Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Native American boarding schools represent one of the most significant—and devastating—federal policies aimed at Indigenous peoples in U.S. history. Understanding these institutions isn't just about memorizing school names and dates; you're being tested on broader concepts like forced assimilation, cultural genocide, federal Indian policy, and institutional resistance. These schools demonstrate how education became a tool of colonization, and their legacy connects directly to contemporary issues in Native American communities, from language revitalization efforts to ongoing debates about historical accountability.
When you encounter boarding schools on an exam, think about the mechanisms of assimilation at work: separating children from families, punishing Native language use, replacing cultural practices with Euro-American norms. But also recognize the resilience narrative—how some institutions evolved, how survivors maintained identity, and how communities are reclaiming this history today. Don't just memorize which school opened when—know what each institution reveals about federal policy, regional variation, and Indigenous survival.
The earliest boarding schools established the template that would define Native education for decades. These institutions developed the assimilationist curriculum—vocational training, English-only policies, and systematic cultural suppression—that later schools would replicate across the country.
Compare: Carlisle vs. Hampton—both promoted vocational training and assimilation, but Hampton's mixed-race student body created different dynamics. Carlisle became the explicit model for federal Indian schools, while Hampton influenced policy more indirectly. If an FRQ asks about the origins of boarding school philosophy, Carlisle is your primary example.
As the boarding school model proved "successful" in federal eyes, new institutions opened across the country, each adapting the assimilationist template to regional contexts. These schools targeted specific tribal populations and reflected local economic priorities—agriculture in Oklahoma, industry in the Pacific Northwest.
Compare: Chilocco vs. Haskell—both founded in 1884 with assimilationist goals, but their trajectories diverged dramatically. Chilocco closed; Haskell transformed. This contrast illustrates different possible outcomes for boarding school institutions and makes an excellent example for FRQs about institutional change over time.
Schools established in the 1890s operated within an already-entrenched system, but regional differences shaped their character. Southwestern schools served Pueblo, Navajo, and other nations with distinct cultural traditions, while California schools targeted the state's diverse Indigenous populations.
Compare: Santa Fe vs. Phoenix—both Southwestern schools founded within a year of each other, but Santa Fe's arts emphasis and eventual day-school transition contrast sharply with Phoenix's stricter assimilationist approach and eventual closure. This pairing illustrates how institutional culture varied even within the same region and era.
Some boarding schools emerged from military institutions or eventually transformed into colleges, representing distinct trajectories within the broader system. These schools demonstrate how federal priorities shifted over time and how Indigenous communities sometimes reclaimed educational spaces.
Compare: Fort Lewis vs. Flandreau—both founded in the early 1890s, but Fort Lewis's military origins and transformation into a tuition-free college for Native students contrasts with Flandreau's closure. Fort Lewis demonstrates institutional evolution; Flandreau represents the more common pattern of boarding school termination.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Origins of assimilationist education | Carlisle, Hampton |
| Agricultural/vocational focus | Chilocco, Chemawa |
| Transformation to higher education | Haskell, Fort Lewis |
| Still operating today | Chemawa, Sherman, Santa Fe |
| Southwestern regional schools | Phoenix, Santa Fe, Sherman |
| Military connections | Fort Lewis, Carlisle (Pratt was Army captain) |
| Cultural preservation evolution | Santa Fe, Haskell |
| Closed institutions | Carlisle, Chilocco, Phoenix, Flandreau |
Which two schools were founded in 1884 and what different trajectories did they follow—one closing, one becoming a university?
How did Santa Fe Indian School's approach to Native arts differ from the standard assimilationist model, and what does its transition to a day school reveal about changing attitudes toward Native education?
Compare Carlisle and Hampton: What did they share in educational philosophy, and what made Hampton's origins and student body distinct?
If an FRQ asked you to trace the evolution of federal Indian education policy from assimilation to self-determination, which three schools would best illustrate that arc and why?
What do Chemawa and Sherman have in common that distinguishes them from most other schools on this list, and what does their continued operation suggest about the boarding school legacy?