The recent discussion surrounding the proposed Executive Order to allow Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds to support non-BIE schools has generated considerable analysis across educational and tribal communities. This proposal, which could permit the redirection of federal resources to private, faith-based, and public charter schools, raises important considerations regarding funding structures, legal frameworks, and historical obligations.

Current Educational Choice for Native American Families

Native American families currently have the freedom to choose educational institutions for their children, whether BIE schools, public schools, or private institutions. Due to geographic isolation, BIE schools are often the primary or sole educational providers on many reservations. In other areas, families select between public and BIE schools based on factors such as accessibility, family history, and the availability of services. Private religious schools are another option, typically funded through tuition payments and fundraising efforts rather than federal assistance.

Legal and Historical Context Regarding Charter Schools

Federal appropriations laws, including the FY 2024 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, contain longstanding provisions prohibiting the use of BIE funds to establish or subsidize charter schools. These measures were implemented largely in response to the expansion of charter schools in states like Arizona, where the implications for federal funding on Indian lands were significant. Under these laws, any existing charter school operating on a BIE campus prior to September 1, 1999, must reimburse the BIE for property use and maintain separate accounting.

Potential Impact on Student Populations

As of the 2023–2024 school year, BIE-funded schools enrolled approximately 38,439 students across 183 institutions, including day schools, boarding schools, dormitories, and off-reservation facilities. However, the scope of eligibility under the Executive Order could extend beyond current enrollees. According to BIE estimates, around 578,070 American Indian and Alaska Native students are eligible for Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) services, suggesting that up to 616,509 students could potentially access BIE funds under the proposal.

Financial Considerations

Currently, BIE schools operate primarily with Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) funds. In school year 2023–2024, these funds totaled approximately $476.8 million, equating to about $7,467 per weighted student unit (WSU). If only existing BIE students redirected funds, this amount could be transferred per student. However, if the full eligible population were included, the available funding per student could decrease to approximately $773, not accounting for WSU adjustments.

Additionally, BIE schools receive Title I funds from the U.S. Department of Education for low-income students and IDEA funds for students with disabilities. How these specialized funds would be managed and transferred under the new framework remains an open question.

Operational and Logistical Challenges

The implementation of a voucher system or fund transfers would necessitate clear mechanisms for how and when funds are allocated to non-BIE schools. Key logistical concerns include:

• Timing of transfers (e.g., lump sum payments vs. installment schedules)
  
• Requirements for non-BIE schools to report on the use of federal funds
  
• Procedures for mid-year student transfers between BIE and non-BIE institutions
  
• Compliance with federal educational requirements for Title I and IDEA programs
  

Historical Treaty Obligations and Tribal Governance

Treaties signed between Tribal Nations and the federal government historically included commitments to provide educational services. These obligations, along with laws like the Snyder Act of 1921, underpin the federal role in Indian education. Over the past 50 years, Tribal governments have increasingly assumed control of BIE-funded schools through legislation such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. Stability in funding and policy has been essential to this transition and to ongoing efforts to improve educational outcomes for Native students.

Conclusion

The proposal to allow BIE funds to be used for non-BIE schools introduces complex policy, financial, and operational considerations. It also intersects with longstanding treaty obligations and the evolving role of Tribal governments in managing educational services. As policymakers and communities continue to examine these issues, a thorough understanding of the historical context, current funding structures, and potential impacts will be essential to informed decision-making.