Great questions. The kids mostly speak English as first language, and the schools are in English. With the exception of one huge twist, the schools have many educational difficulties you'll find in rural America generally—it's hard to get money for materials and curriculum, hard to recruit good teachers, hard to get students connected to people with practical advice/guidance, hard to get connected to opportunities, hard to reach escape velocity, and so on.

So, what's the twist? Tribal schools tend to be administrated by the federal government which makes problems extremely slow and hard to address. With some asterisks, the local elementary school was basically provisioned as a consequence of a federal treaty with the US Senate, and is/was mostly administered by a the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which rolls up into a federal department that until 2020ish, had never been run by a native person. All of these things make it very tricky to work with.

In spite of that, believe it or not, this is a massive improvement: until relatively recently, the school was a mandatory boarding trade school meant to teach kids to be (basically) English-only maids. This lead to a substantial percentage of the population being either illiterate or semi-literate, with no meaningful work experience, and with very very few opportunities that were not menial work. That inertia is extremely challenging to overcome, and the most natural place to try is the education system, which generally is simply not up to it.

I am stating these as a neutral facts on purpose. Regardless of how we got here, the hand is ours to play. Some of us got out and whether we succeed in the next generation depends on whether we can mobilize the community to productively take advantage of the resources we do have. This is why it's painful to me to hear about, e.g., land acknowledgements. If you have seen this pain firsthand I just do not see how that can be the #1 policy objective.

Land acknowledgements are easy. They're not a policy objective. Most DEI stuff, it's the result of being in a room where you're trying to get some real change accomplished and you just give up with the decisionmakers and say "OK, whatever, do nothing about this problem, but could you at least admit that the boarding schools were bad?" And they agree because it gets them out of the conversation. And no, it's not going to solve everything, it might not even solve anything, but it's nice to at least have some agreement on things that we definitely shouldn't do again, even if we have no idea how to fix the damage.

> I am stating these as a neutral facts on purpose. Regardless of how we got here, the hand is ours to play.

Yeah.

English as a first language is a huge advantage (you have most of the internet at your disposal, with tons of educational resources), but illiteracy is a huge problem.

> hard to recruit good teachers

Good teachers are rare. I wonder if you could find some people to teach who are not teachers in the usual sense. People having a different job, or university students, who would just come and teach kids one lesson a week. It's not perfect, but it could be the most popular lesson, just because it is unusual.

But the important part would be to grow your own teachers; help the best kids become the teachers of the next generation. Maybe you could encourage kids to do this from the start; for example, take the best kids at each grade, and tell them to teach some younger kids one lesson a week.

I wish I could help, but I'm on the opposite side of the planet.

Interesting comment... I keep getting surprised by implicit first world assumptions on HN.

I'm not the OP but you could consider hypothetically as an example, would great teachers largely choose to settle in PNW?

Not sure where you see assumptions. There are many possible problems, and I don't know OP's situation, which is why I was asking what is the main problem there. Sometimes it's teachers. Sometimes it's textbooks. Sometimes it's not having a roof above your head. Sometimes the kids are starving and can't focus on the lessons. Sometimes it's different language.

> would great teachers largely choose to settle in PNW?

One possible reason is that some of them could be born there. Again, this differs between communities. Some of them respect their smartest members. Some kick them out.

Yes they would. It’s a beautiful part of the country. And I know great teachers that live there.

Unfortunately, our reservation is in central Oregon, which is less desirable. Even if we were not forced out of the ancestral homeland (what is now called the Columbia River Gorge), I'm not sure that would have been better. Although pretty, it is very out of the way, and people do not know that it is in the same class as the Yangtze (say).

in the US, schools in poor counties have less resources and less high quality teachers, and the children have much less of an education-focused environment in which they can flourish because of the parent's lack of resources

raise the economic level of the community, and education rises with it

Abbott districts in New Jersey are an obvious counterpoint to this. They are funded at levels equal to if not greater than the wealthiest districts in the state, despite being in some of the poorest parts of the state. I spite of this, over the four decades that Abbott districts have been in place, educational attainment gaps between them and the rest of the state have actually widened.

it's not just about the funding to the schools; it's about the economic situation of the parents and their ability to provide conditions where their children can thrive academically

that's why I said the best way to improve the education is to improve the economic conditions of the community

You make this to be a financial problem, but I think actually it is a cultural problem. Maybe lack of row models or not valuing education sufficiently. Having too much money can be a hinderance to educational motivation too.