are educated: through the “assimilative model and the culturally responsive model” (p.
2). The latter is an exercise of sovereignty in education and looks different for Indigenous
peoples. According to Brayboy (2014), “from an Indigenous perspective, education serves
multiple purposes. Education is not simply the passing on or transfer of knowledge from one
generation to the next…education in its many forms is imbued with power” (p. 2). It is this
power that undergirds the desire of tribes to take back control over their children’s education.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 13

Moreover, the use of culturally responsive pedagogy and teaching strategies that include the
community knowledge, prior experience, and student identities can combat documented low
achievement of Indigenous students (Singh, 2011; Pewewardy, 2006).
Culturally responsive teaching and pedagogies have been a part of the educational
landscape for students from minority and ethnic backgrounds for decades. Through her research,
Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) defined culturally responsive teaching and pedagogy as ensuring
that the child is at the center of teaching and learning, using asset-based teaching and developing
the critical consciousness of the child. In Indigenous communities, culturally responsive teaching
has additional layers that connect history, language, culture, traditions, beliefs, and customs to
the education of the child. McCarty and Brayboy (2021) describe Indigenous culturally
responsive practices (or Indigenous CRP) as the “culturally specific ways that children learn to
live within ‘sacred landscapes,’ caring for and being nurtured by the lands, waterways and place”
(p. 432). These layers of Indigenous CRP are what students bring to school, and ultimately are
what combat the narrative of “Kill the Indian, Save the man” mentality that is embedded in the
educational history of Indigenous people.
One tribe interested in submitting a P.L .93-638 application to redefine the educational
system with culturally responsive pedagogies is the Navajo Nation. Within the boundaries of the
Navajo reservation, there are Navajo tribal laws that dictate the ways in which schools are
governed. These schools include tribally controlled schools that are independently incorporated
under the Navajo Nation through their local school boards, as well as BIE operated schools that
have never been converted under the P.L.93-638 or P.L. 100-297 (note: this is also known as the
“638 process” or “297 process”). In this new application, the Navajo tribe is interested in
submitting a P.L. 93-638 application (or 638 application) for all functions of the local Bureau of
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 14

Indian Education (BIE) Navajo district for the administrative, academic, and fiscal
responsibilities. This would enable the Navajo tribe to effectively control the ways in which
students are supported in 33 BIE operated schools and 28 tribally controlled schools on the
Navajo Nation. This would also route the funding from ⅓ of the BIE federal budget to the
Navajo Nation.
Prior to submitting a 638 or 297 application, a tribe must research and compile a plan
that will detail what they intend to put in place once the application is approved. The plan
includes the ways in which the funding from the federal government will be used and the ways in
which the tribe will continue to assert the same services that would be under their contract.
During this phase, there exists the opportunity to redesign what education means for the tribal
children. This dissertation seeks to inform the development of this plan and gather information
from other tribes that have undergone or attempted the 638 or the 297 process in education
regarding administrative, fiscal, and operational functions of the BIE. The findings from this
study would support the Navajo Nation and other tribes in their decisions during the pre-
application phase for either the 297 or 639 application.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gather and analyze data from interviews that would
inform tribes of the key activities and barriers surrounding the 638 or 297 process in education.
This was done through an environmental scan, which involves gathering, analyzing, and
communicating information to make informed decisions about the future of an organization or
project (Albright, 2004). The goal of the environmental scan would be to determine what are, if
any, the best practices, major learning areas and barriers that were experienced by the tribes who
have current 638 contracts or 297 grants in place, and those who attempted the application
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 15

process but were ultimately unsuccessful. Key participants of the study were members of the
federally recognized tribes that have gone through 638 or 297 processes, consultants hired by
tribes, and members of tribes that work in the tribal education departments that are involved in
the 638 contracting or the development of a 297 application. The research questions that guided
this study were:
1. What are the key activities during the pre-application planning phase of the 638
or 297 process?
2. What are the barriers experienced during the 638 or 297 pre-application
planning phase and in what ways, if at all, were the barriers mitigated?
3. In what ways, if at all, was the pre-application planning phase used to develop
culturally responsive approaches to implementing a tribally-held educational
system?
4. To what extent have implementation plans been realized by tribes?
This study utilized qualitative methods to address these research questions which
primarily included interviews.
Importance of the Study
This study examined the ways in which the 638 and 297 processes have been
implemented or attempted by tribes, specifically in education. Since the passing of P.L. 93-638
and P.L. 100-297, there has been very little research to evaluate whether the laws are effective in
supporting the self-determination of tribal nations, specifically in the field of education. In
addition, there is very little research on how the schools and systems that have been created
under these two laws are implementing culturally responsive education practices. Without a
thorough examination of the 638 or 297 experiences of tribes, the Navajo Nation and other tribes
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 16

seeking to enact educational sovereignty may experience failure quickly as there is currently no
list or compilation of best practices for a successful 638 contract or 297 grant, including the
learning from tribes that were not successful in the creation or submission of a 638 or 297
application. This study sought to address that issue specifically when it comes to applying for
and implementing the P.L. 93-638 contracting process or the P.L. 100-297 process. Learning
from other tribal nations who have successfully and unsuccessfully submitted an application to
contract with the federal government will support the ways in which tribes in the future choose to
go through the 638 or 297 process. In addition, learning from these tribes will support how a
tribe might plan for their educational system or school through the lens of culturally responsive
education.
Definitions
In this study, the following definitions of terms will be used.
Department of Interior- According to the Department of Interior (DOI) website, the DOI is
within the United States government and acts as the steward of the natural resources on public
lands, environmental protections, and works with American Indian, Alaskan Native, and
affiliated Island peoples to honor the government-to-government relationship and uphold trust
responsibilities. (doi.gov/about)
Federally recognized tribes- Tribes and nations that are currently listed on the federal register
and have been determined by the Office of Federal Acknowledgement to have a government-to-
government relationship with the United States. The current regulations for determining if a tribe
can be deemed federally recognized are in Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(25 CFR Part 83). Congress also has the power to acknowledge a tribe through legislation
(Official Guidelines to the Federal Acknowledgement Regulations).
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 17

Tribe- According to Miller (2005), a tribe is a “another name that the United States used in
treaties and laws to identify a nation, or a group of Indians organized under a form of
government distinct from other Indian Nations” (p. 2).
Inherent Sovereignty- This is a term that was created as a foundational idea of Indian Law. All
Indigenous peoples have inherent sovereignty, or the “powers lawfully vested…that predate New
World discovery and have never been extinguished” (Green & Work, 1976). There are no
statutes, executive orders or other documents that establish the meaning of Inherent sovereignty,
however, there is case law in which the Supreme Court has ruled it to exist. Current definitions
include the right to self-govern, to determine who is a member of the tribe, taxation, etc.
Public Law 93-638- The 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was first
drafted to provide tribes the authority to contract with the federal government “to operate
programs serving their tribal members and other eligible persons” (Public Law 93-638). There
have been amendments made to update the law, implement new regulations, and address
concerns stemming from the law. The law is a part of Part 900 of the Code of Federal
Regulations 25 or the 25 CFR Part 900.
Public Law 100-297: The Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 was created to allow tribal
organizations or tribes to operate a school for K-12 and preschool. These schools are not
operated or administered by the Bureau of Indian Education and are instead administered by the
tribal organization or tribe. This law is a part of the 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.
Federal Indian Reservation- parcels of land that are reserved for tribes that were settled on
through treaties or agreements between the United States and tribes. These lands are held in trust
by the US Government for the tribes and are considered the permanent homelands, even if the
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 18

actual land is not the tribe’s historical lands. Many tribes were forcibly moved on these
reservations during the 1800s (bia.gov, n.d.).
Sovereignty- Tribes and nations have the right and power over their own self-governing and can
control or regulate the people, activities, laws, and other regulations that are within their borders.
(Miller, 2005; Green & Work, 1976).
Treaty – A treaty is an agreement, contract, or compact that is binding between the nations that
sign. According to Miller (2005), the United States government “entered into more than four
hundred treaties with Indian tribes between the years 1778 and 1871” (p. 1).
Trust Responsibility- According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, federal Indian trust
responsibility is a legal obligation that the United States government holds “to protect the tribal
treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal
law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages” (bia.gov).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter one of this dissertation provided an overview of the study that includes
background and context, including an overview of the 638 and 297 processes in education, the
importance of this study, and key definitions for understanding this study. Chapter two of this
dissertation provides a literature review that examines the necessary areas to understand the
study, the field in which the 638 and 297 processes are implemented, and culturally responsive
pedagogies and teaching. Chapter three describes the methodology and overview of the design of
the study. Chapter four discusses the findings from the study and chapter five discusses the
recommendations for future research in the field.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 19

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study examined the ways in which the 638 and 297 processes have been
implemented by tribes successfully and unsuccessfully, specifically in education. In this
literature review, I provide a historical context of the major milestones in the history of
Indigenous peoples in the United States. To understand the current context of Native Education
in the United States, it is imperative to understand the history of the policies that were enacted
during the 1800s and 1900s that were geared towards the assimilation and erasure of all cultures,
traditions, and languages that were not English and from the white settler paradigm. The state of
Native Education today is not exempt from the historical consequences of these policies and
therefore, in this literature review, I provide the background on the important history, laws, and
movement towards Indian self-determination. While I do not provide an in-depth literature
review of all policies and eras, I do provide a historical overview in relation to the effects on the
education of Native children. Finally, this literature review touches on the ways in which
culturally responsive education has been researched in relation to Indigenous youth and how the
effects of culturally responsive pedagogy support the development of modern Indigenous youth
in mainstream culture.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 20

Table 1.
Overview of some of the major events and eras of Federal Indian policy.

Colonial
period
1500s-1700s
Removal and
Relocation
Era
1800s-1880s
Reservation,
Allotment and
Assimilation
Era
1880-1920s
Reorganiza-
tion and
Termination
Era
1920s-1960s
Self-
Determination
and self-
governance
Era
1960s-Present
Sovereignty
Era
1980s-Present
• Contact
primarily
with
religious
orders,
Spanish
Conquista-
dors, white
English
settlers and
fur trappers.
• 1830- Indian
Removal
Act
• 1871- end of
treaty
making
• Major
events:
Wounded
Knee
Massacre,
1890.
• Major
federal
policies:
o 1887-
The
Dawes
Allotme
nt Act

• 1924-The
Snyder Act
• 1934-
Wheeler-
Howard
Indian
Reorganizat
ion Act-
• 1953-
Termination
Policy

• 1968 -Indian
Civil Rights
Act
• 1970- Self-
Determina-
tion Policy
• 1975- Indian
Self
Determina-
tion and
Education
Act
• 1978 -
Indian Child
Welfare Act
• 1978
American
Indian
Religious
Act
• 1988-
Tribally
Controlled
Schools/
Self-
Governance
Act
• 1990- The
Native
American
Graves
Protection
and
Repatriation
Act
(NAGPRA)
• 2006-
Esther
Martinez
Native
American
Languages
Preservatio
n Act (P.L.
109-394)

Pre-Colombian Era through Colonial Period 1500s-1700s
Indigenous peoples of North America self-governed according to their beliefs that were
primarily based on their relationships to the earth and each other, and behaviors that were rooted
in meanings of how they perceived life (Bowden, 1981; Witgen, 2012). According to Witgen
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 21

(2012), every tribe, band, and group of Indigenous peoples interacted in complex social
structures and had autonomy over political and cultural decisions. Colonial settlers and fur
trappers viewed the many Native people they encountered as “savage” and “uncivilized,” and
sought to control the people based on interest rooted in trading, natural resources, and land
(Witgen, 2012). These first impressions of Indigenous people are important to note as they
persist throughout the centuries and provide the lasting justification for political and educational
decisions that persist even to the present day (Wilkins, 2011). Further evidence of this
justification can be found in the Doctrine of Discovery (and later in with the concept of Manifest
Destiny), and in the United States Constitution, wherein Native people are called “merciless
Indian savages.” (US Const. Article 1).
Several major milestones track the predominant way of educating Native children
throughout history to the present day. Beginning with contact between Native peoples and
various religious missionaries, education came in the form of belief in Christianity that attempted
to reshape daily life for Native peoples (Bowden, 1981). Eventually, federal Indian policies of
assimilation and eradication throughout the1800s became the mainstay of how children were
educated (Brayboy & Castagno, 2009; Stout, 2012). The concept of the “noble savage” underlies
the argument that Native peoples must be saved and controlled for they are “wild… and
untamed” (Warner & Grint, 2012, p. 970). These stereotypes of Indigenous peoples strengthened
the justification of religious missionaries who set out to “educate” Native children. There had
already been a presence of Franciscan friars in the southwestern territories beginning in the
1500s; by 1620, they claimed to have more than 10,000 baptized people (Bowden, 1981). By the
1800s, religious missionaries of all dominations aided in the effort to assimilate and eradicate
Native traditions, cultures, languages, and beliefs as they set up new schools to indoctrinate
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 22

children. According to Bowden (1981), mission schools across the country were founded on the
belief that Native people lacked the moral qualities associated with Christian beliefs, and
therefore wanted to mold children into “productive individuals whose values and lifestyle would
support the republic” (p. 169). This highlights the basic tenet of education in the 1800s, which
was to replace languages with English, convert to Christianity, and eradicate all beliefs,
traditions, and cultures that were associated with Native tribes (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002).
This cultural genocide continues to affect Native people due to their disconnection from their
original families, tribes, languages, and cultures (Brown-Rice, 2013).
Removal and Relocation Era 1800s-1880s
As the newly formed United States of America began to expand throughout the western
territory, the desire for additional land heightened conflicts between Indian tribes and the federal
government (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2015; Wilkins, 2011). Congress and various presidents of the United
States, beginning with Presidents Monroe into the Jackson era, justified expansion of western
settlers through official channels in the government, implemented primarily by the Office of
Indian Affairs (Wilkins, 2011). This office was under the jurisdiction of the War Department and
later moved to the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs (Gershon, 2021). Official
policies were summoned under the auspice of land acquisition and solidified under the Indian
Removal Act of 1830. With the signing of hundreds of treaties that enabled the forced removal
of thousands of Native people from their homelands across the country to newly created
reservations, thousands of Native people were killed, and children were removed from their
families (Wilkins, 2011). With the Indian Appropriation Act of 1871, Congress officially
stopped formal treaty making with tribes; up until this point, 371 treaties were created and signed
by Native tribes (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2015). According to Dunbar-Ortiz (2015), during the creation of
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 23

the 371 treaties, an approximate two million square miles of land was taken by the United States
through legal and illegal channels.
During the years of forced removal, children were also forcibly assimilated in
government run boarding schools originally imagined under Colonial Richard H. Pratt (Morton,
1962). Through the creation of the first boarding school under Colonel Richard H. Pratt in 1879,
the Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle, PA., was identified as an example of “taking the Indian out
of his tribe and teaching to speak, act, and think like a white man” (Morton, 1962). From its
inception to the closure of Carlisle Indian School in 1918, 10,000 children from across the
country had attended the school; of those children, there are 180 documented deaths. According
to Love (2021), in June 2021, only ten of those children were returned to their families.
From the first model of Carlisle Indian School, Stout (2012) explains how Native
children were removed from their families, ensuring cultural genocide across the country: under
the purview of the federal government providing education, the children were subject to
traumatic experiences such as cutting their hair, prohibiting the use of their native languages, and
practicing any of their cultural traditions. Thousands of children were taken from their families
and never returned, many having died at the schools from disease, running away, trauma from
sexual abuse, and homesickness (Love, 2021). Government run boarding schools were not
specific to the United States and in fact were created during the same years in Canada. During
the summer of 2021 in Calgary, Alberta, a mass grave was discovered with over 1300 bodies of
children that attended the residential schools (Austen, 2021).
Allotment and Assimilation Era 1880-1920s
The extension of the boarding schools continued through the late 1800s into the 1900s,
many schools continuing under the same blueprint of Carlisle Indian School (Morton, 1962).
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 24

While the practice of removing children from their families and assimilating them into white
society continued, the economic state of Native people was declining further into poverty and
dependency on the federal government (Pevar, 2012). After a conflict regarding the outlawing of
the Ghost Dance, the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890 left nearly 300 Oglala Lakota dead,
many of whom were women and children, was one of the last military actions against the Lakota
(Library of Congress, 2019). Removal of their children, increasing poverty, and the murder of
hundreds of women and children were the foundational elements to Native American advocacy
and the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the 1960s.
Upon the heels of the removal of Native peoples onto reservations during the 1800s,
Federal Indian Policy shifted towards breaking up those reservation lands and distributing small
plots of lands to individuals. According to Pevar (2012), this strategy represents a shift from
separation to assimilation of Native peoples into white society. The General Allotment Act of
1887, often referred to as the Dawes Act, created an allotment system in effort to make Native
people closer to civilized in the eyes of the government (Wilkins, 2011). This effort was contrary
to the traditional ways of viewing the land by many Native tribes; many tribes were stewards of
the land and did not view themselves as owners. This also further erased tribal sovereignty and
control over their land and economic development (Pevar, 2012). However, in the Dawes Act,
Native people received between 40-160 acres of land based on their marital and family status.
According to Wilkins (2011), these allotments were held in trust for 25 years and only then could
be sold without permission of the secretary of Interior. If one received an allotment, they also
received U.S. Citizenship. The land that was not allotted to Native peoples was sold to settlers
thus diminishing tribal land at a higher rate than before, in some cases over 80% of the original
land mass was lost (Wilkins, 2011).
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 25

The idea that all Native people with allotments would become successful farmers and
assimilate into society like their now new neighbors within two generations was a failure (Pevar,
2012). The allotments made Native people more impoverished as the land was either not suitable
for agriculture, or if it was, the people could not afford the equipment. By the time the Native
people received the deeds to their land, the real estate taxes came due prompting many to sell
their parcels of land because they were unable to pay (Pevar, 2012). These practices were not
stopped until 1934 when the Dawes Act was repealed. Further, although the official treaty
signing was ended with tribal nations in 1871, Native people were considered wards of the
government until citizenship was granted by Congress and signed into law by President Calvin
Coolidge in 1924 (Library of Congress, n.d.).
Reorganization and Termination Era 1920s-1960s
With the commission of an investigation and report in 1926, the Secretary of the Interior
Hubert Work approved Lewis Meriam to begin a two-year study that highlighted and exposed
the living conditions of Native people. This report was called “The Problem of the Indian
Administration” and was released in 1928. The Meriam report, as it was called, became the basis
for the Indian Reorganization Act and other reforms in Federal Indian Policy (Wilkins, 2011). It
is important to note that although the Meriam report was a groundbreaking report that
highlighted horrific conditions and offered recommendations for improvement, the authors wrote
with the underlying belief that Native people needed to be led, pushed, and educated in the
western educational system (Wilkins, 2011).
According to the Meriam report (1928), a majority of Indians were impoverished,
maladjusted, and living in conditions that were rampant with disease. They were in bad health
with a high infant mortality rate, did not have adequate nutritious food, had inadequate
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 26

educational prospects, and lived in greatly diminished housing (shacks) with poor ventilation and
overcrowding. This report confirmed the impact of the past federal policies that made Native
people more impoverished and negatively impacted their livelihood to the degree that even
money given to Indian people would have little impact, as it does not hold the same value to
them. Regarding education, the Meriam report is quick to note “the provisions for the care of the
Indian children in boarding schools are grossly inadequate” (p. 11). The conditions of the
boarding schools led to a high rate of communicable disease, as kids were not given healthy
foods as a preventative measure (no fruits, vegetables, milk). Extreme overcrowding was typical
in the dormitories of the boarding schools that continued to operate. Even with the high level of
tuberculosis and trachoma, medical care for the students was “below a reasonable standard” (p.
13).
In the curriculum and teachers, the Meriam report detailed that the schools were primarily
based on industrial work done by kids that were in fourth grade and older; the upkeep of the
school building was done by the students. The report states “the labor of children as carried on in
the Indian boarding schools would, it is believed, constitute a violation of child labor laws in
most states” (p. 376). Staff and teachers were provided with low salaries, many of whom did not
meet a minimum of qualifications, as the latter did not exist for schools that were run by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many of the teachers that were hired had applied to the BIA due to not
having met the higher qualifications of state teaching jobs. The Meriam report detailed additional
aspects of life that included economics, legal, social, and educational issues experienced by
Native people across the country.
In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). This policy was meant to
protect the remaining parcels of land and added additional land to tribes and encouraged tribes to
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 27

develop and enact constitutions to self-govern (Pevar, 2012). In total, 180 tribes accepted the
IRA and less than 90 rejected it. The tribes were given loans and funding to establish a court
system, criminal codes, and create structures for their additional needs in economic and
educational purposes. This law ended in some respects the policies that devastated Native
peoples; however, it was created without input from tribes, was insufficient in meeting the needs
of tribes, and created additional bureaucracy (Pevar, 2012). The theme of creating policies
without the tribal input continues throughout federal Indian policy and educational initiatives for
most of the 20th century (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001).
By 1953, the federal Indian policy changed again with the introduction of House
Concurrent Resolution No. 108. This resolution put forth the action referred to as termination,
which would terminate the trust responsibility and any federal benefits that came along with the
trust responsibility held with 109 tribes. Once terminated, the state would then have full
jurisdiction over land and people (Pevar, 2012). With reservations of the 109 tribes abolished and
governments dismantled, the government continued the goal of complete assimilation under
termination. By 1956, a program developed called relocation offered job assistance and housing
opportunities to Native people who would leave the reservation to relocate to urban areas; at
least one third of the people who relocated returned home when the opportunities that were
promised did not form (Pevar, 2012).
Self Determination and Self-Governance Era: 1960s-Present
According to Cobb (2015), the civil rights movement during the 1960s took hold for
minorities and people with disabilities, culminating in landmark legislation that sought to
provide equal rights and visibility. Native rights activists were included in this new push for
equality, the conversation revolved around the need to push away from termination and towards
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 28

the enactment of tribal sovereignty and self-determination (Cobb, 2015). Specifically, the Indian
Civil Rights Act of 1968 was an attempt to extend the rights of and access to the United States
Bill of Rights to Native Americans, essentially guaranteeing the same rights and protections
under Tribal Governments (Northwest Justice Project, 2018).
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 enacted policies that funneled
funding and resources to schools to increase student achievement, created measures for school
accountability, and to close the achievement gap between minority children and white students
(www.education.laws.com, 2019). This law specifically called out Indian Education and created
the Title I fund for economically disadvantaged students. This law also was important as it
created the need for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to have an equal status as public schools to
receive funding specifically for Native children, thus allowing the BIA to act as the State
Education Agency for BIA schools (McCoy, 1993).
In 1967, the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare commissioned an
investigation and report into areas of concern in Indian Education. Senator Robert Kennedy cited
high dropout rates, high rates of non-attendance, low level of formal education, low income, high
unemployment rates, among other issues experienced by Native children (Kennedy Report,
1969). Similar to the Meriam Report, the Kennedy Report detailed the failures of federal
policies, with an emphasis on education. The report lays bare “400 years of failure” and takes the
reader through a historical perspective that establishes how the primary tool of assimilation was
through the school and classroom (p. 9). The summary of the historical findings includes a group
of educational failures six major themes: battleground of the identity of the Indian child within
the classroom; schools failing to understand cultural differences; schools blaming failures on
students; schools failing to validate the importance of the Indian community; record of
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 29

absenteeism, dropouts, negative self- image, and low academic achievement; finally, a
perpetuation of poverty. This report was the catalyst for the 1972 Indian Education Act and the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975.
The Indian Education Act of 1972 established the Office of Indian Education and the
National Advisory Council on Indian Education, both of which are not under the Department of
Interior or the Bureau of Indian Education, rather under the Department of Education (US
Department of Education, 2005). This act provided funding for programs specifically designed to
support the unique language and cultural needs of American Indian and Alaskan Native students,
from pre-k to post-secondary education, reaffirms the responsibility of the federal government,
and provides services not covered under the BIA. This act authorized funding using formulas and
grants for all schools, while also requiring additional input from Native parents and families
through advisory committees (American Indian Education Fund, n.d.). This act was reauthorized
under Title VII Part A of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.
The Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 or Public Law 93-638 is a legislative vehicle
for tribes to “provide for the full participation of Indian tribes in programs and services
conducted by the Federal Government for Indians and to…support the right of Indian citizens to
control their own educational activities” (Indian Self-determination Act, 1975). The law also
stated that tribes would be “more responsive to the needs and desires of those communities”
(section 3(a)(b)(c)). Often called the “638 process” or “638 contracting,” P.L. 93-638 is an
option for tribes to reimagine the services provided to children, families, and other tribal
members. These services are under the auspice of health care, social services such as public
safety, and education. The act seeks to transfer the tasks, responsibilities and all activities to the
tribes that complete an application for the 638 contract. However, according to Wilson (2012),
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 30

the BIA creates their programs within a legal framework that blocks the complete transfer as the
application process creates a contract that allows for the BIA to continue to be the oversight
body. This ensures that self-determination is not fully realized but rather becomes a burden for
tribes to hold that is wrought with responsibilities not within the control of the tribe itself
(Wilson, 2012).
In 1988, Public Law 100-297 created amendments to the Education Act of 1978. Under
P.L. 100-297, funds were made available for an Indian tribe or tribal organization, to operate a
school after a submission of an application to the Secretary of the Interior, as well as Bureau of
Indian Education schools that wish to convert to tribally controlled status. As the amendments in
P.L. 100-297 created an additional avenue for tribes and tribal organizations to receive grants,
the schools that were created were called tribally controlled grant schools, as opposed to the 638
schools that were created through a contract with the federal government. Similar to the 638
contract process, the 297 process also requires an application created by the tribe or tribal
organization, and then submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. Once submitted,
the federal government has 180 days to decide on whether the school is eligible for funds based
on the status in the application (25 U.S.C. §2511). Congress explicitly spells out that P.L. 100-
297 is a part of the commitment by Congress to “deter further perpetuation of Federal
bureaucratic domination of programs” (25 U.S.C. §2501 (b)). Currently, there are 183 schools
that are funded by the Bureau of Indian Education; of these 183, 53 schools are operated by the
BIE and 130 are tribally controlled and funded through contracts (638) or grants (297) (Bureau
of Indian Education, n.d.). As explained on the BIE’s website, there is a shared responsibility for
the oversight of schools and funds by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian
Education. Both BIE and BIA are housed within the Department of Interior and support the
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 31

schools through various capacities. BIE is responsible for acting in the capacity of an LEA, or
local education agency, whereas the BIA acts in the capacity of an SEA, or state education
agency. In addition, the BIA is responsible for “funding, maintaining, repairing, and replacing”
the 183 schools that are under the auspices of the Department of Interior (Bureau of Indian
Education, n.d.). This is an important point as facilities are a “major component of DOI’s trust
responsibility to American Indians” (Bureau of Indian Education, n.d.). In addition to the
amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act in 1988, there were additional amendments
made to the law in 1994 and again in 2004. With each legislative amendment, provisions were
made to allow for more tribal self-governance, making it easier for tribes to apply for 638 funds
while decreasing the ability of the Department of Interior to deny 638 applications.
Summary
The education of Indigenous students within a western framework began after contact
with western settlers and continues to present day. While the responsibility of providing
education has been through the trust responsibilities of the federal government, the primary way
of educating Indigenous children from all tribal nations across the country has swayed with the
contemporaneous political will and legislative rule making. The legacy of the cultural and
linguistic impacts of the various legislation such as the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 continue to be seen in communities today through the loss
and disconnect between Indigenous people and their traditional homelands. The Indian Civil
Rights Act of 1968, Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (Public Law 93-638), and the
amendments enacted in P.L. 100-297 are examples of legislative vehicles that support the control
of functions that are primarily administered by the Federal Government, as well as to implement
their own tribally controlled school through the administration of grants. P.L. 93-638 and P.L.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 32

100-297 are ways that tribes can implement culturally responsive teaching and pedagogies in
their education system. The next section will cover the ways that culturally responsive teaching
and pedagogies are thought of and used in tribal communities.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
In the literature regarding culturally responsive teaching (CRT), there are various ways of
naming the concept. For example, Hollie (2012) lists ways of “culturally responsive teaching”
as: culturally relevant teaching, culturally compatible teaching, culturally connected teaching,
culturally matched teaching, and culturally appropriate teaching, all of which are derived from
various scholars in education, including Geneva Gay and Gloria Ladson-Billings. Although there
are many names of CRT, Gloria Ladson-Billings coined the term “Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy” through her research that began in 1988. In her research, she defined this type of
pedagogy as the focus on “advancing student learning, developing cultural competence, and
fostering critical consciousness” (Ladson-Billings, 2021). Additional research over the years
added the terms “culturally relevant pedagogy” and “culturally sustaining pedagogy” by scholars
such as Shulman (1987) and Paris (2017). While the terms culturally responsive teaching and
pedagogies have appeared in the educational dialogue, including Ladson-Billings’ seminal
writing “But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy,” in 1995, there
is a distinction between culturally responsive pedagogy in western dominant spaces and
culturally responsive pedagogies in tribal communities. This section of literature examines the
additional layers and highlights of culturally responsive pedagogies in tribal communities.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Tribal Sovereignty
McCarty and Lee (2014) argue that in any discussion on the education of Native children,
there must also be the discussion of tribal sovereignty. They assert that “culturally based,
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 33

culturally relevant, and culturally responsive schooling have long been tied to affirmations of
tribal sovereignty” (p.102). These additional layers highlight what they call the fight for cultural
and linguistic survival in Native communities, pushing the definition of culturally sustaining
pedagogies to include the revitalization of language and culture. McCarty and Lee proposed the
term “culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy (CSRP)” and define it through three pillars: “an
expression of Indigenous education sovereignty…reclaiming and revitalizing what has been
disrupted and displaced by colonization… and having community-based accountability” (p.103).
In an effort to undo the effects of colonization, CSRP directly focuses on how the power through
colonization was put into effect: through federal Indian law, policies, and genocidal and
assimilative practices that highlight the reason for a fight for survival (McCarty & Lee, 2014;
Jester, 2007). These aspects of CSRP illustrate the unique political status of tribes, further
explaining the importance of why “tribal nations have inherent rights to determine the nature of
schooling provided to their youth”, which Castagno and Brayboy (2008) argue. Further, Brayboy
and Castagno (2008) discuss what they call culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth
with specific focus on how schooling and education is situated within the historical context with
the federal government. Culturally responsive schooling within Indigenous communities and
nations also focuses on the heritage language and tribal identities, centering these concepts
within the typical western dominant curricula.
Identity and Place
For many Indigenous People, the understanding of self in relation to nature, the
environment, and others is at the center of their cultural learning. While it differs from tribe to
tribe in exact teachings, many Indigenous children learn from their families how they fit into the
world around them through stories, teachings, kinship, and clanship (Deloria and Wildcat, 2001).
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 34

Stories of the stars and animals that explain reasons for daily occurrences, weather patterns, and
how things work in their local world are seminal teachings for many Native people. From the
beginning of existence in this universe, before five fingered people walked this land, this
Indigenous knowledge and worldview is passed down from elders to children, generation to
generation through oral language, ceremonies, and cultural traditions. As Deloria (2001)
explains, there is a marked difference in how Native people learn about the universe versus how
western learning categorizes and separates knowledge through rubrics and objectivity. He asserts
that the “Indian system” allows for the learner to be humble in the face of a vast amount of
knowledge, thus also requiring an exceptional memory (p. 22).
Further, being Indigenous means being of a place. Thus, Indigenous student identity is
often first based in a specific physical place. Wildcat (2001) states that “Indigenous people
represent a culture emergent from a place, and they actively draw on the power of that place
physically and spiritually” (p. 32). Therefore, to be culturally responsive in tribal communities, it
is necessary to begin with and incorporate the importance of the place from which the
Indigenous children come from. This is a major difference in the type of culturally responsive
pedagogy that exists in tribal communities versus anywhere else in America: no other racial or
ethnic group can claim their origins to this land prior to the 1400s. This difference is nuanced but
powerful and speaks to the uniqueness of the ways in which Native students learn and how they
are thus taught.
Curricula Aligned with Cultural Norms
The development of materials that meet the goal of CRSP, CRT, and/or culturally
responsive schooling is documented in educational research and reports from the U.S.
Department of Education. The latter published a report which states, “research generally
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 35

supports the premise that students do well when their culture and language are incorporated into
their education” (Department of Education, 2001). In this report, there is an acknowledgment
that American Indian and Alaskan Native students do “particularly well in situations where the
students’ culture is valued, or where Native parents are actively involved,” adding later in the
report that educating Indigenous youth requires more than an elective of their Native language, a
single class based on their culture, or an instructional module (p. 16). Incorporating an active
voice and participation from the parent and family is another way that schools can ensure there is
local knowledge, cultural norms, and language use in the classroom. Brayboy and Castagno
(2009) highlight a study from Belgarde et al.’s study in which a tribal leader states, “do not teach
our children our culture. Use our culture. Use our culture to teach them” (p. 42). These
opportunities to share and interact with the student’s and tribe’s culture, tradition, and language
allow for the learning of tribal shared values and norms (Brayboy & Castagno, 2009).
Another effort that is widely recognized in the literature is the University of Alaska’s
collaboration with the Alaska Native Knowledge Network. These entities published a set of
standards named “Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools” that was developed
through the partnership with Alaska Native educators. These cultural standards are a synthesis of
what culturally responsive pedagogy means for Indigenous students, specifically with the beliefs
grounded in place. The standards state that they were created with the firm belief that a
prerequisite for children to be culturally intact and healthy, they must learn from a set of
standards that are grounded in their heritage language and culture, which are also grounded in
place.
These standards have been recognized in the literature and research of culturally
responsive pedagogies and teaching for Native youth as having the foundational beliefs and
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 36

pillars on which successful teaching and learning can occur. Further, these standards are not
meant to be supplemental but rather a part of core curriculum development for Indigenous
students (Brayboy & Castagno, 2008).
Language Revitalization
One of the distinguishing facets of tribal sovereignty is that all 574 federally recognized
tribes have their own distinct language and/or dialect. If tribal languages were to disappear, so
too would the connection to land, traditional beliefs, ceremonies, songs, practices, and the unique
status of Indigenous people. The desire to revitalize tribal languages through formal education in
schools is an effort to undo centuries of federal Indian policies designed to eradicate languages.
In 1969, the U.S. Senate released a report titled “Indian Education: A National Tragedy-A
National Challenge” which kick-started a series of reports and legislative solutions, including the
Indian Education Act of 1972, to the lack of support for language and culture in schools
(Brayboy & Castagno, 2008). By 1975, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act was passed and tribes then had more power to develop schools. In the 1990s, legislation was
passed to support tribal language in schools. Specifically, the Native American Language Act of
1990/1992 “formalized the importance of the federal government’s role in preserving, protecting,
and promoting the rights and freedoms of tribal language use and preservation” (Brayboy &
Castagno, 2008). In 2006, congress passed the Esther Martinez Native American Languages
Programs Act (which was again reauthorized in 2019). This act funds immersion programs and
works to “ensure the survival of Native Languages...establish immersion programs…and create
grants…to empower Native communities to establish immersion programs”
(www.languagepolicy.org, 2019).
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 37

Importance of Language in Curricula. McCarty and Brayboy (2021) review various
research into the role of language in culturally based education. In their study, they find that
programs that sustainably incorporate the local languages and cultural knowledge into the
foundational school curricula and programs are the most effective. On the opposite side of the
spectrum, superficial language events or celebrations that are not meaningful tied to the
curriculum or education runs the risk of tokenism (Wildcat, 2001). Given that the first language
of most Native children is English, the efforts for language revitalization has taken shape in
various settings, starting with learning at home, at community events, and at school (McCarty &
Lee, 2014). Incorporating language into the teaching and curriculum through demonstration
schools and immersion schools have shown promising results (Lee, 2014). Further, Demmert
(2001) reviewed studies that showed the incorporation of the knowledge held locally in
conjunction with the Native languages were crucial to improvements in performance and
attainment measures.
Summary
Regardless of what it is called, culturally responsive pedagogies/education/schooling has
the potential to increase student achievement while also increasing the accessibility to heritage
languages and cultural practices (Jaime & Rush, 2012). Understanding the differences in
culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and how it impacts Indigenous students requires an
understanding of the nuances in how Indigenous children have been educated. Knowing how
identity is deeply tied to place, as well as the teaching of cultural norms through formalized
educational opportunities is critical in the implementation of CSRP. Language is also deeply
connected to tribal sovereignty and federal Indian policy. Efforts to ensure the revitalization of
Native languages have recently been fortified through legislation and funding.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 38

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to complete an environmental scan to determine and
capture best practices for how tribes can complete an application for the 638 or 297 process in
education. The 638 and 297 process involve the research and writing of an application to contract
with the federal government to control the funding and positions that are monitored and
implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Bureau of Indian Education. The study
aimed to highlight barriers and key decision points in the pre application phase for tribes
completing the application. This chapter includes an overview of the methods, including the
questions for the study and the overview of the design of the study. The chapter ends with a
discussion on the researcher, participants, data sources, and how ethics were handled in the
study.
Research Questions
This study focused on the following research questions:
1. What are the key activities during the pre-application planning phase of the 638 or
297 process?
2. What are the barriers experienced during the 638 or 297 pre-application planning
phase and in what ways, if at all, were the barriers mitigated?
3. In what ways, if at all, was the pre-application planning phase used to develop
culturally responsive approaches to implementing a tribally-held educational
system?
4. To what extent have implementation plans been realized by tribes?
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 39

Overview of Design
This study was a qualitative study that brought together interviews from the persons who
supported any part of the 638 or 297 process on behalf of a federally recognized tribe. There
were six participants in the study. The study followed a semi-structured interview protocol that
consisted of 13 questions and lasted approximately 60 minutes. Each interview was conducted
over Zoom, recorded and transcribed using a data analysis tool, and then coded organically based
on the theme and research questions.
The Researcher
I am a Diné woman. Diné is the Navajo word for what we call ourselves, which translates
to “the People.” In this translation and understanding of ourselves, we are Indigenous to this
land, air, water, and other natural elements that surround us in our original homelands.
Indigeneity is more than just being “from” a specific place; my identity as a Diné woman is built
upon the traditional stories that have been passed on from generation to generation. These stories
inform the Diné people of how we were formed, why the world is the way it is, and set out
behavioral guidelines and rules that we follow to maintain balance in our natural world and
within our spiritual and physical beings. Being Indigenous and being a woman are also
intertwined for me, as I would not be an Indigenous person if I was not a woman in the ways that
I have been created and the roles that I inhabit daily. These are the foundational teachings that I
carry with me always. There are complexities in the ways in which I am both Indigenous and a
woman, but also within the realm of my educational background. I am educated in the western
dominant society and was away from my homeland for many years while obtaining my high
school diploma and my bachelor’s degree. During these formative years, the decisions that my
family made to support my education and ultimately my own personal reasons for returning
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 40

home to teach and work alongside my people are core to who I am. In this study, it was critical
that I ensured I am not only being mindful of the bias I may have when it comes to the
westernized way of education and its effects on children, but also how that education affects the
community, the stories that students tell themselves based on the education they receive, and
how there are many traditional and western stories influence educational decisions in
communities.
To mitigate potential biases and assumptions that I held during this study, it was
important that I reflected on my own identity and how I interact with the modern-day educational
systems in my work. I am an educational administrator and work with schools in continuous
improvement. I reflected daily on the examples I see of how modern education looks and feels
for Native kids growing up in the 2020s, as well as the experiences of being a Diné mother to
four children, three of which are in the public school system. In the interviews, I was cognizant
of my body language, non-verbal cues, and verbal cues. I employed the strategies of member
checking to ensure “participants …[can] recognize their experiences in [my] interpretation,” of
the interview data (Merriam & Tisdall, 2015). Reflection and member checking were ultimately
the main strategies that I used to ensure I mitigated my biases.
Data Sources
In this study, the researcher used data sources from interviews. This initial data
collection from interviews was used to build rapport and gather data from the participants’
experiences. Once the interviews were conducted, the researcher reviewed the transcripts, coded
the transcript data, and then categorized the coded data based on themes that arose. When
publicly available, the researcher was able to procure an application and was reviewed as a part
of the data collection as well.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 41

Method- Interviews
One of the methods that this study employed was interviews. According to Merriam and
Tisdall (2015), the use of interviews is “necessary…when we are interested in past events that
are impossible to replicate” (p 108). The interviews followed the interview protocol that can be
found in Appendix A. The interview style was semi-structured and was conducted over an online
meeting platform.
Participants
Six participants were recruited for the interviews through purposeful sampling, a method
in which the participants were selected based on their experiences and relevancy (Maxwell,
2013). Participants had the direct experience of writing, researching, and/or submitting a 638 or
297 application for a school or system. The participants were employees, consultants, or had
otherwise worked directly with a tribe who submitted an application. There were two participants
that worked with tribes that ultimately did not submit an application for either 638 or 297. The
researcher used recruitment methods using phone calls, emails, and through the researcher’s
extended social networks. Once contact was made, the researcher sent the recruitment email to
ensure they met the inclusion criteria and set up a time for an interview once they determined
they met the criteria. Once the participant confirmed, the researcher sent the informed consent
form to the participants to review prior to meeting. At the beginning of the interview, the
researcher asked questions and determined if the participant had questions regarding their
informed consent. If there were no questions, the participant signed the informed consent form
and sent it back to the researcher. The interview began following the semi-structured interview
protocol. When the interview concluded, the researcher asked for recommendations and names
of the other possible participants based on their role during the 638 or 297 application process.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 42

Instrumentation
The instrument that was used to collect data was a semi-structured interview protocol.
The protocol ensured all participants were being asked the same questions, as well as provided a
framework for the types of information the questions were framed around. The interview
protocol (see Appendix A) and questions were designed to fit into one of four categories:
decisions, relationships, resources, and tasks/activities. These categories speak directly to the
research questions one through four. The data collected from the responses of the participants
who have successfully submitted an application to contract with the federal government or be a
grantee provided a starting point to begin mapping out best practices in the event of undergoing
the 638 or 297 process, on behalf of a tribe or tribal organization. There was also data from the
interviews of the two participants that worked with tribes who had not successfully submitted a
628 or 297 application.
Data Collection Procedures
Within various Native and Indigenous communities, there is an importance on
relationship building. The sharing of information might be done only after there is a relationship
that has been built between the storyteller and the story receiver. Prior to any interview, I began
building relationships through the sharing of my background, introduction, and followed
culturally appropriate protocols while monitoring any potential bias based on identities (Bogden,
2007). Interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes. All interviews were done over an online
meeting platform which were recorded with the interviewee’s permission. During the interview, I
kept field notes as appropriate. When the interview was over, I transcribed the data with the use
of a transcription tool while abiding by confidential practices. The collection of data through
recording an interview and then using a transcription tool made sense in this study as the tools
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 43

are not only readily available, but because all interviews took place on an online platform and
not face to face. This allowed me to interview people from across the country and did not limit
data collected due to time or distance.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study followed a circular pattern. After each interview, the
researcher uploaded the transcript into a data analysis tool. Once the transcript was uploaded,
open coding was conducted using a series of codes that were developed organically. After the
first two interview data were coded, the researcher went back to the first interview and reviewed
the data with the final codes used. By the third interview, the 20 codes that were developed were
reorganized into areas for research questions and applied to the rest of the interview data. When
all of the interviews were coded, the researcher separated and found the themes from each group
based on the research question.
Validity and Reliability
In this study, the researcher employed various strategies to ensure validity and reliability
in the data collected through interviews. The strategy most used was member checking. Member
checking was utilized as a measure to support the validity of the interview data. This is a strategy
to validate the responses of the persons being interviewed and ensure the researcher’s
interpretation of the data is aligned to their intention (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study,
the researcher reviewed the participant’s responses with the participant as needed to ensure the
researcher understood and interpreted the data as the participant intended.
Ethics
In any study that involves human subjects, there are major responsibilities that the
researcher will need to consider. In this particular study, there were several strategies and best
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 44

practices that were implemented along with the overall ethical considerations of the researcher.
The first practice to ensure that all steps were taken was to go through the University of Southern
California’s institutional review board (IRB). This process required the researcher to complete
training, online modules, and comply with all necessary requirements that they will put forth. In
addition to the university’s IRB, there were additional IRBs for tribal research that were
engaged. Although there were two additional tribal IRBs that the researcher consulted, the
researcher ultimately completed the university IRB and one additional tribal IRB. The intention
of the researcher was to not do any harm to any participant, audience, subject that was involved
in the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In alignment with the IRB principles, all subjects had the
right to privacy, right to withdraw at any time, and the right to informed consent (including their
consent to be recorded). There were pre-established guidelines that were embedded in the
interview protocol that were also to be shared with the participants prior to any interview. If
there were any issues that arose during the study that compromised any of the ethical
considerations, the researcher worked with advisors and mentors to ensure the issues were
resolved as soon as they arose (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, the researcher ensured that all
data that was gathered was secured appropriately to ensure confidentiality and in alignment with
ethical behaviors and responsibilities on behalf of the researcher.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 45

Chapter Four: Findings
This study examined the ways in which the 638 and 297 processes have been
implemented by tribes, specifically in education. There was a total of six participants that were
interviewed, representing four tribes. Each of the participants worked on behalf of a tribe to
research, create and develop a 638 application or a 297 application. Five of the participants led
their process directly, and one was an ancillary support to people who wrote several 297
applications. Out of the six, two participants were female and identified as members of a
federally recognized tribe. Out of the four males, two identified with a federally recognized tribe,
and the other males were non-native. Two of the tribes represented completed and submitted the
applications they discussed in this study; two tribes did not submit their application due to
Covid-19 and the resulting pandemic, in addition to other reasons discussed later. Three tribes
attempted or successfully engaged with the 297 process; one tribe engaged with the 638 process
but was ultimately not successful.
Research Question 1: What are the Key Activities During the Pre-application Planning
Phase of the 638 or 297 Process?
Interviewees were asked about the key activities that were engaged in during the pre-
application planning phase. There were nine common activities discussed: 1) Activating
Community Members, 2) Gathering Feedback through a variety of mechanisms, 3) Analyzing
and using the type of feedback provided, 4) Creation of Advisory Council as an extension of the
Tribe, 5) Communicating with Tribal Leadership and Administration, 6) Researching all aspects
of the Application, 7) Developing a Timeline Based on Needs and Research, 8) Building Key
Relationships 9) Adjusting the General Process based on Tribal Government needs.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 46

Activity 1- Activating Community Members.
One of the main findings of this study is the immense need for stakeholder feedback for
every part of the planning process. Every participant in this study consulted with the members of
the tribe, whether that be parents, community members, grandparents, tribal council members,
tribal leadership outside of the council, as well as other people who were involved in the process
but not a part of the community directly (for example, BIE leadership when necessary). The
importance of this consultation cannot be overstated; the stakeholders of the school were as
important to the planning of the application as the desire for educational sovereignty of the tribe.
Meaningful consultation is a pillar of Tribal Consultation, which is a major requirement for the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the federal law that replaced the 2001 No Child Left
Behind Act and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.
Given the history of Indian education in the United States, there is an emphasis on ensuring there
are ample opportunities for and with the community. In all ways, stakeholder feedback was the
foundation of the actual work for either the 638 or 297 process. Tribal consultation is one way
that educational initiatives can support the dialogue with communities, especially when
conversations about education can be very personal. One participant spoke about the importance
of embodying the philosophy of tribal consultation and ways in which the facilitator needed to
show up to listen to the community:
You really have to embody the principles around the tribal consultation philosophy which
is that you need to have meaningful consultation. And that's really having those that
dialogue with the community. I think that's the most critical need for a 638 contract,
especially when it's something as big as education. Education just touches so many
people, and [in] very personal and deep entrenched ways. So you have to be aware of that
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 47

and just have humanity I think. Just be patient in time. Listen, acknowledge what people
are saying and sometimes in these [meetings] people brought up their traumas from
education, and not being dismissive of that. It's like, there's so much there's so much hurt
in our communities. And these people carry their hurt and bring it into how they view
tribal governing I guess, in a way it's like our own democracy at play in terms of having
that dialogue and recognizing that you have to continue this conversation and have this
dialogue repeatedly, and to really be patient with people, and how they learned how they
understand the world. and that's really about trying to build that people consciousness and
trying to get their voice and their input. And your work, I think, is the most critical
element for the 638 contracting.
In the conversations with communities and stakeholders, the trauma and pain that was
experienced often bubbled up. This facilitator not only recognized the need to listen, but also to
be patient. Hearing the same conversation over and over is an indication of the deeply entrenched
feelings that surround education in Indigenous communities.
Activity 2 - Gathering Feedback through a Variety of Mechanisms
Feedback was gathered through focus groups, 1:1 conversations, surveys, and having
formal and informal conversations with parents, students, community members, and tribal
leadership. Every tribe determined the type of application they would pursue, which determined
the plan of action they would follow. For one tribe, they supported the facilitator to have
hundreds of conversations with the community through meetings in person, focus groups, and
1:1. This not only allowed for the facilitator to hear from as many people as they could, but also
allowed them to hear every side of the conversation. One interviewee noted how they had
multiple meetings with various key players in the community to hear all sides of the discussion:
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 48

One of the biggest [goals in] our process was to connect with community, have multiple
meetings with all the key players, [and] also ensuring that there are family members, and
maybe community members that are typically not part of these kind of bigger decision,
making kind of conversations to make sure that we were having, like really a large scale,
intentional opportunity to hear from people to hear, like the good, the bad, the ugly of like
What did it mean to go tribally controlled?...And so I know [the facilitator of the process]
in that first year [had] hundreds of different interactions, individually as well as like large
scale meetings to discuss that process.
For another tribe, the processes that were created followed similar frameworks of tribal
consultation to ensure they were meaningful. These conversations were done where people were
spending their time, such as restaurants. The facilitator ensured that not only did they talk to
many people, but they did so in unstructured places and times to gather data from their
responses. This facilitator interviewed people through daily conversations at the places that
people spent their time:
Our process was to talk to as many people as possible. One on one, through focus groups,
through targeted focus [groups] … the representatives from the tribe supported me and
getting connections and talking to people…I would just do stuff like hang out at the
restaurant and be like, oh, hey, do you have a couple of minutes while you're eating your
food, you know. I'll buy you a cup of coffee. Just let's just chat a little bit. And so during
that time I would ask those questions I would document all the responses, and then I coded
them afterwards to like the basic groupings of what people responded.
Regardless of the space or time of day, the facilitator used their time to make the conversations
meaningful and gather the data. Whether sitting down with them at the restaurant or hosting a
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 49

meeting for community members, speaking directly to stakeholders of all levels was
predominately the most important piece of all interviews, regardless of whether the application
was 638 or 297.
Activity 3 - Analyzing and Using the Type of Feedback Provided
During the process of activating the community to gather meaningful stakeholder
feedback, there were several key findings regarding the nature of the feedback received and how
the tribes used the feedback to co-create a vision and mission for their school. All tribes
interviewed understood and agreed that gathering feedback was crucial and essential to their
process; three out of four of the tribes sought to go through a process to make sure they were
“being authentic to a community vision.” These tribes worked from a co-created community
vision that involved asking open ended questions and truly making the school to be as aligned to
that vision as possible. The one tribe that did not co-create a vision or mission, used the feedback
to adjust their pre-planned process to better inform the public of their plans, continuing to align
their application to the original vision and intent of their tribal education leaders
contemporaneously from the 1970s.
Tribes that gathered feedback to co-create a vision and mission were intentional on the
types of questions they asked. One of the facilitators explained that their questions were not
geared around “do we want a grant or contract school?” but rather “what do you want for
education and for your kids? What can the school do to get you there? What can the tribe do to
get you there? And if there… was just one thing you wanted, what would that be?” These open-
ended questions were basic enough that anyone could answer but direct enough to ensure there
was connection to their purpose.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 50

Trauma and pain that was associated with the education of the parents and grandparents
were mentioned in every interview. The pain of educational experiences was one of the major
findings in terms of the woven communal trauma that a community shares, and how in
Indigenous communities, education is at the heart of both trauma and reconciliation for that pain.
This point was further illustrated by a conversation revolving around the amount of support
needed from the BIE:
I think sometimes people are like we want to do this but we also know that we need
additional support from the BIE to make this happen…We want to figure out what that
oversight is going to look like and how much we want to also hold the BIE accountable
[for] what happened over the course of [the] boarding school era…we don't want to let
the BIE off the hook completely for what they said that they were going to do [and then]
never did. [There was] a tension that would constantly be coming up where we want to
have tribal control. But we also know that having tribal control does not mean that we are
forgiving or forgetting the errors of the BIE.
In this interview, the rawness of the conversations with the community were such that there was
a tension between a need for accountability and for freedom in a sense, from the pain that was
created and enabled by the BIE. These experiences are also interestingly a part of the communal
responsibility to ensure that their children today do not experience the same pain. In another
interview, the facilitator said conversations with the community were a space where the people
felt open to share their experiences with their local day school, which were both painful and full
of fond memories:
The conversations [were] critical, because … a lot of people feel a deep connection to
their local day school or community school…There's some really painful things…then
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 51

there's also it seems to be really fond [and] deep connections. So being able to see
change happen to that school that they feel really fond of, that they went to, their parent
went to, their grandparent, they went to, [and] going at the speed of trust and
understanding and contemplating that with them about it was really helpful in the long
run.
The tension between accountability and responsibility, between fond memories of school
alongside painful memories of cultural and linguistic genocide, was not only apparent in the
interviews in this study but also in the community conversations that were held by the facilitators
of the processes for tribes.
Inherent sovereignty, the need for the education of their children to be founded on the
language, culture, traditions, and beliefs of their tribe all heavily influenced the four tribes and
interviewees. The visions that were co-created with the community of stakeholders were
strengthened by the conversations about taking back or bringing back what the tribal members
have lost through formal education: their languages and culture. Many of the conversations that
heavily influenced the vision and mission came from “the need to tie back [our focus] to inherent
sovereignty.” One facilitator commented about the conversations of ownership and
responsibility of taking back the education of their children:
Since time immemorial we have always educated our young people before first contact,
and then we went through a period of time where education was very directed in a certain
way. I'm trying to find some nice words to use. But now, in this moment we have still
that responsibility, and opportunity to teach the things we want to teach, and in balance
with preparing people for adulthood and community citizenship. When we approached
[those conversations] from those angles again, the Council, and in particular the elderly
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 52

council agreed that we just need to take ownership, as we've always had it before. And
maybe we moved away from that a little bit and had other people deciding what our
young people were going to learn. We need to get back to that. But I think at the same
time was the need to acknowledge some of the socioeconomic situations in our
community.
In this tribe, the tribal council came to the realization that despite the hardships they are
experiencing, the idea of allowing other people to decide what their children would learn was not
in their best interest. Even with the acknowledgement of hardship in their community, taking
back control of the education was a solution they saw to ameliorate the socioeconomic status of
their tribe.
In many of these discussions that centered around what kids needed to learn, there was a
need to grapple with the question as stated by a participant as, “how has a (sic) Western
education influenced our students? how has it better prepared them for not only the workforce,
but in a way of life?” These stakeholder conversations allowed for communities to openly
grapple with the competing influences of the western education and traditional knowledge
through language and customs, as well as the implications of what this means for the livelihood
of their communities. Knowing that “ultimately [the students] will choose, but for the
population's interest in sustaining tradition, culture, language, what's best termed as sovereignty”
was the foundation for each of the tribes’ approaches to the 638 or 297 application.
Activity 4 - Creation of Advisory Council as an Extension of the Tribe
All four tribes put together an advisory council that worked with the main facilitator of
the process. As each of the facilitators elaborated about the process they followed, one thing was
clear: the tribe that they worked for and on behalf of held the ultimate power for the direction.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 53

The people on the advisory were either consultants (paid) that supported the research and
capacity building for the facilitator; members of a board for the tribal education department; or
they were appointed by the tribe to support the main facilitator. One facilitator described their set
up and how their actions were first initiated by the tribe:
[Our work] itself [was] an act of sovereignty because this was a process that was initiated
by the tribe. I was like the facilitator and researcher…[and] compiler of information. But
really it was the tribe that made the decision. Do this, [do] that, they wanted to
understand this better. The [tribe] was really really good at asking really hard questions.
They weren't just like, okay, yeah, we'll open a school that's going to be great…The tribe
wants this. We've talked to the community. We understood what the community wanted
to see within a school. So I think that that led us to some early success in community
members really, quickly seeing once the school opened.
Facilitators would often report back to the tribe their findings, research, proposed actions, and
then the tribal council would approve or make suggestions to their process. In this way, the tribe
directed and adjusted the course for the facilitator, which in turn led to high investment for what
they were attempting to do in the community.
In addition to the ways the councils provided support to the facilitator to improve the
application process, there was also evidence of how the facilitator reciprocated the support by
pushing the advisory councils to reflect on ways their planning could be innovative. Provided
that 297 and 638 applications are manners by which a tribe can redesign the education of this
students, one facilitator spoke about how they pushed their council to vocalize the ways in which
their school would be different than their neighbor schools:
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 54

The committee was very well grounded in the [pre-application] process that they had
used and what they wanted to see…So when it came time to the question I had for them
when I first came on was, ‘what do you want to see for your school and like? What is it
that you want to emphasize? What's going to distinguish your school between…the other
school that's your competitor. What's going to be your difference between you and [the
other schools in local cities]?’ There really wasn't much [difference], and I pointed that
out. I said, ‘Why would you want to go tribally controlled then?’ You know I was playing
Devil's advocate.
The reciprocity of the relationship between the facilitator and the tribe was an important aspect
to the overall success of the application. Playing devil’s advocate, as told by the facilitator, was
their way of illuminating ways in which the tribe needed to go deeper in their application.
Activity 5 - Communicating with Tribal Leadership and Administration
All participants discussed the need to keep the tribal council and/or leadership informed
of all major developments and decision points. This is important to note because ultimately, the
application is written and would be submitted as a contract between the tribe and the federal
government, not the individuals or a school and the federal government or state. It is the tribal
council and relevant departments who pass resolutions that indicate to the federal government
their desire to pursue either a 638 contract or 297 grant. Therefore, the decision makers were
informed along the way in appropriate ways.
Another commonality between the four applications and tribes was the need to not only
inform them of updates, but to continually check in and reteach/reinform the leaders as they
would change often. Given that every tribe is different and has different levels of bureaucracy,
the facilitators dealt with transitions in tribal leadership often. There are also elderly members of
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 55

the councils and administrations, thus requiring the facilitators to “[keep] them informed,
educating, creating learning experiences for them, [and] also really giving them the peace of
mind that…we got this”. Not only did the facilitators need to update what they were doing and
learning from the community, but the actual process for the 638 or 297 applications required a
high level of understanding of the federal government and its huge bureaucratic systems.
Activity 6 - Researching All Aspects of the Application
One of the major components that is needed is research on the overall process,
curriculum, facilities, academic needs, and anything else the tribal council and leadership want to
know more about in regard to the 638 or 297 application. While the BIE has an office that is
devoted to converting schools and providing technical assistance, there are many areas that the
tribe must research based on the direction they want to move. For example, if a tribe wanted to
build an immersion school, there are multiple models they could use that have been established
in multilingual education. They would then need to figure out how to satisfy the requirements of
the federal government while implementing their immersion program. In this study, all four
applications, research was done extensively on operations and academics, as these were the areas
that tribes would primarily take over. One of the facilitators described the research like this:
Starting this project with the 638 contracting… [we thought about the] whole entire
structure, you know this was all about education, everything that we were trying to do for
the finance side, for the human resources side, for the governance side. It was all about
education, so you know it's just kind of like a table…you just can't have an academic leg.
You had to have the finance and the human resources and the governance side to keep
that [table even] in terms of making sure it works, because…education is a very
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 56

expensive enterprise, and making sure that all the pieces are there were necessary in order
to make this a fully functional, highly effective system.
When contracting with the federal government, the tribes need to ensure they are able to fulfil
the same services, which in many cases are the processes for human resources, finance,
governance, operations, and academic needs. While tribes may have their own internal process
for their employees, often there needs to be research on processes specifically for the governance
of education, employees for the schools, and school finance.
Another facilitator described their process in tandem with meeting the other
responsibilities inherent in the process. The facilitator provided a great overview of the key
activities that were previously described while explaining the need for research:
[The tribal council] said, we're not going to do this right now, but we want you to take a
year to research it. So this is what this year was. It's just researching it. So it was also
meeting with the BIE to talk about the process, meeting with the BIA to talk about
buildings and understanding the facilities and the transportation services. It was gaining
my own understanding of, you know, leading an institution and stuff like what needs to
be in there as far as that application. And so through that process, and [coding] all the
responses from the community, and connecting with them, and present[ing] it. We had,
like an advisory committee that the tribe had created, who are helping me through this
whole process, too. [So I] presented out to them. And it was like 4 big areas. Basically, it
was like culture [and] language, rigorous academics, holistic wellbeing, and
community…[those] were the big buckets that people were talking about, that they
wanted their kids to be experiencing when they were in that school…But that was only
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 57

half the research. The other half was like…here are all the different modalities we have to
be able to achieve that if this is what we want. How do we get there?
Researching the processes, platforms, and best practices to meet their goals was a major part of
this facilitator’s job. It’s important to note that these particular areas for this community and tribe
are what they chose to develop from their plan for implementation, not necessarily what the 628
or 297 application asked for. However, the research that was done supported an in-depth
comprehensive plan that allowed for this tribe to meet the requirements of the federal
government while also working towards their mission and vision.
Activity 7- Developing a Timeline Based on Needs and Research
In both the 638 and 297 application process, there is no set timeline that everyone follows
from beginning to end. This creates the opportunity for the tribe to create something new that is
tailored to their communities, nations, and children. As one facilitator indicated, “we want the
input to better understand what are the needs and the priorities and challenges and opportunities
of the community…[then] we invit[ed] members of the tribal government to sit in on those
meetings and provide their input.” Whether they were to pursue a 638 contract, there would need
to be research on the specific positions, roles, and responsibilities that the tribe would then take
over. If the tribe were to pursue a 297 tribally controlled school grant, then the research would be
driven by the roles, responsibilities, systems that would need to be created from scratch. (The
latter is one of the major findings of this study that will be discussed in the following section, as
the barriers that are encountered regarding the operations of a school.)
Activity 8 - Building Key Relationships
Relationship building was one of the highest priorities for all facilitators in this process.
These relationships influenced the applications in ways that allowed for the main facilitator to
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 58

ensure that the language, culture, and traditional knowledge were embedded, even if they were
not from the community they worked for. All of the facilitators had a solid understanding of their
community and tribe with whom they worked on behalf, whether that understanding was innate
or learned, each facilitator spoke about their communities with humility and reverence. Of the
five facilitators that were interviewed, three were from the communities and tribal nations in
which they wrote the application; one was from a nearby community but a different tribe, and the
last was from another state.
When asked about the relationships they built with key individuals, all five facilitators
spoke about their advisory group/group of consultants that shared the work of researching.
Although the facilitators were at times a “one man show,” they were also very quick to
add/correct that they did not act alone and could lean on the advisory, or individuals from the
tribal education department, tribe, or board of education.
Another source of key relationships that were built were those between the facilitators
and the tribal council. This aspect differed as there were different processes with different tribes,
including the size of the council and their availability. Nevertheless, each facilitator recognized
the importance of working to build trust with the tribal council and tribal leadership, as explained
by one facilitator:
Something you really have to work on is the trust factor. Because we're talking about,
you know, [the] Tribal Council…You know they really are holders of the keys to
everything for their community. And you know they've been burned in the past for
things, you know, for education. You know that [education is] a real value. It's [a part of]
our values, and that's our future. Our destiny is through education. So they had to be sure
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 59

about that. So the trust factor was a process that you work on, and it helped that I had had
previous experience with [relationship building] before.
Building trust alongside the tribal council and community were major areas of learning that all
facilitators spoke of. The facilitators recognized not only the need for trust but also the history of
why trust is so important in Indigenous communities. Ensuring that the plans are transparent,
reflective of the needs and wants of the tribe, and supporting the values that are held by the
community and tribe were pillars to building trust with each facilitator.
It is important to note that not all facilitators were able to secure access to their tribal
council, and this seriously hampered their ability to build relationships and thus move forward
with an application. One particular facilitator said they hit “major walls” with the tribal council,
never being able to meet with them to present information. Upon explaining the setup of the
tribal leadership and government (and without elaborating in this study due to confidentiality
reasons), the facilitator was able to work with one half of the administration, but the information
that was presented “never went farther than that…I couldn’t get their approval, and without the
tribal council’s approval, I was just kind of at a loss and felt defeated.” In this situation, the
facilitator could not even talk to the tribal council, even if the facilitator knew them directly, due
to the protocols that govern the tribal council and government. In this situation, there was no
significant work done to submit an application for either 638 or 297.
Relationships with the BIE were also mostly supportive and positive. In five of the six
interviews, the relationships with the BIE were primarily built while receiving technical
assistance for the applications, or during previous employment where the facilitators had access
to the BIE and could work collaboratively with them. These relationships were described as
“generally positive,” but with the caveat that more often than not, the facilitators and support
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 60

personnel would need to “nag” them for answers given the large bureaucracy that exists within
the BIE. This lag in response times did not appear to be a factor in the perception of a positive
relationship. Even if the facilitators did not understand why there was a delay in responses, they
were confident that the delay was not due to the nature of their relationship; most commonly, it
was due to the bureaucratic ways the BIE operates.
Activity 9 - Adjusting the General Process Based on Tribal Government Needs
There exists a relatively simple process for the 638 and 297 application. This process
becomes complicated based on tribal council timelines and the overall tribal process that is
required. However, there were some commonalities between the six participants that represented
four total tribes. These commonalities are included in the timeline below. It is important to note
that the submission of an application was not the end of the process; rather, the submission of an
application was a milestone that started the clock ticking for the approval process by the
Department of Interior. The process that was followed prior to the submission of the application
was based on roughly the same process for all interview participants. Table 2 below shows the
process that was followed in all the interviews.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 61

Table 2. Rough step by step process followed by most facilitators.
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3-
on going
Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Discussions
and feedback
from the
stakeholders
and
community
through 1:1
conversa-
tions, focus
groups,
surveys.
Synthesize
the
information
to co-create a
mission and
vision.
Research all
aspects of
running a
school.
Use
culturally
responsive
approaches in
the
curriculum
and
foundational
planning.
Submission
of
application.
Upon
approval,
implementa-
tion of plans.
Ongoing and different timelines based on tribe:
Submit for approval of resolutions needed from tribal council.

Although all six participants followed similar processes as described above, it is
important to note that only three out of six participants and two tribes reached the point of
submitting a completed application to the Department of Interior and the Secretary of Interior for
consideration.
Summary for Research Question 1
The findings of this study are categorized into nine different activities based on the
research questions. These activities were: 1) Activating Community Members, 2) Gathering
feedback through a variety of mechanisms, 3) Analyzing and using the type of feedback
provided, 4) Creation of Advisory Council as an extension of the Tribe, 5) Communicating with
Tribal Leadership and Administration, 6) Researching all aspects of the Application, 7)
Developing a Timeline Based on Needs and Research, 8) Building Key Relationships, 9)
Adjusting the General Process based on Tribal Government needs. It is important to note that
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 62

regardless of the tribe, language, and culture, the above findings were the major activities that
came from all interviews.
Research Question 2: What are the Barriers Experienced During the 638 or 297 Pre-
application Planning Phase and in What Ways, if at all, were the Barriers Mitigated?
Creating a school that is aligned to a community vision and therefore enacting tribal
sovereignty in education through a contract of grant, does not have a road map. There is no set
number of steps that one must take, nor is there one set of procedures that must be followed
within each tribe. There are many factors that affect the ultimate outcome of a completed and
submitted application for a tribally controlled school, whether it be contract or grant. In all of the
interviews, four major barriers were identified: 1) School operations, 2) Tribal Governance, 3)
High turnover in Tribal Government, and 4) Understanding stakeholder’s perception of the
narrative. The following sections will elaborate on these areas and will also include the ways in
which the facilitators were able to mitigate the barriers that were originally identified.
Barrier 1- Operations and Logistics
School operations consist of the day-to-day functioning of a school that include (but not
necessarily limited to) finance, food services, facilities, human resources, building maintenance,
custodial services, transportation, legal services, etc. In 100% of the interviews, school
operations were the biggest barrier when it came to researching and implementing the tribe’s
plans that were set forth in the 638 or 297 application. Even in the two applications that were not
submitted, school operations continued to be a high priority and consistent source of question
and stress for the facilitator, advisory councils, and stakeholders. Aside from the academic
portion of the planning process, school operations were the persistent reason for whether the
facilitator and advisory felt successful in their roles.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 63

All participants indicated there was an immense amount of research needed, most of
which was around the infrastructure or systemic processes that the tribe would take over from the
BIE or BIA, and how that would be completed under the tribal processes. One facilitator
described the research for the 638 process that included the policies that were needed for human
resources, finance, rulemaking, infrastructure, and academics:
We [had] a team for human resources because…when you take over a 638 contract,
you're gonna be worried about employees that are gonna be transferred over. So we had
human resources focus on: what that transfer would look like. The type of training, the
onboarding, and so forth. The second thing is finance with the amount of BIE and BIA
combined there's about 47 funding streams for what the BIE was managing for the
[tribal] schools….so we had to figure out, okay, what type of policies, what are the actual
rules associated to those funding streams. How do they get distributed? What would be
the projected amount of money that would come in? How? What type of financial
infrastructure would the [tribe] need in order to fulfill all those obligations under the
funding stream? And then you have the governance piece, which means who are the
decision makers? How are they going to be involved with pulling this information
together? and one of the most critical function was the rule making. So you needed to set
up the governing infrastructure for that. And then the final piece was really about the
academic side. How do we ensure that…the whole goal of teaching and taking control is
what is the new education system look like? So looking at what already exists and is
being taught through standards, assessments for existing schools. And then how is that
going to be transformed through this process. So we divided up the teams to examine all
those elements, and that took about almost 4 years of research and work.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 64

In this excerpt, the facilitator described the ways in which their team divided up the research and
the questions they felt they needed to answer. Although this facilitator and their work with the
tribe took more time than the rest of the participants that were interviewed, they mentioned the
same areas that were needed to research in terms of the school operations.
In all the interviews, there was a distinct need to create infrastructure, whether it be for
accounting systems, an organizational chart, payroll, facilities management, etc. This is primarily
due to the fact that when a school is a BIE operated school, the BIE and BIA have their own
systems for the various areas of school operations. Once a tribe decides to pursue 638 or 297,
they have to choose what specific areas they will take over, which then dictates the infrastructure
they will adopt or need to build. A tribe can choose to take over portions or the entirety of the
school operations. Of the two 297 applications that were successfully submitted and
implemented, the participants that were involved in those applications indicated there were
discussions with the tribe to manage the human resources but allow for the BIA to continue to
manage the facilities. In this decision, there was the logistical nightmare that arose in both the
symbolic changing of control and the literal passing of the keys (and thus control) to the tribe.
One facilitator told a story about how the BIE “handed this big block of keys to us. All the keys
were random. There [were] probably 115 [keys], and no door had the same key. There's no
master.” In addition to keys, there are physical buildings that are transferred, and with those
buildings are equipment that need to be inventoried and/or repaired. Another facilitator talked
about how an oversight occurred that affected their facilities with the BIA:
So the first time that I met with facilities was the day that we had the celebration [for] the
conversion of the school…these men from facilities management on the BIA side came
up to me right away and said, ‘Hey, we'd like to talk with you’. And then they told me a
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 65

lot of what they were planning… and I said ‘what happened?’ They said [the tribe or
team] never called us’. Our facility is nearly 50 years old and everything's breaking down
now. So I'm spending just about 70% of my time just on facilities. And there was (sic) a
lot of things that weren't done for maintenance purposes.
Whether from an oversight in management or a short timeline that was followed, the logistics of
facilities and repair/upkeep of those buildings continued to be a major theme in each of the
interviews. Meeting with the BIA in the transfer of those facilities is a decision that is also made
by the tribe. Given the number of logistical issues, facilities are one of the top areas that need to
be accounted for.
Another logistical barrier to the school operations planning was the time which it takes to
actually put together the needed documentation and policies once there is a resolution passed by
the tribe. This barrier demonstrated the quickness needed to activate all areas of the tribal and
federal systems. Each tribe has different paper and systems processing timelines for their own
government. As such, there is not an aligned or constant timeline that each team and facilitator
had to plan, submit, and then implement their plan under the control of the tribe. This means that
many of the challenges experienced by the facilitators and their team were complicated by the
short timelines in which they needed to complete their planning. One facilitator summarized the
barriers and challenges that they experienced once the tribe passed the resolution for a 297
application:
[The tribal council] said yes, but then once they say yes, you still have another year to
open, which is great. [but then] you have to act really quickly because you have to put
together pay scales, figure out what people you're going to hire, what[‘s] your class
structure going to look like. What are the need[s] for facilities work? What work does
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 66

(sic) the facilities need? You know there's all these like nitty, gritty details. How are you
gonna get students enrolled? You have to answer all those questions pretty quickly,
because you need to start hiring teachers only a couple of months after that, right?...[then]
very shortly after that we went through all that process, we open it up. I applied for the
principal position and then hired the staff after that. And hiring staff was like up to the
wire…like 2 weeks before kids are supposed to be here…Then [later in August] no
money came [from the BIE] because you have to open up your accounts in order to
receive the money, but many business accounts require money to open it. So we had to
borrow money. And then, since the BIE is always so far behind in actually getting the
money to schools, our first payroll I had no money. I couldn't pay anybody, so we had to
borrow from [an outside organization] enough money to cover payroll and then pay them
back once we actually [had] the money hit our account. But that was really hard …this is
their first [paycheck], you know, they just got hired. They're coming on, and their first
pay period. It's like we're going to be late, and you know that that was awful, and that to
me there was no excuse there.
In the excerpt above, the facilitator mentions three major barriers under school operations and
needing to activate the tribal systems: the time to get the processes set up, the amount of school
operations needed to be completed, and staffing. This facilitator was the main driver of the
process, and even with an advisory committee, they still needed to complete a vast amount of
work with very little resources. Part of the issue with the timeline is the fact that, as one
facilitator mentions, “there is a baseline amount of manpower that’s needed to operate a school,
but BIE schools aren’t funded that way.” This point illustrates the challenges and frustrations
that are experienced once the clock starts ticking after the tribal resolution is passed and the
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 67

application is submitted. While there are time limits set for the Secretary of Interior to review
and accept an application, there is no specific timeline that is set for any part of the process that
needs to be completed by the tribe.
Another operations barrier is the stickiness of transferring and hiring staff. In the 638
processes, the staff of the schools will need to be transferred from the federal employee system
to the tribal system, which then affects their benefits, retirement, and years of service. For the
297 process, the staff will need to reapply for their same position, with no guarantee of being
rehired. The staff issue is one of the main areas that garners much attention from stakeholders, as
schools in tribal communities are often one of the largest employers and are hubs of the
community. There are major risks that are involved if the staff is not kept informed, or if the
plans change without them fully knowing why. One facilitator spoke about what they considered
“the worst meeting I’ve ever had,” due to not being more communicative with the staff:
I went in there to explain [the tribe voted grant] and I just got eviscerated, like absolutely
torn apart. And rightfully so, sort of. I should have been more communicative. and the
BIE should have as well…It was really their job to make sure that their employees knew
what was happening…So I have a year and a half to pick…what's gonna happen, and
then that year gets silly. That last year was just… teachers left. Kids just didn't do
anything. It was weird. So that transition year where staff knows the school is gonna
change. And they don't know their status [which] is so dangerous. It's so dangerous,
because people would just walk. Or they take a bunch of leave…and [with the federal
government] it's very difficult to let somebody go. So then what are you gonna do? Hire
somebody for 6 months? And we only brought back about half the staff…but that was
hard. I think it was really hard for the staff. I totally get it, that sucks. Some [person]
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 68

comes in, then the tribe’s taking over your school. The thing that you've done for the past
20 years …what [the staff] heard [was] ‘the thing I've done for the last 20 years isn't good
enough. I haven't done a good enough job. You're telling me that I'm bad at my job, and
now I'm fired. And now you want me to reapply for my job.’ That's the way we did it
purposely, but those are hard conversations, you know, and it would have been great too
for them to be there as allies as opposed to [what happened].
Much of the same sentiments that are expressed regarding the hiring process was echoed in the
interviews of the other 5 participants. The sensitive nature of employment is a major discussion
point for many of the tribes that pursued 638 or 297 applications and referenced in the
interviews, whether there was a need for new human resource policies, employees, a company
that deals with paperwork, etc. With schools being one of the major employers in communities,
the heightened emotions and anxiety surrounding hiring makes the barrier of logistics harder to
manage.
When facilitators spoke of the ways they mitigated this barrier, they referenced their
research process for operations and the ways in which the facilitators leveraged the support of
their advisory council or work groups. One facilitator discussed the quality of the research that
was done by their work group given their total number of years of experiences combined,
allowing for the combined expertise more effectively support the planning. The importance of
working with an advisory group that was knowledgeable in school’s operations, facilities,
maintenance, human resources, school finance, allowed for the planning and application to be
more robust and meet their needs.
Another way tribes mitigated logistical issues was to use the internal processes of a tribe
and only take over those areas they could handle. For example, one facilitator discussed how
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 69

their tribe decided they needed a different financial system but would continue to use the human
resources department of the tribe. This meant that the human resources policies of the tribe were
not recreated and only had minor changes in policy, whereas they contracted with a financial
system and accountants that were specific to education and school finance.
Barrier 2-Tribal Governance
The toughest barrier to navigate was tribal governance. In this section, tribal governance
is defined and coded as any mention of a process that has to do with the ways in which a tribal
government works. All six participants in this study mentioned the barriers they experienced in
the following areas: understanding of the tribal government process, the cadence of elections,
and how decisions are made and by whom. As the facilitators worked within their communities
to build an authentic community vision or work to capture the original intent of past tribal
leaders, there existed various levels of complexities that facilitators needed to work through.
As discussed in an earlier section, the ultimate approval comes from the tribal
government or leadership, as they are the sovereign entity that has the inherent right to self-
govern. Depending on the tribe, the size of the government and how it is organized, each
facilitator recognized the need to adjust their work to obtain approval from the tribal leadership.
There are tribes within the United States that have a three-branch government, similar to the
United States government, with the legislative branch made up of an elected tribal council. Some
tribal governments only have one tribal council, with elected officials for a set number of years
and one main leader; others have a tribal council composed of members that were elected for a
lifetime appointment. The leadership of tribal governments might be elected president and vice
president roles, a governor, war chief, or chief. In addition, there are ways in which tribes use
kinship or clanship systems to govern, based on the roles that are inherent in their traditional
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 70

beliefs and customs. In this study, there were four different tribes with four different structures.
Due to confidentiality reasons and respect to the tribal sovereignty rights over their data and
research, there was no research on the tribal structures, traditional beliefs, knowledge, language,
or customs.
Ultimately, when a tribe pursues a 638 contract or 297 grant to convert into a tribally
controlled school, the resulting schools are still under the auspices of the BIE and federal
government due to the funding continuing to be federal. As one facilitator reflected, there are “a
lot of restrictions, because anytime money is given to tribes…There's always rules associated
with it.” It is this fact that speaks directly to the fact that even though PL 93-638 and PL 100-297
are legislative vehicles that are avenues towards self-determination, they are not ultimately the
answer to true sovereignty in education or other treaty responsibilities. The facilitator further
remarked on this point:
When we talk about what [the 638 process] means in terms of tribal sovereignty, this is a
step towards tribal sovereignty. The contract itself is not an embodiment of tribal
sovereignty. It's just acknowledging that tribal nations have the skills, the ability, and the
knowledge to manage these Federal programs. But when we talk about Indian self-
determination, the purest form of Indian self-determination is tribes actually managing all
of it without any Federal oversight. That would be the ideal goal for any tribal nation
that's interested in managing many of these responsibilities without Federal intrusion. But
obviously because money is involved, then that's when the control still exists. So I think
the 638 contract and its relationship to tribal sovereignty is that it's giving tribes a chance
to build their capacity to manage those programs. But in the long run for pure sovereignty
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 71

to exist, tribal nations have to think about how they can take the programs over without
any Federal intrusion and to manage on their own.
True tribal sovereignty lies in the capacity to not only manage the tribe’s education and
programs, but also to enact their true tribal governance, decision making, and law making over
every school within the boundaries of their tribal land, which would be the jurisdiction of their
government. Even though federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations with the power to
self-govern, they still must also abide by the federal laws of the United States, and in some areas,
such as public schools on reservation land, the schools must also abide by state laws. Therefore,
the power to enact true change in tribal education systems must often come with the change in
tribal governments themselves. Through researching their tribe’s 638 contract, one facilitator
remarked on “one of the most critical responsibilities” that would need to be enacted: rule
making. According to the U.S Department of Transportation, rulemaking is “the process for
developing and issuing rules (rules are also referred to as ‘regulations’)” (Department of
Transportation, 2023). With this power, tribal governments and their education departments
would have the ability “to serve as the decision-making body for all of the educational
institutions on [their tribal nation]”, said one of the facilitators. This point is at the crux of
understanding tribal governance and the implications of tribal control. For all four tribes in this
study, there continues to be questions regarding their ability to regulate the education on their
lands and not just monitor. There are no tribes in this study that have true rule making abilities,
such that all entities, including public schools, would be under the jurisdiction of the tribe.
The tribes and facilitator mitigated this barrier by leveraging the ways in which they
worked together to learn the protocols of the government, councils, and timelines. Ensuring that
the advisory council had key individuals that were knowledgeable of the tribal processes
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 72

supported the facilitator to meet various timelines and garner support from the community so that
their plan was known widely and not held with only a select few. This allowed for the new
members to have known some aspects about their plans to submit a 638 or 297 application, even
if they were not aware of all aspects of the plan.
Barrier 3- High Turnover in Tribal Government
In all six interviews, when the participants referred to keeping the tribe informed of all
activities, this was due most often to the fact that the roles of the leadership changed so often that
there was a persistent need to reteach. One participant spoke about the transition time and
difficulties that are experienced when working with a school undergoing a 297 conversion:
I think that the one thing that is constant is making sure that, especially with [tribal]
communities where leadership changes every year, to make sure that there is continuity
between the new [leader] and the old [leader] and the other Council and stuff like that
when there were transitions. That's where it really got difficult…[during the transition] as
leadership is closing out and new leadership is beginning, and that became like a pretty
significant barrier…so just really understanding local context about leadership changes
and making sure that no matter who's coming in there is a transition of understanding
that's happening. Of why this was being transition. I think that was probably like the
number one risk that I saw.
Whether the transition between tribal leaders happens yearly, every two years, or every four
years, the need to understand the context is paramount in the planning process. Embedded in the
tribal transition of leadership are the details of what it will take for official approval of
documents and the time it takes for resolutions to be passed. Taking all these issues into
consideration, it is apparent that not only do the facilitators need to understand the local context,
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 73

but they also need to have a level of understanding for the timelines that may not be set in any
tribal government process.
This barrier was one of the most difficult to mitigate as the turnover was largely out of
the facilitator’s control. Facilitators mainly spoke of the time lost to reteaching and resharing
information every time there was a new administration in place or changes in leadership. One
facilitator remarked that “when the people in charge [changed or left] they either didn’t know the
purpose of why they’re trying to accomplish this, or they weren’t believers in the vision.” In
some of the tribes that were interviewed, the work towards a 297 or 638 application was decades
in the making, and thus each time a new education director, tribal council member, and/or the
president or chairman of the tribe changed, the work was delayed and sometimes even stopped
completely based on a change in strategic direction. The participants of this study did not have
many ways in which they were able to mitigate this barrier other than reteaching or resharing
information.
Barrier 4- Understanding Stakeholder’s Perception of the Narrative
During the process of gathering stakeholder feedback, the facilitators and teams would
also receive questions. These questions revolved around many of the barriers that have been
highlighted in this section, including the timeline, overall process to convert or take over a
school, school operations, rumors, employment, tribal governance issues, perceptions of local
control and the implications of all these areas on the community members themselves. There was
a seemingly constant challenge of making sure that all stakeholder groups understood what is
currently happening at the school, reasons for pursuing the 638 or 297 contracts and grants, what
those processes require of everyone in the community, and ultimately, how the change in the
educational landscape of their community will affect them.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 74

Facilitators used various mitigation strategies to keep their stakeholders informed,
including hosting community meetings, radio ads, newspaper ads, official public hearings,
websites to share information, and making materials available to the leadership. Regardless of
the strategy that was used, there were always questions that the facilitators couldn’t answer.
While this in itself can be challenging (as it might lead to a lack of trust and seemingly not being
transparent), the major challenge was that people were asking questions about processes,
procedures, and activities that hadn’t been created yet. For example, in community meetings, the
questions they might receive would be about when recess would be, what the schedule for a
specific grade level would look like, or even whether a specific bus route would be available. For
people who might not be experienced in education, the questions would be about things that
teachers would need to figure out while they are teaching or planning. For teachers, one
facilitator remarked that they “would want to know the specifics about everything,” and if the
facilitators did not know, that was then perceived as a lack of knowledge and did not allow for
the facilitator to provide a confident stance in the major community shift that would occur.
Stakeholder’s understanding of the conversion of a school or the contracting with the
BIE/BIA, was also impacted by what facilitators referred to as “politics” or the rumors that
circulated within the community; important to understand that “politics” used in this situation
might not always mean the involvement of the official tribal government. Two facilitators
specifically referenced the level of rumors and “tribal politics” that are involved. There are many
familial relationships and relationships that are created through clanship systems in many tribal
communities that can complicate the ways in which people respond to and navigate a hard
situation, such as the conversion of a BIE school. This was a major challenge against the work
that a facilitator was trying in the areas of ensuring there was accurate and timely information
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 75

provided to the public. The two facilitators that spoke of tribal politics were specifically
referencing the need to understand the connections between people and families within tribal
communities. These situations required a level of nuanced understanding that was learned
through continued collaboration with the tribal community as a whole, as well as through
guidance from their advisory council.
Summary of Research Question 2
The barriers that were experienced in the pre-application process were primarily
categorized in four main areas: Barrier 1) Operations and Logistics, Barrier 2) Tribal
Governance, Barrier 3) High Turnover in Tribal Government, Barrier 4) Understanding
Stakeholder’s Perception of the Narrative. These barriers were experienced by all those that were
interviewed and to different extents. While some of the barriers were able to be mitigated
through research, splitting up the work within a work group, and reeducating the new members
of the government, when possible, there were still some barriers that were not mitigated. In these
instances, such as the short timelines, hiring processes, and other logistical issues, the facilitator
had to work through these issues and problem solve the best they could.
Research Question 3: In what ways, if at all, was the pre-application planning phase used
to develop culturally responsive approaches to implementing a tribally-held educational
system?
For all tribes in this study, the pre-application phase was used to research and develop
ways to integrate culturally responsive education strategies, curriculum, and philosophies into
their educational settings. The ways they did this focused on language, culturally responsive
teaching, and the ways in which they selected and developed the person who ultimately
facilitated the 638 and 297 application process. There were four specific strategies that were
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 76

found to be used by tribes to implement a tribally-held educational system. They are: Strategy 1)
Creating more speakers of their tribal languages, Strategy 2) Using Culturally Responsive
Education as foundation to application, Strategy 3) Finding a Facilitator that was Familiar with
Native Communities, and Strategy 4) Building Cultural Competence in the Facilitator.
Strategy 1- Creating More Speakers of their Tribal Languages
For all the participants, the genesis for the application itself was the tribe’s desire to
revitalize their traditional languages and dialects through the formal education system. All
participants spoke of the need to not only create more speakers of their language, but also to
ensure their children have access to a more culturally responsive and relevant education. One
participant remarked, “one of the biggest things was that [their language] was not really core to
their curriculum…so when they reopened, [the staff] were like, language was going to be core to
the students' experiences in the school.” On Indigenous nations, there is a deep connection
between language, place, and traditional knowledge through ceremonies, prayers, and stories. All
participants in this study recognized this through their outreach with their communities, with one
facilitator remembering hearing the following at a meeting:
We have to rebuild and revitalize our language because we are losing it, not just because
of what's happening with colonization and the aftereffects and the current policies that are
in place with education. But [this natural disaster affected] a lot of the places where
young people and elders would connect and use language that was specific to whatever
was happening out there. And so, there was this big calling…this was a moment for us to
transition to school.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 77

Throughout the application, facilitators made sure that language development, opportunities for
students to learn the language through everyday procedures, and ways to increase the time for
structured language courses for students were in place prior to submitting the application.
Strategy 2- Using Culturally Responsive Education as Foundation to Application
Every one of the participants in this study spoke about how the 297 or 638 application
process defined culturally responsive education as one of the foundational pillars of their work.
Nestled in a community vision and enveloped in the idea of an education created with the
Indigenous children and their experiences at the center, the participants sought to research,
collect stakeholder feedback, and plan the curriculum and academic portions of their schools in
alignment with these concepts. Another participant spoke about the ways in which culturally
responsive teaching can affect how the teaching strategies that are planned:
If we, as educators, are not educated ourselves, and we don't know how to look at the
children and say, well, this is (sic) culturally responsive things that I need to teach and I
need to take the culture that they're bringing to school. I need to look at a child and say,
excuse me…I understand your language, or whatever it is, because there's things that the
children bring to school. And if we can share and make sure that we validate the children
and their culture… and how you know they're going to use their identity, how they know
where they come from in order to continue doing what they're supposed to do and where
they're going.
All participants had a deep understanding of what culturally responsive pedagogies meant in
relation to their communities. They understood the importance of building a bridge between
home and community, and the formal education that students were receiving. In hearing the
feedback, the facilitators and teams were better able to use the tribal language, culture, traditions,
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 78

and beliefs in the mission and vision of the schools, guiding their work for the school towards
those goals.
Strategy 3- Finding a Facilitator who is Familiar with Native Communities
In all interviews, the facilitators that were selected to lead the work had a deep
understanding of the communities and relative histories. Two of the six facilitators were from the
tribes on whose behalf they worked, two from neighboring nations, and two were from other
states. All six of the facilitators had worked in education in various capacities with Native
students, with half of them still working with Native students in their current capacities. One
participant reflected on the type of person needed to lead the process of a 638 or 297 process:
I think…you need to have people who have experience working within native
communities, understanding that …in order to go fast or to get things done, you really
have to like move at the speed of trust. [Our facilitator] who was not native, but had
experience in smaller communities and working within community schools or day
schools…Having like a person who also is feeding themselves, like kind of tending their
own garden, so to speak, around culturally responsive practices or cultural conducive
competencies, is super important…finding somebody who has cultural competency to do
this work and has the interest in developing 200 page research paper basically or a lit
review that turns into a 297 full plan. That's really hard to find.
Finding the right person to lead the 297 or 638 process is essential to the ultimate success of the
application. For all four tribes, the facilitator’s experience with Native communities, their lived
experiences and backgrounds, as well as their dedication to the written plan that is aligned with
the tribe’s mission and vision were well established within this strategy.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 79

Strategy 4- Building Cultural Competence in the Facilitator
One of the results of having a facilitator guide the process was the fact that many of the
facilitators gained additional insights and developed their own cultural competence. Cultural
competence in this setting is best described through the definition set by the American
Psychological Association as “the ability to understand, appreciate, and interact with people from
cultures or belief systems different from one’s own” (American Psychological Association,
2015). Through the relationships built with the advisory group and tribal leadership, many of the
facilitators further developed their understanding of the systemic barriers that are faced when
tribal sovereignty in education is enacted. For example, one facilitator reflected on the history of
Indigenous people and how they used 638 process as a tool to combat the mindset of
colonization:
How many Indigenous people died, how much of our land was stolen, and how much of
this continues to infiltrate our communities? …We need to be real about colonization.
And so when you're up against that type of ideology…we had to use 638 as a tool to
actually challenge that mindset…And that's the thing is People need to see things written.
They need to see it legitimized, and that's exactly what this whole 638 project was about.
For this facilitator, using the process as a tool to work with the mindset of the community was
also a way they expanded their own understanding of colonization and its lasting effects. Putting
the plans on paper to share with the communities was also how this facilitator used their
knowledge and understanding to further their work with the advisory group.
The facilitators were able to adapt their skills when working with the tribe as well. One
such skill that was gained was the ability to “put together things and craft them in a way that
answers the questions of everybody and also sort of sells your idea while being respectful and
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 80

honest.” Being able to effectively adjust the ways they need to facilitate the work when speaking
with the community members is also a testament that they need to learn and understand certain
protocols within the tribe they are working with. Protocols in communication, physical
appearance, body language, and ways to address the tribal members and leadership are essential
to understand as the disregard to protocols can signal disrespect to the tribe. One facilitator spoke
about their personal journey and learning moments that resulted from missteps and breaking
from protocol:
Talking to community members like that, especially as a white [person] from [where I’m
from], like I had no right, you know, going in there and being like this is what the school
should be. [But] that was just my sole job just to talk to people. Do research, go to
events…my job [was] almost just to be in the community just to…gain an understanding.
Put this together and be guided by folks from the community so I wasn't going off in a
crazy trajectory … there are so many times, [my advisory would] just gently guide me.
You know where it was just like, hey, man, you need to take off your sunglasses when we
do that, or like hey, man like you know, you gotta do that, like it was just like gentle
things that they supported me in a way that I couldn't have done it without them…like as
far as just being able to show respect to the community without being unintentionally
rude. They helped my ignorance…There might be a very long question and sometimes
the appropriate thing to do is to not provide an answer. It was just to be like, ‘Thank you.
We'll consider that.’ …and not being like, ‘oh yeah, we've already done that.’ I stepped
in it so hard when I first [started] just not knowing the protocol, thinking I was being
smart, but just being so pretentious…it’s the learning moments.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 81

This facilitator specifically remarked on the times that they broke protocol when in community
spaces and formal events, and how as a result of those moments, their advisory council would
support them to not repeat the same mistakes. Being self-reflective in the moments of mistakes
demonstrates how this individual, in their position as a facilitator, worked with and alongside the
community to become more aware and thus, more respectful in those spaces.
Cultural competency includes the ways in which one communicates with others from a
different cultural background, as does the ways in which one learns from their assumptions and
errors. One facilitator reflected on their biggest assumption regarding Native teachers and their
understanding of culturally sustaining learning:
I think the biggest assumption [I made was] that teachers know how to do inquiry based
culturally sustaining learning just because they're Native. That was just an assumption I
made...Why did I assume that? [They] needed a lot more intentional support because
folks have been in a system for 20-30 years. And now we're trying to transition into this
like, let's create! Get creative! Let's do project-based learning! Let's integrate the
language! And no one had ever showed (sic) them how to do that… I figured it out, but it
took me too long [to realize that it needed to be] more of an intentional thing. I assume[d]
too many things and especially when [it came to] folks [who] work from the community.
Whether the facilitator knew that their personal growth in cultural competency would be a
benefit from their development of the 638 or 297 applications, the findings from the study
support this growth in their experience.
Summary of Research Question 3
The pre-application process is not a set number of actions or tasks that is predetermined
to encourage the maximum level of culturally responsive pedagogies implemented at a tribally
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 82

controlled school. Instead, the individual tribes, in collaboration with a main facilitator and
advisory group, design their road map based on their needs. There were four specific strategies
that were documented to be helpful to all tribes that they used during the pre-application process.
They are: Strategy 1) Creating more speakers of their tribal languages, Strategy 2) Using
Culturally Responsive Education as foundation to application, Strategy 3) Finding a Facilitator
that was Familiar with Native Communities, Strategy 4) Building Cultural Competence in the
Facilitator. The above sections broke down each strategy and how the tribes used them to
incorporate more culturally responsive approaches.
Research Question 4: To what Extent have Implementation Plans been Realized by
Tribes?
Based on the interviews conducted, the process for 297 was completed and implemented
by two different tribes; the other two tribes were unable to complete or submit the application for
297 or 638 process. Each application that was submitted was specific to their context and needs,
and the implementation of their plans varied.
Tribes that Completed Conversions of 297 schools
In one school, the language of the tribe is being taught for at least two hours per day,
which is a positive increase from the 30 minutes of instruction per week that children received
prior to the conversion. Although this increase was positive, the facilitator also remarked that one
of the core issues they experienced was not having the number of speakers available that also
have a teaching license. This particular barrier prompted them to reflect on the difference
between offering more language and culture, and yet still being “tokenistic at celebratory times.”
This school made intentional choices for procedures done by kids throughout the day, such as
how they start and end the day, what’s in the school hallways, and sought to always use
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 83

opportunities for the kids to hear it and greet their elders. One of the greatest accomplishments
thus far is the curriculum that was developed that is based on the seasonal teachings and customs
of the tribe. The curriculum development process itself allowed for the developers to use
traditional ways of thinking and doing, thus embedding their language and culture in all aspects
of the student learning experience. When the pandemic hit, the school was still in the process of
solidifying a lot of their process and ways of being. With worldwide shutdowns, this school was
among those that needed to build their processes for virtual learning from scratch. The
instruction took a toll, and with the turnover of principals in the past four years, they are
continually trying to rebuild what was lost during the shutdown.
The second school that was able to complete their 297 application walked back some of
their original planning in their application when they became a fully operational school. The
school calendar was adjusted due to funding issues with the BIE, and a new focus on summer
activities for students in their community took the place of their yearlong school model. There
was not a lot of evidence for the specific implementation of their plans regarding language and
culture, however, the school is in operation under the tribe and is continuing to work through the
lasting impacts of the pandemic in their community.
Tribes that Did Not Complete their Applications
For the other two tribes, the processes for 638 and 297 never came to fruition. Evidence
for both processes point to the pandemic stalling the efforts of the facilitators, lack of continuity
in leadership, and simply having the doors closed on the facilitator’s work. There was no
additional evidence for why, as that was outside the scope of the study and interview protocol.
The vast amount of work that was completed in both cases still exists, and there is potential for
the project to move forward with another facilitator or push from a new tribal administration.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 84

One of the greatest challenges for every one of the participants to overcome continues to
be the complexity of navigating the tribal government and systems of education. Although there
was 50% success in the applications that were completed (in this study), the challenge for tribal
nations to truly have power over their children’s education continues to exist. Money, rules,
jurisdiction, and tribal politics all complicate the process, leaving the perception of power but not
full sovereignty for tribes. Research is required to fully understand the extent of which tribes
need to go to become state-like education agencies, which would be one way to fully enact and
enable tribal sovereignty in education. The fine line between holding the federal government
accountable for the treaty responsibilities, holding the literal keys to the buildings, and power
over schools that center the Indigenous student identity is narrow. For tribal communities, their
language and culture are the ultimate resistance tool against assimilation, and if they are not
allowed to blossom within the walls or on the land of their formal education, language and
culture will be lost. With that loss, the hope for true sovereignty is lost as well.
Summary
The four research questions that were addressed in this study had the following findings
specific to the process that was used for each tribe’s application. The key activities during the
pre-application planning phase were: 1) Activating Community Members, 2) Gathering feedback
through a variety of mechanisms, 3) Analyzing and using the type of feedback provided, 4)
Creation of Advisory Council as an extension of the Tribe, 5) Communicating with Tribal
Leadership and Administration, 6) Researching all aspects of the Application, 7) Developing a
Timeline Based on Needs and Research, 8) Building Key Relationships, 9) Adjusting the
General Process based on Tribal Government needs. The barriers that were experienced by the
facilitators were: Barrier 1) Operations and Logistics, Barrier 2) Tribal Governance, Barrier 3)
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 85

High Turnover in Tribal Government, Barrier 4) Understanding Stakeholder’s Perception of the
Narrative. The findings for how culturally responsive approaches were used during the planning
process were: Strategy 1) Creating more speakers of their tribal languages, Strategy 2) Using
Culturally Responsive Education as foundation to application, Strategy 3) Finding a Facilitator
that was Familiar with Native Communities, Strategy 4) Building Cultural Competence in the
Facilitator. The extent of the implementation of the plans for the various tribes and their
applications varied with two completely converting their day school to tribally controlled and
two others not completing and submitting an application at all. All four applications and
processes were affected by the pandemic, but very little evidence was gathered for the specific
impact of the schools or lack of completion of their application.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 86

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study is to gather information that will inform tribes of the key
activities and barriers surrounding the 638 and 297 process in education. The goal of the study
was to determine what are, if any, the best practices, major learning areas and barriers that were
experienced by the tribes who have current 638 or 297 contracts in place over their schools or
have attempted to submit an application. Learning from other tribal nations who have submitted
an application successfully or unsuccessfully to contract with the federal government for their
educational system or individual schools will support the ways in which tribes in the future
choose to go through the 638 or 297 process. Since the passing of P.L. 93-638 and the
subsequent amendments in P.L. 100-297, there has been very little research to evaluate if the law
is effective in supporting the self-determination of tribal nations, specifically in the field of
education. As such, this study focused on the common themes and best practices that tribes have
implemented based on their local context to encourage more successful applications.
Based on data that has been collected in this study, there are four main recommendations
that the researcher found to support a successful submission of the 638 or 297 application. This
study was based on six interviews from people who were directly involved in the pre-application
phase of writing and submitting either a 638 or 297 application for four different federally
recognized tribes. Based on the data review and analysis, the best practices that are gleaned from
those interviews are the basis for the four main recommendations. These best practices are
logistical in nature and are essentially the “must-haves” a tribe should develop at the onset of
their decision to apply for either 638 contract or 297 grant with the federal government.
Implementing these best practices will at the very least set a tribe up for a smooth transition or
conversion of their schools and allow for the major barriers to be mitigated prior to experiencing
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 87

them. The recommendations and best practices that have been solidified in this chapter answer
the question of what a tribe should do to prepare for and develop a 638 or 297 application.
Discussion of Findings
The history of Indigenous education at the hands of western colonizers is one of pain,
trauma, and survival. The children that were stolen from their families to eradicate their culture
and languages were victims of genocide, all in the name of modernization and assimilation into
the white society. From the initial treaty making policies in the 1830s to the creation of schools
run by the Department of Interior and later the BIA/BIE, children were abused, lost, killed, and
denied the opportunity to live a productive life amongst their People. These were the realities of
Native People and their children, whose families today are only two to four generations from this
trauma.
It is impossible to untangle the strings that lead from Indigenous education in the 1800s
to the classrooms of children today. These strings are tied to the collective memory of tribal
people who seek to find a solution for their children’s education. With the desire to shine the
light on the pain and push towards the resilience of their children, Native people seek an
environment in which their children are encouraged to learn their language, culture, traditions,
stories, customs, and beliefs without punishment or recourse. While it might be impossible to
untangle the strings of federal Indian policy, communities are finding ways to use those strings to
build a new type of loom upon which they can weave a new chapter of education. Two such
ways communities have done so are through the Public Law 93-638 and Public Law 100-297
application process.
Throughout this study, participants spoke about ways their communities and tribes used
the 638 and 297 process to take back control over the education of their children and enact the
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 88

tribe’s sovereignty. Having control and power to live in ways that are aligned with traditional
beliefs is the definition of Tribal Sovereignty. It was not surprising then to hear in each of the
interviews how the idea of control was palpable, where it was control over educational decisions,
control over the money, and control over the decisions that affect their children’s lives. And
while the notion of control over the decisions that affect the lives of the citizens is also a pillar in
the American society, the federal government has only recently relinquished a small amount of
control for Native people through the 638 and 297 process. Only when tribes can become their
own state with full control over their lands, decisions, and money, will they truly be able to enact
full sovereignty. Up until now, no tribe has been successful in becoming the 51
st
state in the US.
Yet.
This study is one of very few that directly focuses on how tribes have implemented their
own schools and systems; in each school or system that was studied, the major issues that
plagued the teams were operations, tribal governance, and the understanding of the perception of
stakeholders. In every one of these major barriers, there is a complex history of why they are
barriers to begin with. For example, the operations of a school include human resources, finance,
facilities maintenance (among many others). It would seemingly be easy to find a company that
handles HR, hire knowledgeable people in finance, and build a team for facilities maintenance;
this is not so with 638 or 297. In each of these areas, there is a web of bureaucracy that is baked
into the system of the BIA, BIE, and even our own tribal governments. These webs of
bureaucracy entangle progress and when they are successful, the resulting effect is a recreation
of the same bureaucracy that bore the challenges we have today. In many ways, these systems
have not only stunted the progress of educational efforts thus far on tribal lands, but they have
also provided an illusion of control for tribes. P.L. 93-638 and P.L. 100-297 are legislative
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 89

vehicles for funding, but until tribes can cut through the web of bureaucracy that plagues every
resulting school, full control will not be accessible, even if the federal government funds 100%
of its efforts.
There is a tension between the foundational problem of practice of this study and the
reality of the systems in which we work. This study was created to capture the key activities,
barriers, and ways in which culturally responsive teaching and pedagogies are used in the 638
and 297 application processes, thus exploring how tribes enact their sovereignty through these
legislative vehicles. The reality is that many of the resulting schools continue to replicate many
of the same systems that plague us today. And while it is the responsibility of the United States
government to fulfill their trust responsibilities through the treaties that tribal nations signed in
the 1800s, how do we balance the need for funding for our education without the need to ask for
permission to do what we wish with that funding? That is the missing part of tribal sovereignty
in all the schools in this study: at the end of the day, all tribes needed to ask for permission
through these applications to create a school within the boundaries of their own traditional lands,
while still abiding by the laws of the state and federal government. In many ways, the application
to create a school on tribal lands is purposeful oppression, giving just enough control to tribes to
keep us quiet while denying us our right to equitable funding for the millions of acres of land that
was stolen from our guardianship.
There is another tension between the problem of practice and educational systems today
that I explored throughout this study. This tension lies under the auspice of the collective and
generational trauma that Indigenous people experienced in educational spaces. The trauma that
my dad experienced when he was taken from his parents, punished when he spoke Navajo, and
put into a boarding school when he was five. The trauma that I experienced by not having the
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 90

opportunity to learn my language when my parents unknowingly replicated their collective
trauma and chose a western education as the path to success for me. The trauma that I fight back
daily to ensure my kids do not experience the choice between being Diné or being considered
smart in the western world. This is the tension that undergirds the 638 and 297 processes and
tribal sovereignty: there is a constant choice that is presented using an either/or mentality. But
our answer should not be either traditional or modern. Either speaking Diné language or reading
in English by 3
rd
grade. Either memorizing traditional songs or memorizing the pledge of
allegiance. The tension exists because many tribes have not been able to collectively say, “we
can be both. We can do both. And we can do so based on how we deem ourselves successful.”
That is Tribal Sovereignty in action, the ability to redefine and enact our visions for a purposeful
and full life.
Researcher Reflections
On a daily basis, I do the work with a team to push the boundaries of tribal sovereignty in
education. Every day the conversations arise of what it means to truly be sovereign, whether it
shows when you wear your hair short and nails long, whether or not you can speak your
language and still be a reflection of the holy people. When I started this study, I truly wanted to
learn the ins and outs of the 638 and 297 application process, as some of my work with the
Navajo Nation has to do with understanding this process and submitting an application for
funding through P.L. 93-638. Navajo seeks to redefine the educational system within the
boundaries of the Navajo Nation, which would require everything from the redesign of the
current system to allow for direct control over the operations of the schools, to changes in federal
law by congress to be considered a state education agency in its own right. As I began speaking
with the participants of this study, the commonalities became increasingly clear between their
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 91

plans and barriers they encountered, and what I encounter on a daily basis. I was not surprised to
learn this, rather I was encouraged to know that tribes are successful in their attempts, even if
they are smaller in scale than what we seek to do on Navajo.
During this study I was reminded of how deep our collective memory and trauma can be.
For example, for decades, the slogan “Tradition is the enemy of progress” ripped through the
Navajo Nation and other tribal nations. This one slogan encapsulates so much of the argument
against having a tribe take over their own systems. People in our communities remembered how
they were treated when they first entered school, having come from a traditional household and
speaking their language fluently. If the message then is given that their traditional way of life is
wrong and is the enemy of any progress that can be made, it is no wonder we have so many of
our people lost in the middle or having wholly selected a non-traditional way of life. Some
iteration of this memory and realization arose in every conversation through nuances of
agreement or disagreement of the role of the BIE and BIA in their school system. It is
complicated and ironic the ways in which tribes both look to BIE and BIA for solutions and
answers when they can give neither. These institutions came from the Department of War, and
even though we are quick to remember the pain our people have experienced, we also are quick
to forget why we were harmed to begin with. This leads to the question, is the school system
failing our Native students, or is it doing exactly what it was designed to do?
I was reminded throughout this study of the ways that education is seen and used as a
weapon. Originally a weapon of war, education has come with the price of the loss of language
and customs. For me, my education up to this point and level of doctoral studies, comes with the
price tag of all the collective experiences off the reservation in schools where I was not able to be
who I was. That is painful to say and yet I am proud of the schools that I attended. When it
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 92

comes to language, I am not always embarrassed about it but am hesitant when I share the fact
that I do not speak Navajo fluently. But the fact that I do not speak Navajo is not my parents’
fault, or my family’s fault, or my fault. It is a consequence of the laws that I studied in this
dissertation, a real-life implication of the cultural and linguistic genocide that my ancestors
weathered. As I reflect on this point, I am reminded of how easy it is to blame a system, when
we have some tools to right some of the wrongs in our own lives. Is the 638 and 297 process a
tool to do that? Sure. But are those schools making a large enough impact to sway national
policy? No, they are not.
In my story, I left the reservation when I was 14 years old, seeking to build knowledge
and experiences that I could not access at my school on the reservation. My family supported me
and cheered me on at every step, showed up at every graduation, wearing their traditional regalia
and shedding tears for every accomplishment. My family is both traditional and modern Diné
people. My dad speaks Navajo, and my mom does not, in some ways, perfectly balancing out
this equation. Education in my world and life has been a weapon, but not against me. It has been
a weapon that I am learning to wield. I am learning how to play the game I need to play, what
rules I can break and where I need to bide my time. I do all of this so that I can be there, seated at
the table when we clear it to redesign what is possible in the future of Diné Education.
Recommendations for Practice
These recommendations for practice were developed throughout this study as kernels of
truth in each interview. Although each tribe’s 297 and 638 application were different, these
recommendations were presented and implemented to different degrees. The four
recommendations are: 1) Choosing a guardian of the process to work in tandem with an advisory
council, 2) The application is a minimum; it is necessary to go beyond the 638 and 297
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 93

application questions and create a comprehensive school site plan, 3) Community conversations
are at the heart of this process, 4) Seek to use the application as an opportunity to redesign the
education for Native students.
Recommendation 1: There needs to be a guardian(s) of the process; this person works in
tandem with an advisory council or devoted team with knowledge of the operations of the
school.
At the start of the pre-application process, the tribe’s first task should be to find (a)
person(s)that will be the guardian of the entire process from start to final implementation of the
plan. Tribes need to be very aware in determining who will be in this role. The attributes of this
person should be: 1) this person needs to have worked in Native communities before, 2)
understand the context of the local history and current needs of the tribe 3) be open to learn and
grow alongside the community, 4) be flexible and patient, yet persistent and consistent in
attempts to regroup after initial failures, 5) able to learn, understand, and implement
communication protocols for both informal and formal settings when working with Indigenous
people, and 6) be able to receive constructive feedback and make adjustments in behavior,
communication styles, or approach to tough conversations. In literature regarding the type of
leadership needed for a strong team, Schein (2017) details how leaders must be cognizant of the
role of learning, orienting their leadership towards the cycle of knowing they hold assumptions,
becoming a learner, and then challenging or adjusting their assumptions based on the knowledge
they gain. They model this behavior and influence those around them to also question their
assumptions, become learners, and change their assumptions based on their new. In this study,
many of the facilitators shared these qualities and attributes, especially in their abilities to
connect to the community and adjust their approaches as needed.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 94

In addition to selecting the guardian(s) of this process, the tribe will also need to select an
advisory council that will provide feedback and guidance that is based on the best interests of the
tribe and children. The makeup of the advisory council should be a well-rounded group, with
care taken to find people who not only have experience in education as teachers and/or
administrators, but also those who are knowledgeable of the operations portions of a school.
People are needed that can support the creation of a school’s operations team, with specific
knowledge in human resources, facilities, management, finance, accounting, personnel policies,
food service, transportation, custodial services, curriculum development. The advisory council
should also have people who can speak the language of the tribe, know about customs, traditions,
beliefs, and history. Whether these are representatives of the traditional life of the tribe, such as a
language and culture teacher or local elder, or they are persons who can fulfil both the roles of
the operations personnel and traditional knowledge, that is ultimately up to the tribe to decide.
This study uncovered the vast need for operations support in the application process for both the
638 and 297, with all tribes finding a gap in the operations arms of their plans.
For both the guardian(s) and the advisory council, the tribe or selection committee will
need to stress longevity and consistency in commitment to the undertaking of the 638 or 297
application process. Ensuring you have the right people who will be with the group throughout
the entire process is critical to the success of the application and subsequent school. Once the
group is established, the structure of the team and how it will operate should be the first task that
will be agreed upon. Bolman and Deal (2017) call out the need to pay “conscious attention to
line of authority, communication, responsibilities, and relationships” (p. 111). In their book,
Reframing Organizations, they detail several ways in which a team can determine their team
structure, including (but not limited to) one boss, dual authority, simple hierarchy, circle
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 95

network, and all-channel network (2017). There are also ways that might come from the tribe
itself, natural ways of coming together through consensus or a traditional protocol that the group
might choose. The tribe should ensure that the facilitator and advisory council are clear on the
ways in which they will self-organize, assign the work, and what the reporting protocol will be
for coming back to share the information with the tribe and communities.
Recommendation 2: The application is a minimum; the team needs to create and write a
plan that is akin to comprehensive school site plan, local control accountability plans, or a
charter school plan, aligned to the needs of the tribe.
In both 638 and 297 applications, the tribe contracts with or receives a grant from the
federal government to fulfill the same role and responsibilities in education for their kids. The
application itself is a numerated list of information needed, summaries, and ways that the tribe
will provide those services in lieu of the BIE and/or BIA. This application can be found in
Appendix B. This study found that the tribe that completed the 297 applications alongside a
charter school application, had the most success in laying out the needs and meeting the
challenges in operations. According to Bolman and Deal (2018), using this type of long-term
planning that is future oriented and focused on the long-term direction is a strategy for
organizational leadership and success. A charter school application, comprehensive school site
plan, or local control accountability plans are lengthy and arduous, with the focus on
independence from the public sector and innovation.
Regardless of the type of plan or template a tribe uses, there needs to be a comprehensive
plan that includes 1) academic plan inclusive of curriculum, education program, standards, title
programs, graduation requirements, instruction and assessment; 2) organizational framework for
the board, employees, leadership, compliance, and all operations needs such as facilities
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 96

maintenance, food service, transportation, legal; 3) financial needs including budgets, policies,
oversight, compliance, and sustainability; 4) Community and tribal outreach and collaboration.
These are the must haves in the planning for any school and should be seen not as compliance
and monitoring to replicate a school. Rather, the team should focus on the ways in which the
school will be innovative and incorporate the specific needs and vision of the tribe.
In addition to the comprehensive plan, it is important for the guardian to map out the
specific timelines for the tribe, BIE, BIA, and any other local meetings that are needed. For
example, there may be a local chapter house that requires attendance at the planning meeting in
order to be on an agenda for the main meeting. Or the tribal council might have legislative and
legal deadlines for review of any plans, contracts, etc. There is no set deadline for any of these
entities, except the day count that is given by the federal government for submission and
approval of the application. The guardian should map out all timelines and fully share with all
team members, council members, and stakeholders. Hosting community meetings, meals, and
public hearings might also be a part of the legislative process, and therefore would require
timelines. In this study, all facilitators spoke of the elusive deadlines of the tribal process, which
in the best case, were managed. At worst, when the team missed or could not make progress with
the tribe, the timelines were never concrete or shared in a meaningful way due to the tribal
processes that hindered the application. The guardian and their advisory council must clearly
focus on a holistic and comprehensive approach that is rooted in a community vision, as this was
the process that helped two of the tribes that were able to submit their 297 applications.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 97

Recommendation 3: Community conversations are a must, with students at the center of
these conversations.
Community conversations are a requirement for any meaningful project that will affect
the lives of that community, whether it be on a micro or macro scale. Ensuring that the
guardian(s) of the application process meets, discusses, and receives feedback through
community consultation and conversations is a pivotal step in 638 and 297 applications. Without
this meaningful consultation, there will be very little investment and trust that is built between
the stakeholders and the school team, advisory team, or tribal leadership. There are many
variations of meetings that can be done to meet with and listen to the public. However, ensuring
that you have a good representation of the communities in which the planning will take place is
essential to creating these focus groups. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), focus groups
are a method of collecting qualitative data that the facilitator would then analyze, code, and use
to create a comprehensive plan that meets the needs of the tribe and children. Allowing for focus
groups is a constructivist strategy, where knowledgeable people (with their own experiences of
their local day school) can co-create the school’s vision and mission or provide feedback to the
current plan.
In addition to community conversations, student voice is paramount to be heard in both
formal and informal settings. Every part of the 638 and 297 process is done by an adult. To the
extent that adults are knowledgeable of what is best for their kids, there needs to be distinct
opportunity for the youth to voice what they want for themselves. The facilitator of these
conversations, which ideally would be the guardian(s) of the 638 and 297 process, should use
clear, open-ended questions that will elicit the student’s opinions and provide the descriptive data
to ensure the school plan is meeting their needs (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, the guardian
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 98

of the process should go to the places where the kids are naturally, outside of schools if needed,
to solicit their opinions and feedback for what they want to be true for their community and
education.
Community conversations also meet another need that arose in this study: the need for a
place to share any trauma in education that the Native participants may have experienced. Every
participant in this study shared that they heard traumatic stories and experiences in their
community meetings, alluding to the need for someone to listen with patience and understanding.
Knowing from the beginning of the process that the role of these meetings is not only for
meaningful consultation, but also a time and space where the community could collectively or
individually grieve, will allow for the guardian to have patience, and create a space that might be
needed (rather than cutting of a person speaking if they are not directly answering the question,
for example).
Recommendation 4: Use the opportunity of 638 and 297 to reinvent what education looks
like for tribal communities.
Throughout the course of this study, one of the prevailing indications for the need to
recapture the education of our Indigenous students is the low academic achievement and the lack
of opportunity for character building in tribal schools. Schools are failing our students, and yet
tribal nations continue to model schools off what we know in our own lives, what we’ve
experienced in public or BIE schools, or what we are told is high quality education. The
challenge is that these things do not always work for our kids.
Using the application process for 638 and 297 can be an opportunity to rewrite what
education is for Indigenous students. It is the chance to build a comprehensive plan based on
language, traditions, culturally based education, and culturally responsive pedagogies, and align
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 99

those pillars with the principles of learning that will work for our children. At the heart of this
process is innovation. In their book “The Innovators’ DNA-Mastering the five skills of disruptive
innovators,” Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen (2019) discuss how innovation takes courage to
break out of and challenge the status quo. In addition to courage, innovators must take risks and
practice five skills that encourage innovation: questioning, observing, networking,
experimenting, and associating. Dyer, Gregerson, and Christensen (2019) explain associating as
connecting ideas that aren’t normally connected, using a person’s background experience and
seeing the whole picture to make those atypical connections. They explain that questioning is not
simply asking any question, but rather asking the right questions to challenge the status quo and
shake up the thinking in any project. The authors further discuss observing as the skill of
watching the world around them and not only seeing what is working, but how things work or
not work, paying attention to the whole rather than the micro situation at hand. Networking is the
idea of meeting people outside of their realms and experiences, and bouncing their ideas off them
to garner feedback that would not normally occur in the same field. Finally, experimenting is
creating a prototype and testing that prototype in real time to discover new learning and making
adjustments.
Allowing for the guardian(s) of the 638 process or the 297 process to practice these skills
in real time though the community meetings, planning sessions, and collaborating with the tribe
can exercise not only the innovation muscles of the guardian, but those of the advisory group and
even the community, students included. Each of the skills listed above adds directly to the ways
in which the guardian(s), advisory council, and tribe can improve their plans and avoid the
replication of the bureaucratic systems that are status quo.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 100

Recommendations for future research
Moving forward, future research is needed in frameworks that are aligned to community
activism. Schools are inherently political, and to create a system that centers indigeneity and the
identity and culture of the Native children, the framework that is used to start the process for the
638 or 297 is critical in not allowing the recreation of the bureaucracy of the current system.
Researching the various frameworks that can be found within tribal communities to guide this
work is also important, as there is very little research on the ways in which Native people
collaborate and activate their networks to create change.
Additional research is needed on the schools that have gone through the 297 and 638
processes. Research on academic achievement, trend data, enrollment, language instruction, as
well as the quality of the programs offered at the different sites is needed. There has been
research on various aspects of these schools, such as technology, facilities, and school safety, but
not a comprehensive study on 297 tribally controlled grant schools, 638 contracted schools, or
BIE operated schools and their effectiveness.
Finally, and most importantly, there needs to be an intentional spotlight on Native
education that goes beyond the narrative of trauma and pain and shines the light on the positive
ways in which Native students are meeting their academic goals and retaining, sustaining, and
innovating ways to be modern Indigenous people. There is research done in the few schools such
as Native American Community Academy, Puente de Hózhó immersion school, and
demonstration schools such as the historic Rough Rock Demonstration school. These schools are
highlighted for good reasons, but they cannot be the only settings dedicated to Native languages
and cultural identity. Research is needed in the public school settings as well, as there are more
Native students that attend public schools across the country than attend 638 or 297 schools.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 101

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of this study included the possibility of the participants not trusting the
researcher enough to share their relevant experience and therefore might have led to dishonesty.
There was a risk with self-reporting and sharing experiences after time has passed, and in this
study, most of the participants went through the 638 or 297 process several years ago. The
memory of these participants is the core limitation. There was also a chance that participants
were not comfortable with an online medium and therefore the quality of the interview could
have been compromised.
The delimitations of this study that have implications for the results are the use of
purposeful sampling and the questions that the researcher generates in the interview protocol. As
there are only a small number of people who have worked with tribes to submit a 638 or 297
application, there will be a small pool from which the researcher can choose and interview.
Conclusion
Some Native people would argue that to be sovereign means we can do whatever we
want with our resources, laws, and society, without consultation or agreement with outside
entities. Others would argue that it is up to us as individuals and through the will of the tribe that
determines a sovereign status, enacting policies and advocating for our people. Some would
argue that it is the fact that we can be who we are as Indigenous people, speak our language, hold
and attend ceremonies, practice traditional ways, and that is what makes us sovereign.
Sovereignty, in many ways can have both an easy definition and a complex legal meaning, with
no cut and dry definition that works for every setting. So where does that leave us, citizens of
federally recognized tribes, tribal employees, community members, with a will to enact our
inherent sovereignty to improve the education of our children? What definition should we use,
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 102

when current ways of enacting our sovereignty also require the federal government to give us
permission?
In this study, each tribe and facilitator sought to enact sovereignty through language and
culturally responsive ways of teaching and learning. They did so in a structured way that is
allowable under federal law, abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by congress. The
resulting schools are successful attempts in enacting their sovereignty in education, even if it is
through the colonizer’s approved process with required permission granted. After all, that is what
the 638 and 297 processes are, legislative vehicles that give Native people just enough power to
drive those vehicles, cementing the illusion of control over our destinies with just enough money
to keep us quiet.
But this begs the question, is that enough? Does sovereignty require that Native People
follow someone else’s rules to enact a desire to undo past harms through new ways of healing?
Or does sovereignty allow for Native People to know the rules well enough to know where to
challenge and push the boundaries? Sovereignty neither approves nor disapproves of one’s
actions, and yet we allow for the federal government to play this role. To be Indigenous in the
United States is to learn the rules of the game to be a player and bend those rules to allow the
rightful space of our identities that empowers us to make the moves necessary. To be Indigenous
in the United States means that we have the right to make our own rules to push our own
boundaries, to create our own vehicles and drive them wherever we so please.
This study ultimately was a deep dive into tribes’ work within the rules to improve the
education of real children who are at risk of losing their languages, cultures, and traditions. This
study was a reflection of the real work that many of my colleagues and I do on a daily basis,
constantly pushing each other to expand and amend our definitions of sovereignty, so that at the
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 103

end of the day, our work reflects a deep understanding of what our kids need to be productive
tribal citizens, regardless of where they chose to live.
To be sovereign for me means I can do this work in education, calling upon all my
experiences growing up on the Navajo Nation, getting my formal education off Navajo, and
coming home to raise my family in a way that weaves together tradition and modernity. That I
am exactly who I need to be right now, a reflection of my family and of those who came before
me. This study is a reflection of me, working through my own pain and trauma in education, in
the same education system that was designed to eradicate me decades ago. My sovereign and
unique political status of being a Diné woman, allows me to hope that the fruits of the labor we
do today, in the name of sovereignty, breaks the illusion of control so that our education truly is
the education that our ancestors prayed for.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 104

References
About Interior. (2017). Retrieved Mar 18, 2022, from https://www.doi.gov/about
Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school
experience, 1875-1928. University Press of Kansas.
American Indian Education Foundation (AIEF) - providing support for Indian Education
throughout the United States - American Indian Education
Foundation. http://www.nativepartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=aief_hist_1980
American Indian Treaty Glossary on JSTOR. https://www-jstor-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/20615564
Assimilation in the United States: An Analysis of Ethnic and Generation Differences in Status
and Achievement on JSTOR. Retrieved Sep 22, 2020, from https://www-jstor-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/2095507
Austen, I. (2022). Horrible History: Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada -
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/canada/kamloops-mass-
grave-residential-schools.html
Beesley, A. D. |. (2012). Profiles of Partnerships between Tribal Education Departments and
Local Education Agencies. REL 2012-No. 137. Regional Educational Laboratory
Central, https://eric-ed-gov.libproxy1.usc.edu/?id=ED551298

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 105

Beesley, A. D., Shebby, S., Mackety, D., Rainey, J., Cicchinelli, L. F., & Cherasaro, T.
(2012). Profiles of Partnerships between Tribal Education Departments and Local
Education Agencies. REL 2012-No. 137. (). Regional Educational Laboratory Central,
Available from: Marzano Research Laboratory. 9000 East Nichols Avenue Suite 112,
Centennial, CO 80112. Retrieved from ERIC http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/reports/profiles-partnerships-between-tribal-
education/docview/1651851728/se-2?accountid=14749
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations (6th edition ed.). Jossey-Bass &
Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley.
Brayboy, Angelina E. Castagno, Bryan McKinley Jones. (2008). Culturally Responsive
Schooling for Indigenous Youth: A Review of the Literature - Angelina E Castagno, Bryan
McKinley Jones Brayboy, 2008. Review of Educational Research, https://journals-sagepub-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/full/10.3102/0034654308323036
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2014). Culture, Place, and Power: Engaging the Histories and Possibilities of
American Indian Education. History of Education Quarterly; Hist.Educ. Q, 54(3), 395-402.
10.1111/hoeq.12075
Brayboy, B. M. J., & Castagno, A. E. (2009). Self-determination through self-education:
culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous students in the USA. Teaching Education
(Columbia, S.C.), 20(1), 31-53. 10.1080/10476210802681709
Brayboy, B. M., & Jones. (2005). Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in Education. The Urban
Review, 37(5), 425-446. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 106

Brown-Rice, K. (2013). Examining the theory of historical trauma among native americans. The
Professional Counselor, 3(3), 117-130. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/examining-
theory-historical-trauma-among-native/docview/1492258991/se-2
Castanha, T. (2015). The Doctrine of Discovery: The Legacy and Continuing Impact of Christian
“Discovery” on American Indian Populations. American Indian Culture and Research
Journal, 39(3), 41-64. 10.17953/aicrj.39.3.castanha
Charters-Voght, O. (1999). Indian control of Indian education: The path of the upper Nicola
band. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 23(1), 64-
99. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/indian-control-education-path-upper-nicola-
band/docview/230304245/se-2?accountid=14749
Commissioner, O. o. t. (2019). Institutional Review Boards Frequently Asked Questions. U.S.
Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved Aug 2, 2021,
from https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-
documents/institutional-review-boards-frequently-asked-questions
Elementary and Secondary Education Act - LAWS.com. (2015, -04-
05T15:45:39+00:00). https://education.laws.com/elementary-and-secondary-education-act
ERIC - ED462216 - American Indian and Alaska Native Education Research Agenda.,
2001. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED462216
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 107

Factors Which Influence the Success or Failure of American Indian/Native American College
Students on JSTOR. Retrieved Dec 27, 2021, from https://www-jstor-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/42802513
Gershon, L. (2021). Native Nations and the BIA: It's Complicated. JSTOR Daily. Retrieved May
8, 2022, from https://daily.jstor.org/native-nations-and-the-bia-its-complicated/
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing Qualitative Data (2nd ed.). Sage.
Green, J. D., & Work, S. (1976). Comment: Inherent Indian Sovereignty. American Indian Law
Review, 4(2), 311-342. 10.2307/20067998
Hart, E. R. (2018). American Indian History on Trial: Historical Expertise in Tribal Litigation.
University of Utah Press.
Head of BIA apologizes to Native Americans for wrongdoings. (2000,). The Circle : News from
an American Indian
Perspective http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/head-
bia-apologizes-native-americans-wrongdoings/docview/196587224/se-2?accountid=14749
History of Indian Education - OIE. (2005). Retrieved Aug 21, 2022,
from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/history.html
In search of cultural competence. (2015). https://www.apa.org. Retrieved Mar 1, 2023,
from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/03/cultural-competence
Indian Policy Timeline. (). https://www.wernative.org/articles/the-indian-experience
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 108

Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Full article: Three Decades of Culturally Relevant, Responsive, &
Sustaining Pedagogy: What Lies Ahead? https://www-tandfonline-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/full/10.1080/00131725.2021.1957632?scroll=top&needAccess=t
rue&role=tab
Lomawaima, K. T. (2000). Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian
education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 1-
21. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/tribal-
sovereigns-reframing-research-american/docview/212336577/se-2?accountid=14749
McCarty, K. Tsianina, Lomawaima, Teresa L. (2016). When Tribal Sovereignty Challenges
Democracy: American Indian Education and the Democratic Ideal - K. Tsianina
Lomawaima, Teresa L. McCarty, 2002. American Educational Research
Journal, https://journals-sagepub-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/abs/10.3102/00028312039002279
McCarty, T. L., Borgoiakova, T., Gilmore, P., Lomawaima, K. T., & Romero, M. E. (2005).
Indigenous Epistemologies and Education-Self-Determination, Anthropology, and Human
Rights. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 1-
7. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-
journals/indigenous-epistemologies-education-self/docview/218137394/se-
2?accountid=14749
McCarty, T. L., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2021). Culturally Responsive, Sustaining, and Revitalizing
Pedagogies: Perspectives from Native American Education. The Educational Forum (West
Lafayette, Ind.), 85(4), 429-443. 10.1080/00131725.2021.1957642
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 109

McCarty, T. L., & Lee, T. S. (2014). Critical Culturally Sustaining/Revitalizing Pedagogy and
Indigenous Education Sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101-
136. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/critical-
culturally-sustaining-revitalizing/docview/1511014404/se-2?accountid=14749
McCoy, M. (1993). Indian Education Legal Support Project, "Tribalizing Indian Education."
Presentation/Workshop Materials
McKenzie, J., Jackson, A. P., Yazzie, R., Smith, S. A., Crotty, A. K., Baum, D., Denny, A., &
Eldridge, D. B. (2013). Career Dilemmas among Diné (Navajo) College Graduates: An
Exploration of the Dinétah (Navajo Nation) Brain Drain. International Indigenous Policy
Journal, 4(4), n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2013.4.4.5
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Morton, L. (1962). HOW THE INDIANS CAME TO CARLISLE. Pennsylvania History, 29(1),
53-73.
Northwest Justice Project. (2018). WashingtonLawHelp.org | Helpful information about the law
in Washington. Retrieved Aug 21, 2022,
from https://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/indian-civil-rights-act
O'Donnell, J. H., III. (2007). "To remain an Indian": lessons in democracy from a century of
Native American education. Choice, 44(7), 1208.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/remain-indian-
lessons-democracy-century-native/docview/225735833/se-2
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 110

Office, U. S. G. A.Public School Choice: Limited Options Available for Many American Indian
and Alaska Native Students. Retrieved Jan 26, 2022,
from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-226
Parker, A. C. (1916). The Social Elements of the Indian Problem. The American Journal of
Sociology, 22(2), 252-267. 10.1086/212608
Pewewardy, C. (1998). Fluff and Feathers: Treatment of American Indians in the Literature and
the Classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(1), 69-76.
10.1080/1066568980310110
The problem of Indian administration: summary of findings and recommendations / (1928).
Washington.
Renzulli, L. A., & Roscigno, V. J. (2005). Charter School policy, implementation, and diffusion
across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78(4), 344–366.
10.1177/003804070507800404
Rulemaking Process | US Department of
Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-process#rulemaking
Rutkowski, A. (2019). #LANGUAGEJUSTICE: Esther Martinez Native American Languages
Program Passes House. JNCL. Retrieved Mar 30, 2023,
from https://www.languagepolicy.org/post/esther-martinez-native-american-languages-
program-passes-house
Sabzalian, L. (2019). Indigenous Children’s Survivance in Public Schools. Taylor and Francis.
10.4324/9780429427503
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 111

Schmidt, R. W. (2012). American Indian Identity and Blood Quantum in the 21st Century: A
Critical Review. Journal of Anthropology. Retrieved Sep 23, 2020,
from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2011/549521/
The Social Elements of the Indian Problem on JSTOR. Retrieved Dec 27, 2021,
from https://www-jstor-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/2763824
Stewart, A. J. (2012). ACTING FOR THE LEFT BEHIND: HOW THE NATIVE CLASS ACT
COULD CLOSE THE GAPS IN AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION on
JSTOR.36(2) https://www-jstor-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/41784765
Stout, M. A. (2012). Native American Boarding Schools. ABC-CLIO, LLC.
Strommer, G., & Kickingbird, K. (2015). Indian Self-Determination: Four Decades of
Extraordinary Success. Human Rights, 40(4), 2-6.
Title I. Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes. Retrieved Aug 21, 2022,
from https://www.ihs.gov/odsct/title1/
Tribally-Controlled Schools | Bureau of Indian Education. https://www.bie.edu/topic-
page/tribally-controlled-schools
Warner, L. S., & Grint, K. (2012). The Case of the Noble Savage: The Myth That Governance
Can Replace Leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
(QSE), 25(7), 969-982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.720736
Wilson, M. D. (2012). Reclaiming self-determination from the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 25(7), 905-912. 10.1080/09518398.2012.720734
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 112

Witgen, M. (2011). An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped Early North
America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.
Zah, P. (1983). A Blueprint for Navajo Education. Integrated Education, 21(1-6), 227-
28. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/blueprint-navajo-
education/docview/63330544/se-2?accountid=14749

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 113

Appendix A: 638 and 297 Interview Protocol

1. Please share more about your role.
2. What role did you have during the 638 or 297 application process?
a. Before the submission of the application.
3. What were the key activities that you completed before you submitted your application?
4. What steps or process did you consider when you first started in the pre-application
phase?
a. Which, if any, might you consider integral to the overall process?
5. Tell me about your experience working with the BIE during the application phase.
6. In what ways did your relationship change with the BIE throughout the process, if
anything?
7. What were the key relationships you developed during the overall process, if any, that
allowed for the process to move forward?
8. How did the community react to the process?
9. What resources were available to you through the BIE, if anything?
10. What resources did you use or not use that allowed you to submit the application?
11. What resources do you wish you had to use during the application phase?
12. What were the major barriers, if any, before submitting the application?
a. What were barriers, if any, that you encountered within the tribal process?
b. How did you mitigate those barriers?
13. How did you conceptualize the process in a way that enabled you to submit an
application?
14. What major decisions, if any, created tension during the process? For whom?
15. If you were to go through the process again, what would you change, if anything?
16. What advice would you give to a tribe that was beginning this process?

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 114

Appendix B- 638 and 297 application questions.
Subpart C - Contract Proposal Contents
§ 900.7 What technical assistance is available to assist in preparing an initial contract
proposal?
The Secretary shall, upon request of an Indian tribe or tribal organization and subject to the
availability of appropriations, provide technical assistance on a non-reimbursable basis to such
Indian tribe or tribal organization to develop a new contract proposal or to provide for the
assumption by the Indian tribe or tribal organization of any program, service, function, or
activity (or portion thereof) that is contractible under the Act. The Secretary may also make a
grant to an Indian tribe or tribal organization for the purpose of obtaining technical assistance, as
provided in section 103 of the Act. An Indian tribe or tribal organization may also request
reimbursement for pre-award costs for obtaining technical assistance under sections 106(a) (2)
and (5) of the Act.
§ 900.8 What must an initial contract proposal contain?
1) An initial contract proposal must contain the following information:
a) The full name, address and telephone number of the Indian tribe or tribal organization
proposing the contract.
b) If the tribal organization is not an Indian tribe, the proposal must also include:
2) A copy of the tribal organization's organizational documents (e.g., charter, articles of
incorporation, bylaws, etc.).
3) The full name(s) of the Indian tribe(s) with which the tribal organization is affiliated.
a) The full name(s) of the Indian tribe(s) proposed to be served.
b) A copy of the authorizing resolution from the Indian tribe(s) to be served.
4) If an Indian tribe or tribal organization proposes to serve a specified geographic area, it must
provide authorizing resolution(s) from all Indian tribes located within the specific area it
proposes to serve. However, no resolution is required from an Indian tribe located outside the
area proposed to be served whose members reside within the proposed service area.
5) If a currently effective authorizing resolution covering the scope of an initial contract
proposal has already been provided to the agency receiving the proposal, a reference to that
resolution.
a) The name, title, and signature of the authorized representative of the Indian tribe or tribal
organization submitting the contract proposal.
b) The date of submission of the proposal.
c) A brief statement of the programs, functions, services, or activities that the tribal
organization proposes to perform, including:
i) A description of the geographical service area, if applicable, to be served.
6) The estimated number of Indian people who will receive the benefits or services under the
proposed contract.
SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 115

7) An identification of any local, Area, regional, or national level departmental programs,
functions, services, or activities to be contracted, including administrative functions.
8) A description of the proposed program standards;
9) An identification of the program reports, data and financial reports that the Indian tribe or
tribal organization will provide, including their frequency.
10) A description of any proposed redesign of the programs, services, functions, or activities to
be contracted,
11) Minimum staff qualifications proposed by the Indian tribe and tribal organization, if any; and
12) A statement that the Indian tribe or tribal organization will meet the minimum procurement,
property and financial management standards set forth in subpart F, subject to any waiver
that may have been granted under subpart K.
a) The amount of funds requested, including:
13) An identification of the funds requested by programs, functions, services, or activities, under
section 106(a)(1) of the Act, including the Indian tribe or tribal organization's share of funds
related to such programs, functions, services, or activities, if any, from any Departmental
local, area, regional, or national level.
14) An identification of the amount of direct contract support costs, including one-time start-up
or preaward costs under section 106(a)(2) and related provisions of the Act, presented by
major categories such as:
a) Personnel (differentiating between salary and fringe benefits);
b) Equipment;
c) Materials and supplies;
d) Travel;
e) Subcontracts; and
f) Other appropriate items of cost.
15) An identification of funds the Indian tribe or tribal organization requests to recover for
indirect contract support costs. This funding request must include either:
a) A copy of the most recent negotiated indirect cost rate agreement; or
b) An estimated amount requested for indirect costs, pending timely establishment of a rate
or negotiation of administrative overhead costs.
16) To the extent not stated elsewhere in the budget or previously reported to the Secretary, any
preaward costs, including the amount and time period covered or to be covered; and
17) At the option of the Indian tribe or tribal organization, an identification of programs,
functions, services, or activities specified in the contract proposal which will be funded from
sources other than the Secretary.
a) The proposed starting date and term of the contract.
18) In the case of a cooperative agreement, the nature and degree of Federal programmatic
involvement anticipated during the term of the agreement.
19) The extent of any planned use of Federal personnel and Federal resources.
20) Any proposed waiver(s) of the regulations in this part; and
21) A statement that the Indian tribe or tribal organization will implement procedures appropriate
to the programs, functions, services or activities proposed to be contracted, assuring the
confidentiality of medical records and of information relating to the financial affairs of
individual Indians obtained under the proposal contract, or as otherwise required by law.

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 116

Appendix C: Grant Checklist

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 117

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 118

SOVEREIGNTY IN ACTION OR AN ILLUSION OF CONTROL? 119

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Understanding digital transformation of early childhood pre-service teacher education in China

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Teachers' voices: SEL perceptions in a grade 9-12 school

PDF

Success can happen out of low scores! Addressing nursing shortage with SCHOOLS ACT prep: a Kellogg logic model theory of change removing systemic barriers to ACT 18 score attainment for community...

PDF

Evaluation of mental health support and needs for emergency department providers

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study

PDF

In the shadows: the perceived experiences of women principals in secondary schools

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Transgender experience in the U.S. military: opportunities for effective inclusion

PDF

Military spouses, military lifestyle, and the concept of thriving

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 and how teachers can intervene to improve student learning

Asset Metadata

Creator Yellowhair, Shayla Rae (author)

Core Title Best practices for applying for a P.L. 93-638 or a P.L. 100-297 grant: tribal sovereignty in action or an illusion of control?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/16/2023

Defense Date 04/14/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 297 process,638 process,BIA,Bie,Bureau of Indian Affairs,Bureau of Indian Education,education,federally recognized tribes,Navajo,OAI-PMH Harvest,pre-application process,treaty responsibilities,tribal education,tribal sovereignty

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email syellowh@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113127168

Unique identifier UC113127168

Identifier etd-Yellowhair-11855.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Yellowhair-11855

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Yellowhair, Shayla Rae

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230516-usctheses-batch-1045 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu