Public Comments

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

April 28, 2026
Steven Mullen
Information Collection Clearance Officer
Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 229
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104
Re: Comment on Information Collection Renewal—Data Elements for Bureau-Funded
Schools (OMB Control No. 1076-0122 )
Mr. Steven Mullen,
The National Indian Education Association (NIEA) respectfully submits the following comments
regarding the proposed renewal, without revision, of the information collection titled “Data Elements
for Bureau-Funded Schools.”
Although presented as a routine administrative action, this information collection functions as a
central governance mechanism for Indian education. It establishes how student eligibility is
determined, how services are identified, and how information is aggregated to support federal
budget requests and funding allocations. As such, it must be evaluated in light of the statutory
framework established by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA),
which affirms the right of Tribal Nations to exercise meaningful control over programs and services
affecting their communities.
Federal Control of Data Systems and Implications for Self-Determination
The proposed renewal maintains a system in which student-level data from BIE-operated and
tribally controlled schools is collected under federal definitions and centralized within a database
managed by the Bureau of Indian Education. The notice does not identify any mechanism for tribal
ownership, governance, or control of that data.
Under ISDEAA, Congress established a policy to ensure that Tribal Nations exercise “maximum
control” over programs affecting them and participate fully in the direction of educational services
(25 U.S.C. §§ 5301(a)(1), 5302(b)). In contemporary education systems, that control necessarily
extends to the data that defines program eligibility, measures outcomes, and informs funding
decisions.
Data systems determine what is measured, what is reported, and what is ultimately resourced. Where
those systems are federally defined and managed, Tribal Nations do not have full authority over the

inputs that shape education policy and funding. This creates a structural limitation on selfdetermination, even where tribes administer programs directly.
Absence of Tribal Consultation
The notice does not indicate that Tribal Nations were consulted prior to the renewal of this
information collection. The system at issue governs how education services are operationalized
across BIE-funded and tribally controlled schools and therefore constitutes a core component of
program administration.
Renewing such a system without consultation is inconsistent with the government-to-government
framework that underlies ISDEAA and longstanding federal policy. Consultation is necessary to
ensure that systems affecting Tribal Nations reflect their priorities, expertise, and governance
authority.
Standardized Data Structures and Historical Context
The collection relies on uniform federal data elements applied across all BIE-funded schools. This
approach reflects a longstanding federal practice of standardization in Indian education systems.
Federal Indian education systems historically operated under assimilation-based frameworks that
excluded Native language and cultural priorities. Congress enacted reforms, including the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the Education Amendments of 1978, to
reverse this approach by restoring tribal authority over education systems. While program
administration has shifted toward tribal control, the underlying data systems have not evolved at the
same pace. As a result, federal data collection continues to reflect earlier models of centralized
control rather than sovereign frameworks contemplated by these statutes.
Standardized data elements continue to define student need and success in ways that may not align
with tribal priorities. In practice, this constrains the ability of Tribal Nations to fully implement
education systems grounded in their cultural, linguistic, and community-defined goals.
Data as the Basis for Funding Decisions
The notice confirms that collected data is used to support federal budget requests and allocate
appropriated funds. In this context, data functions as the primary input into funding decisions.
Where data is defined, validated, and controlled at the federal level, Tribal Nations do not have full
authority over the information that drives resource allocation. This creates a risk that funding
decisions may not fully reflect tribal needs, particularly where standardized data elements fail to
capture the scope of conditions within tribal communities. In effect, the federal government retains
control over the inputs that determine funding outcomes.

Behavioral Health Data and Privacy Considerations
The inclusion of Behavioral Health and Wellness Program data extends the scope of the collection
to sensitive student information. The notice does not specify how such data is governed, protected,
or limited in use within tribal contexts.
The absence of clearly defined safeguards, including tribal governance mechanisms and limitations
on data sharing, introduces risks related to privacy and secondary use. These risks are particularly
significant in small or closely connected communities, where even aggregated data may carry
identifiable implications. From a policy perspective, the lack of tribal control over sensitive data is
difficult to reconcile with a framework that emphasizes local authority over education systems and
services.
Administrative Burden on Tribal Schools
The collection imposes an estimated 12,500 burden hours annually . Federal reporting requirements
function as a condition of access to education services and funding.
Where reporting requirements are extensive and centrally defined, they can divert limited
administrative resources within tribal school systems and reinforce dependency on federal processes.
This dynamic is in tension with the intent of ISDEAA to reduce federal administrative barriers and
support tribal autonomy in program administration.
Absence of Measurable Cultural and Language Education Metrics
The current data collection does not capture Native language preservation, cultural education, or
other community-defined measures of student success.
Federal Indian education systems have a documented history of excluding, and in some cases
suppressing, Indigenous language and cultural instruction. Subsequent policy reforms, including the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the Education Amendments of 1978,
were intended to restore tribal authority over education systems, including the ability to define
program goals.
The absence of cultural and language indicators in federal data systems means that these priorities
are not systematically measured, reported, or incorporated into funding and policy decisions. The
omission of these indicators creates a structural misalignment between federal data practices and
tribally defined education goals. Tribal Nations with Bureau funded schools must have the ability to
define and measure success within their education systems; a data framework that does not
accommodate these measures limits that authority.
Recommendations
To better align this information collection with the intent of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act, NIEA recommends that the Department modernize the current
framework to reflect tribal governance and participation in data systems. This includes: establishing

mechanisms for tribal data ownership, access, and control; incorporating tribally defined indicators
of student success, particularly in the areas of language and cultural education, into the data
collection framework; and ensuring that Tribal Nations are meaningfully consulted in the design and
renewal of data systems.
In addition, the Department should provide greater transparency regarding how collected data
informs budget requests and funding allocations, implement clear safeguards for sensitive
information including behavioral health data, and review reporting requirements to reduce
unnecessary administrative burden on tribal schools while supporting local capacity.
Conclusion
The proposed renewal maintains a federally centralized data system that governs key aspects of
Indian education, including eligibility, services, and funding. While the collection satisfies procedural
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, it does not fully reflect the principles of
tribal control and participation established under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act.
As federal Indian education policy continues to evolve toward greater recognition of tribal
sovereignty, data systems must evolve accordingly. NIEA appreciates the opportunity to provide
comment and stands ready to support the development of data systems that align with both
administrative effectiveness and the full realization of tribal self-determination in education.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Eric Chastain
Legislative and Policy Director
National Indian Education Association
1514 P Street NW, Suite B
Washington, DC 20005
EC: rtb, jd