[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT'S IMPACT ON INDIAN EDUCATION
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN SACATON, AZ, APRIL 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-605 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Linda T. Sanchez, California Rob Bishop, Utah
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Ric Keller, Florida
David Loebsack, Iowa Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Phil Hare, Illinois Louisiana
Lynn C. Woolsey, California John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas York
Dean Heller, Nevada
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Additional submissions for the record:
The Navajo Nation, ``Impact of the `No Child Left
Behind Act' (NCLB) on Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE) Funded Schools and Students''................ 56
Prepared statement of Delia M. Carlyle, Chairman, Ak-
Chin Indian Community.............................. 60
Letter dated May 7, 2007, from Todd Honyaoma, Sr.,
Vice Chairman, the Hopi Tribe...................... 63
Statement of Witnesses:
Bordeaux, Dr. Roger, director, Association of Community
Tribal Schools............................................. 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Gilbert, Dr. Willard S., president-elect, National Indian
Education Association...................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Miller, Tom, member, board of directors, Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians.................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Rhodes, William R., Governor of Gila River Indian Community.. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Nosie, Wendsler, Sr., Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT'S IMPACT ON INDIAN EDUCATION
----------
Saturday, April 28, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
Community Council Chambers, Gila River Indian Community
Governance Center, 525 West Gu u Ki, Sacaton, Arizona, Hon.
Dale E. Kildee [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Grijalva.
Staff Present: Julius Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor.
Chairman Kildee. A quorum being present, the hearing of the
Subcommittee will come to order.
I would ask Governor Rhodes to offer an invocation.
Governor Rhodes. Let us bow our heads.
Almighty God, Creator, we humble ourselves before you this
morning because we are here to ask you again for blessing for
our nation and our people.
Lord, we just give you all the praise and glory and we
humble ourselves. At this time we ask you to be with this
meeting as we discuss and report the needs of our children, the
Indian nations, but also in the surrounding towns, Lord. We are
asking for your guidance and your blessing on the understanding
of one nation to another nation, that there is help that is
needed at this time.
And thank you for bringing us together here to discuss
these things for the betterment of our people, our communities,
the education of the future leaders of these great nations,
Lord. I just ask you to keep your hand on each and every one.
Bless those that are extended families in their homes and those
that will be traveling again, Lord, we ask for traveling
mercies on them. We thank you for bringing everyone here safe.
Lord, just continue to keep your hand on us and be with us as
we discuss our needs, Lord. Be with us that we may understand
and discuss those things to the best--for the best of our
people.
Lord, we give you all the praise and glory again. And we
ask all these things through your Son Jesus, our Lord and
Savior. Amen.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a) any member may submit an
opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record.
In addition, for interested parties who are not testifying
formally here today, you may submit written testimony for the
record by Monday, May 7th by emailing it to Committee Counsel
Lloyd Horwich, to my left here, who can provide you his email
address after the hearing. That way it will be made part of the
permanent record of this hearing.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I am pleased to welcome the public and our witnesses to
this hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary
and Secondary Education, ``The Impact of the No Child Left
Behind Act on Indian Education.''
It is great to hear from all of you. It is especially great
to travel from the Capitol of the sovereign United States to
the capital of the sovereign Gila River nation. It's been ten
years since I have been here. I have noted the great progress
you have made in those ten years, and I commend you for that.
Last year I promised a hearing on No Child Left Behind in
Indian Country. And I am delighted to honor that commitment
today. I can think of no more appropriate location for this
hearing than on this sovereign land of the Gila River Indian
Community in the chambers where the tribe's legislative branch
meets.
I want to thank Governor Rhodes, who will be our first
witness, for making these chambers available and Congressman
Grijalva, whose District we are in, for his campaigning for
education for Indian children and for all children. It is my
privilege to serve with him on this Subcommittee.
My name is Congressman Dale Kildee from Flint, Michigan.
And I am the Chairman of the Subcommittee. I am also the
founder and Democratic Chairman of the House Native American
Caucus, a bipartisan group of 108 members committed to
protecting tribal sovereignty, increasing tribal funding and
supporting positive legislation in Indian health care, housing
and economic development.
Wherever I go, I never leave home without a copy of the
Constitution of the United States. This Constitution recognizes
the sovereignty of the Indian Nations. It is not granted
because it is a retained sovereignty. That has been clarified
by the courts since the time of John Marshall. The
Constitution, which every Member takes an oath to uphold, says
the Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states and with the Indian
tribes. It states those three sovereignties. We don't grant
sovereignty by this, but we recognize sovereignty. We recognize
your sovereignty.
I often say that land and language are the two anchors for
protecting tribal sovereignty. Native languages and cultures
are among the treasures of this country's heritage, history and
diversity. The names of many states, cities, towns, rivers and
other geographical names in our country are derived from native
words. That is why I was so pleased last year when the Esther
Martinez Native American Languages Act, which helps to preserve
and protect native languages, became law.
I would say that a third anchor for protecting tribal
sovereignty is education. History has presented us with unique
challenges in providing every Indian child with the education
he or she needs to better their life and their family's station
in life. But in one respect the challenge faced in Indian
country is the same challenge faced anywhere in the United
States. Our success in the 21st century economy is directly
tied to our ability to produce a high quality labor force. And
that ability is, of course, directly tied to our ability to
meet the challenge of providing every child with a world class
education.
Since 2002 Congress and the President have underfunded the
No Child Left Behind Act by $56 billion. And the President's
proposed budget for 2008 would underfund it by another 15
billion, for a total of a $71 billion underfunding of No Child
Left Behind.
When I review legislation I ask myself whether it would
advance or hinder the principles of human dignity. I am sorry
to say that the education budgets that recent Congresses and
the President passed did not advance those principles. Of
course, I am hopeful that with the new Congress we will start
to do better. But funding is only a part of reauthorizing No
Child Left Behind. That is why we are here today.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide
us with insight as to how No Child Left Behind has affected
Indian education and how we can improve No Child Left Behind to
improve Indian education. Because while the need for education
may be the same everywhere, the way to educate children is not.
Title VII of No Child Left Behind, the Indian Education
Act, recognizes that. Its stated purpose is to support tribes
and school districts in their efforts to meet the unique
educational and culturally related academic needs of Indian
students. I expect that the basic structure of No Child Left
Behind, that is the standards, the testing, disaggregation of
data, adequate yearly progress and the effects for not meeting
that adequate yearly progress will remain. But I am very open
to suggestions from our panel and others on how to improve the
law within that structure and how to provide tribes and school
districts with the flexibility they need to make it work better
for all their children, and those children's parents and
teachers.
And I thank you for listening to me.
I now yield to my good friend, Mr. Grijalva for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I also join with you in thanking Governor Rhodes and
the Gila River community for their hospitality and for the
accommodation and kindness that they have shown us with this
hearing. I appreciate that very much.
And I want to welcome the witnesses to this hearing and to
the District of which I have the pleasure of representing in
Congress.
You know, Native American education for too long has fallen
by the wayside of the national agenda to reauthorize No Child
Left Behind. The law is indeed leaving Native American students
behind and contributing to a crisis of Indian education. With
your help we can begin to reverse this crisis through the
reauthorization process. And I look forward to working with you
to that end.
In April of 2004 President Bush acknowledged with Executive
Order 13336 that Native American students face challenges
unlike those of other students. That Executive Order makes
clear that the United States Government has a responsibility to
ensure that Native American students meet the No Child Left
Behind Act standards in a manner consistent with Native
American traditions and culture. Unfortunately, the facts
demonstrate that we have not kept up our end of the bargain.
Native American students are still scoring far behind their
peers in overall academic performance and basic skills
obtainment. Only 30 percent of the Bureau of Indian Education
schools make adequately yearly progress. 83 percent of Native
American fourth graders are not proficient in reading, 86
percent are not proficient in math. In fact, these numbers
reflect some of the lowest gains of any subgroup. But I believe
there is a silver lining to this picture. Thanks in large part
to your efforts we are beginning to make strides in improving
Native American education for the students.
As our Chairman indicated, the passage of the Esther
Martinez Act last year is one of those strides. Many members of
Congress are now aware of the need for language immersion
instruction and culturally appropriate curriculums. For the
first time I believe the importance of significantly changing
the law's Native American provisions is now on the table.
So I want to thank you for your testimony today.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just say as this country,
this nation of ours and in the Native American community as
well, places such a great emphasis and such a great expectation
on the education of their children so that future leaders,
future progress economic and social can occur to all
communities. And this emerging need in this country needs to be
addressed. And so through your leadership you have allowed and
encouraged this kind of discussion that we are having today.
And I appreciate that very much. Because as we shape this
reauthorization, it is not about the immediate shortfall of
money, which is important and necessary, but it is also that
vision that we need to have for what kind of country we are
going to have, what kind of leadership we are going to promote
and that, indeed, no child get left behind.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I look forward to
the testimony of our witnesses.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva.
Without objection, all members will have seven calendar
days to submit additional materials or questions for the
hearing record.
I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel
of witnesses here with us this morning. Governor William Rhodes
is the Governor of the Gila River Indian Community. He has a
long and varied history with the Community. Prior to serving as
Governor, he served as Lieutenant Governor, Chief Judge and
Fire Chief.
In all his positions, Governor Rhodes has worked to improve
the lives of the youth of the Community.
Chairman Wendsler Nosie, Sr. is the Chairman of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe. Previously Chairman Nosie served the tribe
as a council representative and the Tribal Work Experience
Program Director. He has been honored for his accomplishments
by the National Council of Churches and Wake Forest University.
I have known Tom Miller for many years. Tom ably serves the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians in my home State of
Michigan. He is a member of the tribe's Board of Directors. Tom
has also been Superintendent of the Hannahville Indian School
for 26 years and a member of the Board of the Association of
Community Tribal Schools for 24 years. And I appreciate you
traveling from Michigan for this hearing.
Dr. Willard Gilbert is President-Elect of the National
Indian Education Association and a Professor of Education at
Northern Arizona University. Dr. Gilbert is an expert on
integrating Native language culture and traditions into school
curriculum, a critical issue in Indian education.
Dr. Roger Bordeaux is the Executive Director of the
Association of Community Tribal Schools. He also is
Superintendent of the Tiospa Zina Tribal School on the Sisseton
Wahpeton Oyate reservation in South Dakota. Dr. Bordeaux has
held those positions for 22 and 17 years respectively.
Welcome to all our witnesses.
For those of you who have not testified before this
Subcommittee before, I will explain our lighting system.
Everyone including Members is limited to five minutes of
presentation or questioning. The green light will be
illuminated when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow
light it means you have one minute remaining. And when you see
the red light, it means that your time has expired and you need
to conclude your testimony.
Now if you are in the middle of a paragraph or a thought, I
am not going to turn you off. As a matter of fact, there is no
ejection seat back there. But if you can try to begin to
terminate your remarks.
Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into
the microphone in front of you and turn it off when you have
finished.
We will now hear from our first witness, Governor Rhodes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. RHODES, GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER INDIAN
COMMUNITY
Governor Rhodes. On behalf of Gila River Community, thank
you, Chairman Kildee, Congressman Grijalva, and other
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity
to submit testimony on the impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act on Gila River Community.
I am Governor William R. Rhodes of the Gila River
Community. The Community is optimistic that the policies
underlined in No Child Left Behind Act leave the potential to
lead to improved academic achievement for the children across
the country. And we support the law's reauthorization. However,
we want our children, too, to fully benefit from the Act. And
we believe that important changes need to be made to the Act
for that to happen.
This testimony focuses on the following four areas that we
believe are in need of attention.
First, there is a need for change in the Act to assist
tribes with improving teacher recruitment, retention and
training.
Second, there is a need for enhanced tribal-state
consultation on the requirements and goals of the Act.
Third that the Act allow for expanding upon on the ability
of tribes to offer native languages and culture as part of
their curriculum without being in competition with the goals of
the Act.
Fourth, there is a need for supporting tribes in developing
strategies for improved student education, including enhanced
support for the role of parents in ensuring student attendance.
With regard to teacher recruitment or retention, the
Community, like many other Indian tribes across the country has
sought to staff its educational institutions with highly
qualified teachers as mandated by the Act. This has created
problems that are not easily resolved. Traditionally,
reservation schools have always had difficulty recruiting
teachers of any kind, let alone ones that satisfy the
definition of highly qualified. Potential teachers are not
attracted to reservation schools because these schools are
often isolated and rural, adding challenges of travel time and
transportation cost for teachers.
As a specific recommendation, the Title II teacher quality
program could be tailored to help Indian communities improve
their ability to attract highly qualified teachers and to
retain the teachers we currently have. The Act should require
States to consider the needs of these schools when distributing
the Title II grant funds. For instance grants under Title II
can support Indian education partnerships that improve
preservice education for those becoming teachers of Indian
students and can support activities that address the
professional development needs of teachers already in our
schools.
Teachers need consistent training, some of which the
Community Education Department has taken the initiative to
provide. In 2004, the Tribe adopted as an annual event a
reservation-wide teacher-in-service. At this event, Community
teachers share best practices in working with Community
students; Community leaders provide cultural insights to
teachers; and professionals provide training in categories such
as math teaching skills, classroom management, and teaching
impoverished populations. Additionally, annual truancy
prevention training is provided, as well as in-services on
choosing and adopting common core textbooks across the
Community.
On our second point we also believe that states should be
explicitly required under law to consult with tribes on the
implementation of standards of the Act. And then tribes need to
have a greater voice and role in the decisions made at the
state level under the Act and required consultation between
state education officials and Indian education officials would
assist in advancing the goals of the Act in Indian country.
Greater coordination with the state would also help the
Community's government and education department who are trying
to implement state standards in a uniform way across all of the
Community's schools and to move toward the goal of school
unification.
Our education department is trying to unify the schools on
the reservation by adopting universal policies regarding
academic school safety, health and nutrition, student tracking
and emergency response. Increased communication between the
State and the Community would help all of our schools better
understand that funding agencies support what we are trying to
achieve and expect compliance with the policies and standards
of the Act. And that student achievement is measured against
the benchmarks in the Act.
Next, native language and culture is an important part of
our school's curriculum. The Community feels very strongly that
these aspects of curriculum are vitally important in
maintaining tribal culture in future generations. Strengthening
the Act to provide a well rounded education for all children
that builds upon our unique culture and language will further
federal policy on several levels and ensure long-term success.
Title III and Title VII currently allow for Native language
instruction. However, these provisions should be strengthened
so that schools that are successfully achieving their
educational goals and meeting the academic standards receive
the support they need to continue these programs.
The Community's education department recently hired a
Culture Coordinator who will work closely with the schools with
strong cultural programs and other interested Community members
to develop a standard cultural curriculum, and share that
curriculum with our schools that do not yet have such strong
programs. A few of the Community schools have strong cultural
programs. Students at one of the schools are fluent in O'odham
language and consistently study and practice the Community's
culture. We desire that all of the Community schools become as
proficient in teaching the Gila River Community culture and
language, and for all students to demonstrate knowledge of the
Community's culture and language. Given the proven link between
teaching Native language and student achievement, we believe
these programs long term will improve student achievement and
strengthen our students' lifelong connection to learning.
Finally, parenting directly effects student attendance and
performance. The Community faces an alarming student success
and retention situation. For instance, at Community schools,
the statistics reveal that:
1. High school graduation rate of the Community students is
approximately at 58 percent; and
2. Our high school students have a truancy rate of roughly
56 percent.
Community leaders have begun the process of addressing and
remedying these situations. Last year, we conducted a Community
Outreach Conference that aggressively and effectively promoted
the value of education. It is too soon to tell the direct
impact on our conference on the students' attendance and
performance. We believe the Act should be strengthened by
allowing increased opportunities for parents, families and
native communities to become more involved in their children's
schools and in the development of their educational programs.
Thank you, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. And
we stand ready to answer any questions you may have or to
supply any additional information.
Thank you.
[The statement of Governor Rhodes follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. Rhodes, Governor of Gila River Indian
Community
On behalf of Gila River Indian Community, thank you, Chairman
Kildee, Congressman Grijalva, and other distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony to the
Subcommittee on the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on
Gila River Indian Community (``the Community''). I am Governor William
Rhodes of the Gila River Indian Community.
Overall, the Community is optimistic that the policies underlying
NCLB can lead to improved academic achievement of children across the
country, and supports the law's reauthorization. We want our children,
too, to benefit from NCLB and to improve their academic achievement.
Based on our experience with the implementation of NCLB, however, the
Community respectfully requests that the Subcommittee give careful
consideration to ensuring that the reauthorization of NCLB provides a
better fit for Indian children and Indian communities. As described
further in this testimony, we want Indian tribes and Indian communities
to be more involved in NCLB programs, and offer suggestions for ways to
improve NCLB for Indian students for consideration by the Subcommittee.
As stated, we support the overarching goals of NCLB. We see,
however, many areas for improvement in the law. For instance, we view
the Tribally Controlled Schools Act and the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act, which allow Indian tribes to determine
for themselves their educational needs and build their programs around
those needs, as models of what is working in Indian Country. As
Congress has recognized, Indian education is not a cookie-cutter, one-
size-fits-all proposition. Instead, these two Acts give each Tribe the
right to determine their own unique needs, and our schools are better
off for having been permitted to exercise the self-determination and
control that Congress provided in these statutes. We seek this same
type of community involvement and authority in the reauthorized NCLB.
The Subcommittee should understand that the Community does not view
NCLB as being in tension with this local control principle. Rather, we
ask the Subcommittee to recognize that for the NCLB to be fully
successful in Indian country, the law must take into account the unique
challenges it presents for Indian students and tribal educators.
This testimony focuses on the following four areas that we believe
are in need of attention in the discussion of the reauthorization of
the NCLB and what it means for Indian Country, based on the experience
we have had at the Community: (1) the need for improved teacher
recruitment and retention, (2) the need for enhanced tribal--state
consultation, (3) the importance of allowing for native languages and
culture as part of the curriculum, and (4) the need for strategies for
improved student retention, including the role of parents in ensuring
student attendance.
I. Teacher recruitment and retention.
The Community, like many other Indian tribes across the country,
has sought to staff its educational institutions with ``highly
qualified teachers'' as mandated by NCLB. This has created problems
that are not easily resolved. Traditionally, reservation schools have
always had difficulty recruiting teachers of any kind, let alone ones
that satisfy the definition of highly qualified. While the pay scale at
the schools in our Community is competitive with many other area
schools, this is not the solution to the problem. Potential teachers
are not attracted to reservation schools because these schools are
often isolated and rural, adding challenges of travel time and
transportation cost for teachers.
Moreover, once teachers are recruited, the problem does not end
there. The Community has experienced a significant problem with teacher
retention. Quite frankly, some teachers, especially new teachers, tend
to be hired because their lack of experience keeps them from finding
work in more desirable locations. It isn't unusual for these teachers
to gain some experience at our schools and then leave the school. As a
result, the Community is in a constant state of searching for eligible
teachers, knowing that, once recruited, they will almost certainly
leave within a few short years.
As an illustrative example, Vah-Ki Middle School on reservation has
great difficulty finding highly qualified teachers and must use
``emergency certified'' teachers. Emergency certification is only good
for one year, and if that teacher proves effective in working with the
students, but has not acquired 6 required semester hours of coursework,
they cannot be recertified. The school now only has 6 highly qualified
teachers, and 8 who are emergency certified or have a substitute
teacher license. During the 2005-06 school year, this school had to
delay opening day by a week because there were not enough teachers
hired. The opening of school was chaotic, with most classes being
taught by substitutes.
We think the Title II teacher quality programs can be tailored to
help Indian communities improve their ability to attract highly
qualified teachers and to retain the teachers we currently have.
Congress should place a priority on supporting activities that address
the needs of teachers and schools serving Indian students. NCLB should
require States to consider the needs of these schools when distributing
Title II grant funds. For instance, grants under Title II can support
higher education partnerships that improve preservice education for
those becoming teachers of Indian students and can support activities
that address the professional development needs of teachers already in
our schools. Providing these services helps us address the professional
needs of our teachers so that they experience success in our classrooms
and feel commitment to our students and communities.
Teachers need consistent training, some of which the Community's
Education Department provides. In 2004, the Tribe adopted as an annual
event a reservation-wide teacher in-service. At this event, Community
teachers share best practices in working with Community students;
Community leaders provide cultural insights to teachers; and
professionals provide training in categories such as math teaching
skills, classroom management, and teaching impoverished populations.
Additionally, annual truancy prevention training is provided, as well
as in-services on choosing and adopting common core textbooks across
the Community.
II. States should be explicitly required under law to consult with
tribes on NCLB.
We want NCLB to work for our students and we can provide useful
suggestions on how to successfully implement the law within the unique
nature of our Indian communities. Indian tribes need to have a greater
voice and role in the decisions made at the State level under NCLB.
State education officials should be required to consult with Indian
educational representatives in the development of state accountability
systems. They should also consider the needs of Indian parents when
developing parent involvement programs.
The Community is trying to implement state standards and, toward
that end, would benefit from increased coordination with the State and
among the Community's schools. The Community continues to work closely
with our school administrators and teachers to move toward the goal of
``school unification.'' Such unification includes adopting universal
policies regarding academics, school safety, health and nutrition,
student tracking, and emergency response. Increased communication
between the state and the Community would help all of our schools
better understand that funding agencies fully support what we are
trying to achieve and expect compliance with the policies and standards
of NCLB. The Community does not demand anything from its schools that
they should not be doing anyway, and simply wants to ensure that
continuity and structure for our students. Greater coordination between
the State, the tribe and our schools would go a long way toward
advancing this effort.
There should be stronger emphasis in encouraging states, tribal
governments and communities to work together in developing appropriate
educational standards and related assessments. Specifically, NCLB
should be amended to require that states involve tribes located within
their boundaries in the development of state assessments. To facilitate
enhanced cooperation, NCLB can be strengthened to provide resources for
collaboration among tribes, states, and the Federal Government to allow
for increased opportunities in the development of standards that
recognize the cultural backgrounds of native students.
III. Native language and culture as part of the curriculum.
The Community's schools incorporate native language and culture
into the curriculum. The Community feels very strongly that these
aspects of the curriculum are vitally important to maintaining tribal
culture for future generations. While current NCLB requirements often
make it difficult to meet our native language and culture education
goals, the Community wants to continue these types of programs and at
the same time we work to increase the academic achievement of our
students.
Title VII of NCLB recognizes that native children have unique
educational needs due to their cultures and backgrounds. Native
children should be given every opportunity to obtain a comprehensive
education that allows them to succeed and contribute in building
healthy communities. Native learning is strengthened through
instruction that integrates basic skills with traditional cultural
practices and embraces the knowledge of the environment, native fine
arts and crafts, leadership, character and citizenship. Strengthening
the NCLB to provide a well-rounded education for all children that
builds upon our unique culture and language will further federal policy
on several levels and ensure long-term success.
Title III and Title VII currently allow for Native language
instruction. However, these provisions should be strengthened so that
schools that are successfully achieving their educational goals and
meeting the academic standards receive the support they need to
continue these programs. Research shows that native children perform
better academically when they are taught in a manner that is consistent
with their traditions, languages and cultures. See, for example, Pease-
Pretty On Top, Janine, Native Language Immersion: Innovative Education
for Children and Families. Denver: American Indian College Fund, 2000.
The GRIC Education Department has recently hired a Culture
Coordinator who will work closely with the schools with strong culture
programs and other interested Community members to develop a standard
culture curriculum, and share that curriculum with our schools that do
not yet have such strong programs. For example, a few of the Community
schools have strong culture programs-students at one of these schools
are fluent in O'odham language and consistently study and practice the
Community's culture. It is desired that all of the Community schools
become as proficient in teaching the Gila River Indian Community
culture and language, and for all students to demonstrate knowledge of
the Community's culture and language. One challenge is that the
Community is comprised of two tribes: Pima and Maricopa. The Culture
Coordinator will ensure that both cultures and languages are
incorporated in the culture curriculum. Given the proven link between
teaching Native languages and student achievement, we believe these
programs, long term, will improve student achievement and strengthen
our student's lifelong connection to learning.
IV. Parenting initiatives and impacts on student attendance and
performance.
The Community faces an alarming student success and retention
situation. For instance, at Community schools, the statistics reveal
that:
1. High school graduation rate of Community students is
approximately at 58%; and
2. High school students have a truancy rate at roughly 56%.
The Community leaders have begun the process of addressing and
remedying these issues. Last year, we conducted a Community Outreach
Conference that aggressively and effectively promoted the value of
education. Sessions were selected and designed to provide information
to Community members as family units, and included in those sessions
were workshops from the GRIC school administrators to educate parents
on how their efforts are necessary and complement the effort of
educators in keeping our students in school and on track toward high
school graduation. It is too soon to tell the direct impact of our
conference on student attendance and performance. However, given the
truancy and drop-out rates at the Community, this event has been
endorsed by tribal leaders as an annual occurrence in order to address
this significant problem.
While there are a number of things the Community's government can
do to address this problem, such as putting pressure on schools to take
stronger steps to ensure attendance and strengthening enforcement of
the Community Children's Courts' revised truancy ordinance, we believe
NCLB can be strengthened by allowing increased opportunities for
parents, families, and native communities to become more involved in
their children's schools and in the development of their educational
programs. Schools are successful when parents, families, tribes and the
local communities are actively involved and engaged in the school's
programs and activities.
Thank you, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, and we stand
ready to answer any questions you may have or to supply any additional
information.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Governor.
Chairman Nosie?
STATEMENT OF WENDSLER NOSIE, SR., CHAIRMAN OF SAN CARLOS APACHE
TRIBE
Chairman Nosie. Habi'd godiliz', good morning, Chairman
Kildee and Congressman Grijalva. I'm Wendsler Nosie, Chairman
of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. I'm joined with Councilman
Jonathan Kitcheyan and Ulman Clark, and Catherine Steele, the
Curriculum/NCLB Director with the San Carlos Unified School
District.
Thank you for holding this important hearing. We appreciate
the dedication to the serious issue you show by the fact that
you are here to seek our views. Our goal is to ensure that our
children's unique education needs are met and that they have
the opportunities to become successful and contributing members
of society.
Our reservation is about 128 million acres and is located
in a rural and isolated area. We have low infrastructure and
many needs. We have over 13,000 tribal members, 30 percent of
them under the age of 18. While we have worked hard to develop
our economy, we have 76 percent unemployment rate and poverty
level of 77 percent.
Our children struggle under staggering poverty and this
poverty leaves no part of life untouched.
Mr. Chairman, as a school teacher you know that our
children cannot do well in school if they have poor housing,
nutrition and medical care. The situation only seems to get
worse. Unfortunately, the Federal Government continuously fails
to fund or underfunds key programs in Title VII as well as
basic programs for the poor, such as housing improvement
programs, welfare assistance and Johnson O'Malley. I know that
these programs are not part of the NCLB, but they are all
interrelated because all of these programs impact our children.
Many students in poverty do not have the experience needed to
enable them to successfully learn when they reach kindergarten
or the early grades. This situation results in poor test
scores. This problem creates a domino effect that widens the
achievement gap even more when these students reach upper
grades.
There are two public school districts that the children
from the reservation attend. The Fort Thomas Unified School
District and the San Carlos Unified School District.
The Fort Thomas Unified School District is comprised of two
schools, the Fort Thomas Elementary and the Fort Thomas High
School. The elementary school had 249 students registered this
year and the high school had 293 students. Based on this year's
Arizona School Report Card the elementary school failed to meet
the AYP for the past three academic years. However, it did last
year and currently is in Title 1 School Improvement Year 2
status.
The high school did not meet AYP in the past academic year
despite meeting it for the two years prior. Subsequently, it is
in Title 1 warning year status.
The San Carlos Unified School District is comprised of four
schools. Rice Primary School, the San Carlos Intermediate and
the San Carlos Junior High and the San Carlos High School.
Rice Primary School has 334 students, the intermediate
school has 285 students, the junior high has 314 students and
the high school has 324 students. Based on this year's Arizona
School Report Card three of these schools did not meet AYP. The
high school has not met AYP in six years and is currently in
Title I restructuring implementation phase. The intermediate
school is in Title I corrective action status. Rice Primary did
not meet AYP for the past two years and is in Title 1 warning
year status. The junior high met AYP for '05 and '06, but did
not in '06 and '07 and is in Title 1 school improvement year 4
restructuring.
In other words, only one school out of the six on the
reservation, Fort Thomas Elementary, met the AYP for '06 and
'07. Half of the schools failed to make AYP for two consecutive
years. One of the schools, San Carlos High School, has never
made AYP since NCLB.
We face a dire situation over our children's educational
needs. Testing scores demonstrate the incredible disparity
between our children and other children within the State. Given
the severe poverty levels on the reservations it is difficult
if not impossible to meet all the requirements imposed on our
schools by the NCLB. We urge Congress to provide full funding
for the mandates imposed by NCLB because of the isolation on
the reservation and highly qualified teachers are difficult to
recruit and retain. NCLB needs to be amended to allow school
districts to train emerging endorsed teachers beyond one school
year. The school district reported that non-Native teachers
lack proper training to effectively break the barriers of
cultural differences. We urge the Congress to provide full
funding for professional development and service training and
any career ladder programs. Our teachers have not been given
the proper resources to help our children learn. This needs to
change if our schools are to meet the NCLB goals for 2014.
We have a lot of work to do to achieve these goals in NCLB,
but we cannot do it without your support. Our children have
been left behind for a long time, and hope that we can work
together to ensure that the reauthorization brings positive
change.
Thank you.
[Statement of Chairman Nosie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wendsler Nosie, Sr., Chairman of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe
Good morning, Chairman Dale Kildee and Congressman Raul Grijalva. I
am Wendsler Nosie, Sr., Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe based
in San Carlos, Arizona. I am honored to be here to testify today before
this Committee to provide the views of the San Carlos Apache Tribe on
the impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on our students on
the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation and our tribal members who are
students in the surrounding communities. I am joined by Tribal Council
Member Jonathan Kitcheyan, who is also on the Tribal Council's
Education Committee, and Catherine Steele, Curriculum/NCLB Director
with the San Carlos Unified School District.
Before I begin, I would like to take this moment to thank you for
holding this important hearing on the educational needs of Indian
students in Indian Country. We appreciate the dedication to this
serious issue you show by the fact that you are here--far away from
Washington, D.C.--to seek our views, to see our lands, and to meet our
people. In particular, I want to thank Chairman Kildee for his decades
of tireless and passionate advocacy on behalf of Indian Country. His
efforts on behalf of Indian tribes are well known and we appreciate the
priority he has made in addressing our students' unique educational
needs. Also, we are very thankful that we have Representative Grijalva
representing our great state of Arizona and that he works on these
important issues on our behalf.
Our goal is to ensure that our children's unique educational needs
are met and that they have opportunities to become successful and
contributing members of society. We believe that this can be
accomplished if the federal government fulfills its trust
responsibility to Indian people. Title VII of NCLB states:
It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal
Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and
responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian
children. The Federal Government will continue to work with local
education agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary
institutions, and other entities toward the goal of ensuring that
programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and
provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational
needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic
needs of these children.\1\
This is a powerful statement, and we urge the Committee, as it
moves forward with the reauthorization of NCLB, to put teeth behind
these words. It seems that, even though this statement of policy is
contained in NCLB, folks in Washington and in the state treat it as if
it is compartmentalized to Title VII and not applicable to the other
titles in NCLB. Instead, we believe that this statement of policy
should guide the educational programs for Indian children in all the
titles of NCLB. In fact, research shows that Native children who
participate in Native language and culture programs perform better
academically than their peers who do not participate in such programs.
As you know, our Indian children struggle due to the staggering
poverty and unemployment on the Reservation. This poverty leaves no
part of life untouched. Mr. Kildee, as a school teacher, you know that
our children cannot do well in school if they have no home,
insufficient food, few supplies, inadequate transportation, poor
medical care, unsafe communities, or broken families. The situation
only seems to get worse. Unfortunately, the Administration and the
Congress have continually failed to fund or underfund key programs in
Title VII for Indian people. Further, the Administration continues to
propose eliminations or cuts in basic programs at the BIA for the
poorest of the poor, such as the Housing Improvement Program, the
Tribal Work Experience Program, Burial Assistance, Welfare Assistance,
and Johnson O' Malley. Correspondingly, the Congress either restores
only the bare minimum or implements the Administration's
recommendations. I know that these programs are not part of NCLB but
they are all inter-related because all these programs impact the
ability of our children to perform in school.
As you can see, at San Carlos, the federal government has fallen
short in its obligations. We are hopeful though that with your help
that we can improve the educational opportunities for our children
through the reauthorization of NCLB and through increased funding for
NCLB and for other programs critical to the well-being of Indian
people.
The San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation
To better understand the educational needs of our students and
other needs of our people that impact our educational needs, it is
helpful to know about the Reservation itself as well as the history of
the Apache people. The aboriginal territory of the Apache Nation
included the western part of Texas, the current states of Arizona and
New Mexico, and the country of Mexico. The Apache Treaty of Santa Fe in
1852 was executed by Mangus Colorado and others on behalf of the
Apaches. Pursuant to the Treaty, lands within the aboriginal
territories of the Apache Nation were to be set aside for a permanent
Tribal homeland and the United States promised to provide for the
``humane'' needs of the Apache people. In exchange, the Apache Nation
agreed to the end of hostilities between the two nations.
The San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation was established by an
executive order of President Grant on November 9, 1871. Through the
concentration policies of the United States, various bands of Apaches
were forcibly removed to the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation.
These bands included the Coyoteros, Mimbrenos, Mongollon, Aravaipa,
Yavapai, San Carlos, Chiricahua, Warm Springs, and Tonto Apaches.
Famous Apache leaders who were located at San Carlos included Geronimo,
Cochise, Loco, Eskiminzin, Nachie, Chatto, and others. Throughout
history, the United States in 1873, 1874, 1876, 1877, 1893, and 1902
diminished the size of the Reservation several times by executive order
due to the discovery of silver, copper, coal, water, and other minerals
and natural resources.
The San Carlos Apache Reservation has a land base of 1.8 million
acres, but only a small percentage of the Reservation can be used for
residential building purposes. The remainder of the Reservation is
comprised of some of the most rugged terrain in the Southwest,
including deep stands of timber, jagged outcroppings, and rocky
canyons. As a result, the Reservation lacks infrastructure in all but
two general housing areas. On the western edge of the Reservation, the
Tribe has 3 districts: 7-Mile Wash, Gilson Wash, and Peridot. Located
on the eastern edge of the Reservation is the District of Bylas.
The Reservation now, at its current size, spans three Arizona
counties: Gila, Graham, and Pinal. The total population is 13,299
members, which is based upon figures compiled by the Tribe's Enrollment
Office. 30% of the population is under the age of 18 years; 60% are
between the ages of 18-54; 4% are between the ages of 55-61; and 6% are
62 years of age or over.
Although some tribal members have moved away due to economic
depression on the Reservation and other reasons, a high majority of our
members, 84%, live on the Reservation. While we have worked hard to
develop our Reservation economy, 76% of our Reservation population is
unemployed compared to the national unemployment rate of 4.4% and the
state of Arizona rate of 3.9%. We suffer from a poverty level of 77%.
Public Schools that San Carlos Apache Students Attend
There are two public school districts that children from the San
Carlos Apache Reservation attend, the Ft. Thomas Unified School
District and the San Carlos Unified School District. Both school
districts' governing board members consist of many members of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe, including the Vice Chair for the Tribe and a
Tribal Council Member. The governing board president for the San Carlos
Unified School District has been actively engaged in bringing the
tribal community to the schools through his role as the health
educator.
The Arizona Department of Education supplies yearly academic report
cards for all school districts within the state. The most current
report card is for school year 2006-2007. AYP measurements are
determined using four objectives: number of students tested, meeting
test objectives, graduation rate, and attendance rate. During the first
100 days of the school year for 2006-07, the attendance rate for
students in both school districts was over 90%. However, as you will
see below, the academic achievement rates for these schools, as
measured under the current law, do not positively correlate to the high
attendance rates. Most of our schools are not making AYP because they
have failed to meet at least one of the four objectives. For example,
in the 2006-07 academic year, San Carlos High School did not make AYP
because of the low percentage of students tested. In FY 2006, San
Carlos Intermediate and San Carlos Junior High School did not make AYP
because of the low percentage of students tested. Also, San Carlos High
School failed to make AYP in FY 2006 because it did not meet the
graduation requirements due to the drop out rate at the school. Another
large determinant on the ability of our students to academically
perform in school is the high poverty level on the Reservation. For
example, almost all of our students take buses to school and live far
distances from their schools.
The Ft. Thomas Unified School District
The Fort Thomas Unified School District is comprised of two
schools:
(1) Fort Thomas Elementary School (FTES); and
(2) Fort Thomas High School (FTHS).
The elementary school had 249 students registered in the 2006-07
school year and the high school had 293 students. 95% of the students
enrolled in the Ft. Thomas Unified School District are members of the
San Carlos Apache Tribe. The Ft. Thomas Unified School District is
located on the east side of the Reservation and serves the Bylas
community.
Based upon the Arizona School Report Card Academic Year 2006-07,
the FTES failed to meet AYP for the past three academic years. However,
it did last year and currently is in Title 1 School Improvement Year 2
status (SI Year 2).\2\ The FTHS did not meet AYP the past academic year
despite meeting it for the two years prior and subsequently is in Title
I warning year status.
The Ft. Thomas Unified School District believes that the AYP
definition needs to be more user friendly because they are making
progress in our schools but the inflexible AYP labels do not reflect
the progress. Rather, the definition of AYP should include additional
measurements of success, especially measurements that gauge the
progression of individual student growth over time not only in math,
reading, and writing but also in other areas.
Based upon the Arizona School Report Card Academic Year 2006-07,
Ft. Thomas Unified School District students received AIMS testing in
mathematics, reading, and writing. In the area of mathematics testing,
of the 33 third grade FTES students tested, only 21% met the standard
compared to statewide results showing that 53% met the standard and 18%
exceeded. Of the 42 fifth grade FTES students tested in math, only 14%
met the standard compared to statewide results showing that 49% met the
standard and 19% exceeded the standard. Math testing for FTHS eighth
graders showed, of the 52 students tested, 10% met the standard
compared to statewide results showing 47% met the standard and 12%
exceeded the standard. Math testing for FTHS tenth graders showed that,
of the 33 students tested, 39% met the standard compared to statewide
results showing that 51% met the standard and 14% exceeded the
standard.\3\
In the area of reading testing, of the 33 third grade FTES students
tested, only 15% met the standard compared to statewide results showing
that 56% met the standard and 11% exceeded the standard. Of the 42
fifth grade FTES students tested in reading, only 26% met the reading
standard compared to statewide results showing that 58% met the
standard and 9% exceeded the standard. Of the 52 FTHS eighth graders
tested in reading, 12% met the standard compared to the statewide
results showing that 58% met the standard and 5% exceeded the standard.
For 34 FTHS tenth graders tested in reading, 44% met the standard
compared to statewide results showing 64% met the standard and 8%
exceeded.
The San Carlos Unified School District
The San Carlos Unified District is comprised of four schools:
(1) Rice Primary School (RPS) (grades K-2);
(2) San Carlos Intermediate (SCI) (grades 3-5);
(3) San Carlos Junior High School (SCJHS) (grades 6-8) and
(4) San Carlos High School (SCH) (grades 9-12).
Rice Primary School has 334 students (no AIMS testing takes place
before second grade). SCI has 285 students. SCJHS has 314 students. SCH
has 324 students. 99% of the 1,257 district students are members of the
San Carlos Apache Tribe or members of other recognized tribes.
Based upon the Arizona School Report Card Academic Year 2006-07, of
the four schools within the district, three did not meet AYP for
academic year 2006-07. SCH has not met AYP in six years and is
currently in Title I Restructuring (Implementation Phase); \4\ SCI is
in Title I Corrective Action status; \5\ and RPS did not meet AYP for
the past two years and is in Title I warning year status. SCJHS met AYP
for academic year 2005-06 but did not meet AYP in 2006-07 and is in
Title I School Improvement Year 4 or Restructuring (Planning Phase).\6\
Also, based upon the Arizona School Report Card for academic year
2006-07, San Carlos Unified School District students received AIMS
testing in mathematics, reading, and writing. Mathematics testing for
the three schools that tested this area included the following results:
for SCI, of the 85 third grade students tested, 19% met the standard
compared to statewide results showing 53% meeting the standard and 18%
exceeding. For SCJHS, of the 92 eighth grade students tested, 18% met
the standard compared to statewide results showing 47% meeting the
standard and 12% exceeding. For SCH, of the 79 tenth grade students
tested, 9% met the standard compared to statewide results showing 51%
meeting the standard and 14% exceeding.\7\
Reading testing results for SCI show, of the 73 third graders
tested, 23% met the standard compared to statewide results showing 56%
meeting the standard and 11% exceeding. For SCJHS, of the 91 eighth
grade students tested, 23% met the standard compared to statewide
results showing 58% meeting the standard and 5% exceeding. For SCH, of
the 86 tenth graders tested, 27% met the standard compared to statewide
results showing 64% meeting the standard and 8% exceeding.
The chart below depicts the rating or status of the public schools
for this school year based on the results of Arizona's Instrument to
Measure Standards Dual Purpose Assessment (AIMS DPA) in grades 3-8,
High School AIMS, and the TerraNova standardized testing in grades 2
and 9.
SAN CARLOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2006-2007 AZLEARNS AND NCLB STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Arizona Learns NCLB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice Primary................... Failing Warning
Intermediate School............ Underperforming Corrective Action
SC Junior High School.......... Underperforming Restructuring-
Planning
SC High School................. Performing Restructuring-
Implement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is data reported under NCLB for the San Carlos
Unified School District. The school district is struggling with the
Corrective Action label it has received for this school year 2006-2007.
San Carlos Unified School District 2006-2007 NCLB Data
District AYP Determination
Met Percent Tested?............................................... No
Met Test Objectives Reading or Math?.............................. No
Met 90% Attendance Rate?.......................................... Yes
Met Graduation Rate?.............................................. No
Made AYP?......................................................... No
Below is additional information provided by the San Carlos Unified
School District:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My District My District Arizona Schools
Grade ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Proficient in Math % Proficient in Reading % Proficient in Math % Proficient in Reading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3................................................... 19 23 53 11
4................................................... 45 19 45 19
5................................................... 25 32 49 58
6................................................... 12 14 46 60
7................................................... 24 31 52 58
8................................................... 18 23 47 58
10.................................................. 9 27 51 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is overwhelmingly apparent that the children of San Carlos face
a dire situation with regard to their educational needs. Testing scores
demonstrate the incredible disparity between Apache children on the
Reservation and other children within the state. Attendance records
show that these children are in school and exposed to educational
instruction and learning activities, so there is the possibility to
improve given the right tools.
To summarize, only 1 school out of 6 on the Reservation--Ft. Thomas
Elementary School--made AYP for the academic year 2006-07. Half the
schools on the Reservation have failed to make AYP for 2 consecutive
years. One of the schools--San Carlos High School--has never made AYP
since the enactment of NCLB. Further, when comparing test scores of
Apache students to other students state-wide, Apache students are
scoring at far lower proficiency levels.
Impact of Poverty on the Educational Needs of Students at San Carlos
As mentioned above, the poverty level on the San Carlos Apache
Reservation is 77% and the communities on the Reservation are rural and
isolated. This creates many basic needs for our students because of the
lack of housing, overcrowded housing, poor nutrition, lack of school
supplies, lack of opportunities, and public safety risks due to violent
crime, domestic abuse, drug use, and gang violence.
For example, in 2004, 64 babies out of 256 were born to San Carlos
Apache tribal members addicted to meth, and 24-25% of pregnant women at
San Carlos tested positive for meth. In 2005, the number of babies born
addicted to meth was even higher. About 50% of all newborns at San
Carlos test positive for alcohol or drugs. Babies born to mothers on
meth can be born meth-addicted themselves and suffer birth defects, low
birth weight, tremors, excessive crying, attention deficit disorder,
and behavior disorders. Also, they often have intestinal, cognitive,
and heart problems.
Further, in 2004, there were 101 suicide attempts on the
Reservation. The age range was 15 to 54 years old with 50 individuals
being females and 51 being males. Of the suicide attempts in 2004, 25
of the individuals were 18 years of age or under, 13 were between the
ages of 19 and 21, and 17 were between the ages of 22 and 25. Of the
101 suicide attempts, two resulted in death.
Naturally, these types of conditions psychologically, mentally, and
physically impact our children, including their ability to perform
academically. These situations also affect their outlook on life, their
motivation, and ability to have hope for the future. Many students
living in poverty do not have the experiences needed to enable them to
be successful in learning when they reach kindergarten and the early
grades. This situation results in poor test scores. This problem
creates a domino effect that widens the achievement gap even more when
these students reach the upper grades (4-12).
As an economically disadvantaged community, we rely heavily on
Title I dollars. For example, the San Carlos Unified School District
was awarded a total amount of $1,215,150.00 with a carryover of
$104,447.71 for the school year 2006-2007. Each year, its Title I grant
has been reduced by nearly 10% from the prior year's funding. The
following is a chart that shows the number of students at each school
in the San Carlos Unified School District, the poverty rating for each
school based on the results of the Free and Reduced School Lunch
program applications, and the amount that each school received.
SAN CARLOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2006-2007 TITLE I PROGRAM FUNDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School No. of Students Poverty Rate Funded Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate School................................. 285 95.94% $132,532.00
Junior High School.................................. 314 93.73% $137,120.00
High School......................................... 324 90.14% $167,691.00
Rice Primary........................................ 334 85.29% $162,594.00
*St. Charles........................................ 128 93.75% $61,163.00
*Peridot Lutheran\8\................................ 91 90.11% $41,795.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The schools on the Reservation do receive funding for educational
purposes in addition to Title I. For example, the San Carlos Unified
School District receives the following funds for our students and their
unique educational needs:
Title VII............................................... $229,392.00
JOM..................................................... $80,000.00
Title VIII (Impact Aid for 2005-2006)................... $7,001,315.00
Title III............................................... $0.00
Title II................................................ $151,307.00
The Ft. Thomas Unified School District received a total of
$3,715,939.47 for FY 2005-06 and the funding consisted of the
following:
Title I LEA............................................. $901,525.00
Title IIA Improving Teacher Quality..................... $121,988.15
Title IV Safe and Drug Free Basic....................... $29,208.32
Title VII............................................... $79,642.00
Title VIII Impact Aid................................... $3,715,939.47
Given the severe poverty levels on our Reservation, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to meet the myriad of requirements
imposed upon our schools by NCLB. We urge the Congress to provide full
funding for the mandates imposed under NCLB.
Also, IDEA and other special education laws need to be fully
funded. For numerous reasons, Indian Country schools, including the
schools on our Reservation, have a much larger percentage of special
education students. Additionally, these students should not be counted
in with regular education testing data, and those requiring
accommodations on testing should be allowed them without penalization.
Recruitment, Retention and Training of Teachers
San Carlos is located approximately 110 miles from Phoenix over the
mountains. The nearest towns are Globe and Safford and they are about
30 minutes away from the nearest tribal communities. Because of the
isolation on the Reservation and lack of housing, Highly Qualified (HQ)
teachers are difficult to recruit and difficult to retain. For example,
last year the third grade class at San Carlos Intermediate School was
taught by three teachers that were emergency certified. Two of these
teachers were not renewed for the next school year due to their status
as not being HQ. Below is additional information on the HQ teacher
challenges at this particular school.
SAN CARLOS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers Highly Qualified Not Highly Qualified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third 4 2
Fourth 5 1
Fifth 3 3
Total 12 = 67% 6 = 33%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Ft. Thomas High School, 14% of teachers in the school have
Emergency/Provisional Certification and 7% of core classes are not
taught by Highly Qualified Teachers. NCLB needs to be amended to allow
the school districts to train emergency endorsed teachers beyond one
school year.
The school districts report that non-Native teachers lack proper
training to effectively break the barriers of cultural differences.
Also, it appears that teachers who do not understand the unique needs
of their students do not take ownership of their class and, instead,
view themselves as visitors.
We urge the Congress to provide full funding for professional
development, in-service training, and Indian career ladder programs.
For example, under Title VII, Part A, Subparts 2 and 3, there are some
terrific Indian professional development programs and in-service
training programs for teachers of Indian children; however, these
programs have never been funded. If our Indian children are to succeed,
then their teachers need to have the proper tools to help their
students succeed. For far too long, our teachers have not been given
the proper resources to help our children learn. This needs to change
if our schools are to meet NCLB's goals by 2014.
We also urge the Congress to create additional programs to recruit
Indian teachers and to train non-Native teachers in the unique needs of
Indian students, such as in Title II of NCLB and in the TEACH Act. One
way to help us make our salaries competitive with other schools for HQ
teachers is to allow us to use impact aid dollars for salaries and
benefits beyond the revenue control limit. 49% of our school funding is
derived from impact aid.
Also, given that we are located in an isolated area, we will always
have a teacher shortage without available housing options. This creates
a challenge for us when competing against other schools on recruitment
and retention of HQ teachers. We request assistance in addressing this
problem.
Importance of Language and Culture in the Classrooms
Our Tribe is committed to ensuring that our children receive a
culturally based education. Through this type of education, they become
more engaged in school, can more readily identify with the curriculum,
and are more likely to stay in school. In the San Carlos Unified School
District, all four of its schools offer a language and culture class at
each site. The high school has an additional class that teaches the
culture and history of the Apaches. The school district employs five
Native teachers to operate these classes. Currently, the Ft. Thomas
Unified School District does not offer language and culturally based
curriculum because of the lack of certified teachers in this area.
However, Ft. Thomas does offer cultural instruction through an after-
school program (21st Century). This program has been successful in
building self-esteem and self-confidence in the students and increasing
their interest in learning beyond the regular school day.
Parental Support Issues
According to the San Carlos Unified School District, parents,
generally speaking, take a hands-off approach and do not get actively
involved in school activities. Perhaps it is because of the history of
the Apaches where they were forced to attend boarding schools and their
parents had no voice in their education. Schools invite parents today
but still continue to have only a small number come in to discuss their
children's progress. It is estimated that only 40% of parents come to
the schools. There may be other factors to account for this, such as
lack of transportation, overextended work schedules, and social ills.
The Ft. Thomas Unified School District reported that parental
involvement is not where it should be but they are making it a
priority. Also, Ft. Thomas has begun to include the tribal government
in its education process and activities.
Curriculum Development
The schools have choices when it comes to textbook adoptions
although it is actually the teachers who do the selection by voting at
least by 70%. Once the choice is made the series being recommended is
placed on public display for parents to review. The schools ensure that
the textbooks are aligned to the state standards.
Arizona Intervention and Solutions teams have conducted site visits
as part of their interventions and their common finding is that the
teachers in the schools are not teaching to state standards. Also, they
found that there was a lack of student engagement. This past year
another finding was that the professional development activities at
Rice Primary School and San Carlos Junior High School are not aligned
to the Arizona School Improvement Plan (ASIP).
Conclusion
We have a lot of work to do to achieve the goals of NCLB, but we
cannot do it without a strong partnership with the federal and state
governments. We have felt that our children have been left behind for a
long, long time and hope that we can work together to turn things
around so that our children and our children's children can grow up on
the Reservation, get a quality education, and fulfill their life-long
dreams and hopes. With such champions as you spearheading the Indian
education components of NCLB, we have hope that this important endeavor
can be accomplished so that NO Indian child is left behind.
endnotes
\1\ NCLB, Sec. 7101.
\2\ Title I School Improvement Year 2 is defined as a Title I
school that has not made AYP for 3 consecutive years. Upon
identification, the school must: notify parents/legal guardians of the
school status; develop and implement a School Improvement Plan within
90 days of the identification; set aside 10% of the school's Title I
funds for professional development for teachers and the principal; the
district must offer parents the option of transfer and offer
supplemental education services to eligible students, and offer support
to the school in its school improvement efforts.
\3\ The Arizona Report Card Academic Year 2006-07 does not show the
percentage of Ft. Thomas Unified School District students who exceeded
the AIMS standard.
\4\ A Title I Restructuring (Implementation Phase) is defined as a
school that has not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for six
consecutive years. Upon identification, the school must: notify
parents/legal guardians of the school status; develop and implement a
School Improvement Plan within 90 days of the identification; set aside
10% of the school's Title I funds for professional development for
teachers and the principal; the district must offer parents the option
of transfer and offer supplemental educational services to eligible
students, and offer support to the school in its school improvement
efforts. In addition, the school must prepare a restructuring plan and
make necessary arrangements to carry out one of the three restructuring
activities. See Section 1116(b) (8) of NCLB for a list of the
restructuring activities.
\5\ A Title I Corrective Action is defined as a school that has not
made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for four consecutive years. Upon
identification, the school must: notify parents/legal guardians of the
school status; develop and implement a School Improvement Plan within
90 days of the identification; set aside 10% of the school's Title I
funds for professional development for teachers and the principal; the
district must offer parents the option of transfer and offer
supplemental educational services to eligible students, and offer
support to the school in its school improvement efforts. In addition,
the school must choose and implement at least one of six corrective
actions. See Section 1116(b) (7) of NCLB for a list of the corrective
action options.
\6\ A Title I School Improvement Year 4 or Restructuring (Planning
Phase) is defined as a school that has not made adequate yearly
progress (AYP) for five consecutive years. Upon identification, the
school must: notify parents/legal guardians of the school status;
develop and implement a School Improvement Plan within 90 days of the
identification; set aside 10% of the school's Title I funds for
professional development for teachers and the principal; the district
must offer parents the option of transfer and offer supplemental
educational services to eligible students, and offer support to the
school in its school improvement efforts. In addition, the school must
prepare a restructuring plan and make necessary arrangements to carry
out one of the three restructuring activities. See Section 1116(b) (8)
of NCLB for a list of the restructuring activities.
\7\ The Arizona Report Card Academic Year 2006-07 does not show the
percentage of San Carlos Unified School District students who exceeded
the AIMS standard.
\8\ The San Carlos Unified School District serves two private
schools that are located within the boundaries of the district on the
San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation. These two private are parochial
schools. One school is a Lutheran school (Grades k-8); while, the other
is a Catholic school (Grades k-6). Title I does allow its funds to be
shared with the private schools.
______
Chairman. Kildee.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Miller? Give my regards to Chairman Payment.
STATEMENT OF TOM MILLER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SAULT STE. MARIE
TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
Mr. Miller. In fact, he sends his greeting, as does the
Board of the Directors of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
allowing us to testify on the effects of No Child Left Behind
on the tribes.
Our tribe is approximately 33,000 members. And we are
effected across the range of both public and BIE funded
systems.
No Child Left Behind is a well-intended law. And being an
educator first and a tribal council member second, that's how I
rate myself. No Child Left Behind was really a well intended
law. Maybe not particularly thought out before it was
implemented. Its glaring weakness is its effectively
underfunded mandated. In systems that already taxed for
operational, whether they be public or BIE education systems,
we are already stressed to the limit. Accepting a rule or a law
as this which has additional requirements without money
following it puts us in a no win situation.
Funding must accompany the requirement of any law if it is
to succeed. If education is truly as important as we all say it
is with these meetings and everything else we're doing, then I
do not know why we are even talking about funding, but we are
here and we are doing it right now.
Another point that many educators have brought up to me in
the No Child Left Behind law is that largely the law is a
negative law. Not that it is a bad law, but it is a negative
effect law. If you go through it, you will see that there are
penalties for not doing well but there are no rewards for doing
well, other than we are going to leave you alone. So we think
that needs to be looked at, like we do with the discipline with
the children. Children seem to react better to positive
reenforcement than negative reenforcement.
The BIE system is largely and historically underfunded on a
regular basis by at least $1500 per student. We pick up one
unfunded mandate and we are beyond the capabilities of doing
anything.
The other thing that we have is that in facilities. No
Child Left Behind assumes that all the schools have adequate
facilities to begin with. That is not so. In the BIE funded
system we are far beyond. We are in a race now to catch up. We
are running into problems with the process that we have. So we
need to really make sure that funding catches up in facilities
and also that we get educators involved in building schools. We
have the situation of noneducators basically running our
construction system, and it is not working to this point.
A number of other things effect the tribe of Chippewa
Indians is that Johnson O'Malley has been taking a steady
decrease and been threatened with funding. We need to make sure
that that stays where it is at. Because all these reductions in
laws, whether they be directly related to No Child Left Behind
or not, effect us. It reduces the amount of educational funds
that we have to work with.
Title VII is averaging about $250 a student now in the
reimbursement. That is down. I think it has to stop and it has
to go the other way. We need to increase, not decrease the
amount of funding that we have in those programs that are
particularly handling Native American students in public
systems and providing a cultural tie to the tribes.
Title VII, Impact Aid. Reduced 29 million in the 2008
budget. The $1.34 billion budget that is needed effects many of
the students that are on or near reservation lands and the
ability of those public schools in that area to adequately
educate native students. It also effects the ability of those
schools to provide adequate educational facilities.
Here is what I think I am trying to paraphrase here, is
that every education is important. And there seems to be a lot
of concerns with students. I have more faith in the students of
today than I guess than many do. They know ten times what we
know. If you do not believe that, when you get in trouble with
a computer call a child over, he will fix it for you.
So I think that we are going to come out okay in this. I
think that it is basically taking the educational information
that we are teaching children and maybe channeling that to what
makes them marketable or able to go on to college, or whatever
the goals would be of that student. But I do have the faith in
the youth of today. And I think you for the opportunity to test
it.
[Statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Miller, Member, Board of Directors, Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Good morning Chairman Kildee and members of the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood and Elementary and Secondary Eduaction. Testimony
opportunities such as this today are important in a process that allows
for the tribes to submit meaningful comments and suggestions that will
affect Indian Education. Mr. Chairman, your support of the tribes and
in particular, the education of our native american children, is well
known and greatly appreciated. On behalf of the Sault Ste Marie Tribe
of Chippewa Indians, I would like to personally thank you for your
steadfast support over the years. My name is Tom Miller, and I am an
elected member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
governing Board of Directors. Our Tribe includes over 33,000 members,
making it one of the largest Tribal Nations in the United States. Our
membership includes a significant number of school-aged children, in
the BIE funded system and in public schools, all of whom are impacted
by No Child Left Behind. I am also the Superintendent of the
Hannahville Indian School which is located on the Hannahville Indian
(Potawatomi) reservation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In
addition to this, I am the school board chairperson for the Bahweting
Anishnabe School, located on the Sault Ste Marie Tribal reservation,
also located in the upper Peninsula of Michigan. On behalf of the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and Native American students in
all schools, I urge your continued commitment to No Child Left Behind
and to effective education by providing greater funding and flexibility
necessary for improvement of BIA education, facilities and the
implementation of Title VII and VIII.
No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act is a well intended law with an overall
goal of increasing the educational levels of our students that is
commendable. As it now stands, it is largely an unfunded mandate. This
is of an extreme concern to the schools within the BIE funded system
which has historically been underfunded and cannot assume any unfunded
mandates. We are reccomending that the funding be appropriated at
adequate levels which will allow the schools to be able to pay for the
required activities that will better achieve the goals of NCLB.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)--Title X, Section D
The Bureau of Indian Education will need increased appropriations
to allow the schools to successfully compete in this race to raise
overall academic achievement and make adequately yearly progress (AYP).
Our base funding with the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) had
yearly trailed the national average of student revenue by at least
$1500 per student. This coupled with stagnant levels of the Title
programs, have limited our abilility to keep pace with many of the
activities needed to increase overall educational performance (e.g.
teacher quality). We also need a period of stability within the BIE
system that will allow us to affect the needed changes that must take
place with many schools. The recent attempt by the Bureau to reorganize
over the objections of the tribes is classic example of why we must
have this stability during this important period. If this proposed
reorganization had taken place, the schools would have been in a state
of chaos and the education of the students would have affected
negatively. A better idea would include working with the tribes that
are in that particular agency or region to design an effective model
for the BIE to better service the schools and studnets. Adequate
funding and stability within the BIE system are absolutely necessary if
we are to meet the raised bar on education as required by NCLB.
At present, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded schools are
in a process of attempting to catch up in the construction of new and
or renovated educational facilities. Many of the requirements of NCLB
assume that the schools have the facilities that will allow them to
perform the educational services that are needed to achieve academic
success or adequate yearly progress. As of now, our BIE facility
process of new and replacement school construction has a serious
disconect with education. There are long periods of delays, mainly
related to disagreements between the tribes and the Office of
Facilities Management & Construction (OFMC) on the targeted number of
students that the school will be sized for. This has ultimately led to
reductions in the yearly appropriations for construction because of the
delay in the utilization of the appropriated construction dollars.
Tribal input is not being given it's proper consideration in this
process. School construction needs to be brought under the direction of
BIE. This will bring educators on the Bureau side into the building of
schools and greatly improve the present process.
Title VII
Experienced educators within Indian Country will report that Indian
children learn better and perform better academically, if they
understand the connection between academic curriculum and Tribal
culture. Title VII programs are used as a bridge, connecting academic
and cultural studies together. Currently, the Title VII formula grants
provide approximately $250 per Indian pupil at public school districts.
The programming supplements traditional school curriculum with cultural
programming. Tragically, most school systems are unable to implement
adequate cultural programs due to inflexible schedules dictated by the
No Child Left Behind Act. Often, before the ``connection'' between the
academic subject-matter and the cultural import is made, the rigid
schedules force teachers to stop teaching and focus solely upon
testing. Native American students lose out. Equally as unfortunate,
most school districts receive inadequate funds to implement Title VII
Indian Education programs for all students. Most focus on academic
tutoring at the elementary school age and provide little or no services
to students at the middle and high school ages. Our experience has
shown that middle and high school years are critical periods for our
Native American students, as this is when we experience our highest
dropout levels. It is important for Title VII services include school
retention services. Please note also, that Title VII funds may be used
for professional development of teachers. There is a need to provide
cultural training for teachers, to assist them in working better with
our Native American students and families. School districts are hard
pressed to divert Title VII funds away from direct academic services
and support these training needs. Additional Title VII funds for this
purpose would assist school districts in supporting this important
need.
I urge you to support greater flexibility in curriculum and testing
schedules. Increased flexibility would encourage the development of
programs that would effectively combine academic subject matter with
cultural relevance, improving Native American students' chances for
success. I also urge you to provide for a 5% increase of $9.3 million
over the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution level of $195.8 million for No
Child Left Behind Title VII funding. Specifically: $4 million of the
increase should go to national research activities (Title VII, Part A,
Sub Part 3), focusing on analyzing effective approaches and the current
status and needs of Indian children in school. The remainder should go
to the Restoration of funding for Education for Native Hawaiians and
Alaska Native Education Equity. President Bush's cut eliminated its
funding.
Title VIII
The Title VIII Impact Aid Program is being reduced by $29 million
from the proposed FY 2007 Continuing Resolution level, under the
President's FY 2008 Budget proposal. Please note the proposed FY 2007
Continuing Resolution level is already inadequately funded, as the need
for new school facilities far exceeds the funding provided to build new
facilities. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians has several
school districts within its area. School construction needs have
exploded over recent years. Many of the schools are old and in need of
repair, or in need of being re-built.
I urge you to provide a total of $1.342 billion be allocated for
Impact Aid. The increase of $85 million for the FY 2007 Continuing
Resolution level would allow for some progress to be made in meeting
the public school construction needs on reservations throughout the
country. Keep in mind that the funding used for Impact Aid helps meet
the needs of Indians and non-Indians alike.
Conclusion
Thank you for listening to me in my capacity as a Native educator
and an elected tribal representative. By working together, we can make
a positive difference in the world for our children.
______
Chairman Kildee.
Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
And Johnson O'Malley, I agree with you. Congressman
Grijalva has made that a very special interest of his. And I am
sure he will make comments on that also. This is one of his
areas of expertise.
Now Dr. Gilbert.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLARD S. GILBERT, PRESIDENT-ELECT NATIONAL
INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Dr. Gilbert. Good morning, Congressman Kildee and
Congressman Grijalva. It is a pleasure to see both of you
again.
On behalf of the National Indian Education Association I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to give testimony
before the House Education and Labor Committee on the No Child
Left Behind reauthorization and impact on Indian education.
Founded in 1969, NIEA is the largest organization in the
nation dedicated to Native education advocacy issues and
professional development for our Native and non-Native
educators who teach our Native students.
NIEA's top legislative priority is to strengthen Indian
education through traditions that provide a meaningful tribal
involvement and setting the educational priorities for Indian
students.
NIEA has actively prepared for the NCLB's reauthorization
by conducting 11 field hearings with over 120 witnesses in
Native communities across the country and has based the
recommendations on the hearings of testimony of our membership.
Key categories are at the heart of these recommendations.
Number one: Improve Title VII to address the unique
cultural and educational needs of Native children. Title VII
and NCLB recognize that Native children have unique educational
needs due to their cultures and backgrounds and the purpose of
Title VII in NCLB is to provide cultural-based educational
approaches for Native students. These approaches have been
proven to increase student performance success as well as
awareness and knowledge of student cultures, languages and
histories. Native learning is strengthened through instruction
that integrates traditional cultural practices with basic
skills. NIEA is proposing amendments to focus the purpose to
include both academic achievement through culturally-based
education and to increase the cultural and traditional
knowledge base of Indian students. This concept is not new to
education.
As far back as 1928 the Marion Report recommended
incorporation of tribal languages in culture programs in school
curriculum, recommended Native teachers to teach in schools
serving Native students, and also was a forerunner in the idea
of a culture-based education.
The Indian Education Act of 1972 provided funding to
develop culturally-based curriculum and actively engaged
parental participation to develop Native language and culture
programs and to increase the number of Native teachers. Current
research demonstrates that cultural education can be
successfully integrated into the classroom in a manner that
provides Native students with instruction in four subject
areas. Any subject matter may be successfully taught in
curricula to instill the Native traditional and culture
concepts and knowledge.
NIEA's science connections research project that I
personally conducted with the Navajo tribes successfully
integrated data culture, language and traditions into the
science curricula and demonstrated that it improved student
academic achievement and attitude toward science and science
education.
All the innovative programs that have improved academic
success in Indian Country incorporate language and culture. The
Yukon Indian Education program in Yukon, Oklahoma uses funding
from Title VII to purchase materials for arts and crafts
lessons that incorporate reading and math. Additionally, the
Title VII program has helped 11 schools update their libraries
with approximately 900 books with Native American content.
The Anchorage School District has developed a culturally
responsive six year instructional plan to chart a course for
closing the academic achievement gap while concurrently
increasing achievement for all students through implementation
of a culturally responsive continuum.
NIEA's proposed amendments to Title VII provide for more
emphasis on meeting the unique cultural language and
educational needs of Indian students through enrichment
programs that supplement other NCLB programs and result in
academic achievement for Indian students.
Number two: Strengthen NCLB to provide support for
instruction in Native American languages. Research demonstrates
that Native children perform better academically when they are
taught in a manner that is consistent with their traditions,
language and cultures.
Native language immersion programs provide a proven method
to enable Native students to achieve academically in the areas
of math, reading and science as well as in other content areas.
For example, students in a Lower Kuskokwim School District in
Alaska receive instruction in their Native languages and
achieve Adequate Yearly Progress. As in the Navajo immersion
school, both the third and fifth graders are performing at
higher levels than their mainstream counterparts in the state
reading, writing and math assessments.
There are 18 public immersion schools in Hawaii and they
out perform Hawaii students in public general education. Native
language immersion students are meeting and exceeding the state
standards of English and academic standards nationally and we
are making the academic benchmark of AYP under NCLB.
Number three: Improve cooperation among tribes, states and
the Federal Government. NIEA seeks stronger emphasis on
encouraging states, tribal governments and communities,
neighboring areas, and the Federal Government to work laterally
in developing educational standards and related assessments.
NIEA's proposed amendments provide for the inclusion of tribal
input on the development of the various state, local and school
plans.
Additionally, NIEA's amendments promote coordination of
programs across Title I and Title VII to foster better
programming to meet the unique cultural languages and
educational needs of Indian students.
Many Native communities are located in rural areas where
the number of highly qualified teachers is in short supply.
NIEA seeks to strengthen NCLB by including programs to build
capacity within Native communities for increasing the pool of
teachers.
And number five: Increase funding for NCLB, specifically
Title VII.
NIEA supports the strengthening of NCLB, ensuring that
Title VII cannot be supplanted to meet the shortfalls in tribal
titles of NCLB. NIEA supports the strengthening of NCLB through
the inclusion of language that protects the limited resources
of Title VII. NIEA proposes in its amendment a moderate
increase from the current authorizing level of $96.4 million to
$130 million for Title VII Part A and subpart 1, which is an
amount equal to the increase of five percent each year
beginning in fiscal year 2003.
NIEA has also recommended an increase in the
reauthorization of subparts 2 and 3 to $34 million, which is
the amount equal to an increase of five percent each year
beginning in fiscal year '03.
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
[The statement of Dr. Gilbert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Willard S. Gilbert, President-Elect, National
Indian Education Association
On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the
oldest and largest Native education organization representing American
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian educators and students,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the House
Education and Labor Committee on the recommendations from Indian
Country on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
Founded in 1969, NIEA is the largest organization in the nation
dedicated to Native education advocacy issues and embraces a membership
of over 3,000 American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
educators, tribal leaders, school administrators, teachers, parents,
and students. NIEA works with all tribes to advocate for the unique
educational and culturally-related academic needs of Native students
and to ensure that the federal government upholds its responsibility
for the education of American Indians. The trust relationship of the
United States includes the responsibility to ensure educational quality
and access.
NIEA's top legislative priority is to strengthen the education of
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians through
effective and meaningful education programs and approaches in the
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NIEA is
committed to strengthening NCLB for Indian Country through provisions
that provide for meaningful tribal involvement in setting the
educational priorities for Indian students and of the inclusion of
Native language and cultural instruction.
NIEA has actively prepared for the reauthorization of NCLB by
conducting 11 field hearings with over 120 witnesses in Native
communities across the country. NIEA has also conducted numerous
listening sessions and meetings with Native students, educators, school
administrators, Native parents, and tribal leaders to learn about the
challenges Native people face under NCLB. Based upon this extensive
dialogue, NIEA prepared its Preliminary Report on NCLB in Indian
Country and its NCLB Policy Recommendations. At the end of last month,
NIEA submitted comprehensive draft legislative amendments to this
Committee and to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee for consideration for inclusion in the bill that will
reauthorize NCLB.
As an organization of Native educators, NIEA supports high
achievement standards for all children and holding public schools
accountable for results. Further, NIEA lauds the goal of Title VII of
NCLB to meet the unique cultural and educational needs of Native
children. Title VII affirms the Federal Government's support for
culturally based education approaches as a strategy for positively
impacting Native student achievement. NIEA wants to strengthen NCLB to
better serve the needs of Native communities, particularly those who
live in remote, isolated and economically disadvantaged environments.
NIEA's amendments to NCLB focus on several key as set forth below.
Improving and Expanding Title VII to Address the Unique Cultural and
Educational Needs of Native Children
Title VII of NCLB recognizes that Native children have unique
educational needs due to their cultures and backgrounds. The purpose of
Title VII \1\ of NCLB is to provide culturally based educational
approaches for Native students. These approaches have been proven to
increase student performance and success as well as awareness and
knowledge of student cultures and histories. Part A of Title VII deals
specifically with the education of American Indian and Alaska Native
students, and NIEA has proposed amendments to focus the purpose of this
part to include both academic achievement through culturally based
education and to increase the cultural and traditional knowledge base
of Indian students.
Part A of Title VII contains provisions for American Indian
Education and provides supplemental grants to local educational
agencies, tribes, Native organizations, educational organizations, and
others to provide programs and activities to meet academic, cultural,
and language needs of Native children. Native learning is strengthened
through instruction that integrates basic skills with traditional
cultural practices and embraces the knowledge of the environment,
Native fine arts and crafts, leadership, character education and
citizenship.
Last year, the Department of Education advised Indian education
programs receiving Title VII funding to shift their focus from the
teaching of culture to math and reading. In fact, the Department of
Education wrote a letter to the Superintendent of St. Paul schools in
Minnesota directing that there be a ``gradual shift of focus from
history and culture to reading and math.'' \2\ This shift in purposes
under Title VII causes a great deal of concern for NIEA and our
members. By law, Native children should have access to culturally
relevant and appropriate curriculum that support their academic
achievement so that they may meet the standards that all children are
supposed to meet.
At each of the 11 hearings that NIEA held on NCLB, concern was
highly focused on the significant narrowing of the curriculum and the
decrease in the use of culturally appropriate teaching approaches known
to be effective for Native students given the increased focus on
testing and direct standardized instructional approaches. NIEA is
witnessing a broad-based reduction and diminishment of culturally based
education in schools which provide an effective and meaningful
education for Native students. In classrooms across Indian Country,
Native languages and cultures are being used less and less in teaching
Native students math, science, or reading because Indian children are
drilled all day long on the materials contained on standardized tests.
These teaching methods do not work when teaching Indian children.
Generally speaking, our children see and order their world very
differently from most other children due to their culture and ways of
life, and, as a result, learn in different ways.
NIEA strongly believes that cultural education can be successfully
integrated into the classroom in a manner that would provide Native
students with instruction in the core subject areas based upon cultural
values and beliefs. Math, reading, language arts, history, science,
physical education, music, and cultural arts can be taught in
curriculum steeped in Native traditional and cultural concepts.
Innovative programs that have proven academic success in Indian Country
incorporate language and culture.
The Yukon Title VII/Indian Education Program in Yukon, Oklahoma
uses funding from Title VII to purchase materials for arts and crafts
lessons that incorporate reading and math. Additionally, the Title VII
program has helped each school (11 in all) update their libraries with
close to 900 books with Native American content. The Anchorage School
District located in Anchorage, Alaska has developed a culturally
responsive six year instructional plan to chart a course for closing
the achievement gap while concurrently increasing achievement for all
students through implementation of a culturally responsive continuum.
The plan is based on a survey where responses indicated that culturally
related solutions (more Native culture, more Native language, more
Native teachers) were most commonly the reasons for improving schools
for Alaska Natives.
Given that Native children are performing at far lower academic
achievement levels than other categories of students, Title VII
programs should be expanded and strengthened to ensure that No Child
Left Behind also means No Culture Left Behind through the use of
culturally based education to meet the unique educational needs of
Native students. NIEA's proposed amendments to Title VII provide for
more emphasis on meeting the unique cultural, language and educational
needs of Indian students through enrichments programs that supplement
other NCLB programs and will result in academic achievement of Indian
students. In FY 2006, Title VII served over 469,000 Indian students and
1,196 local education agencies.
Strengthening NCLB to Provide Support for Instruction in Native
American Languages
Titles III, Subparts A and B, as well as Title VII currently allow
for Native language instruction; however, these provisions should be
strengthened so that schools can successfully achieve their educational
goals and meet academic standards. NIEA's proposed amendments to
support Native languages provide additional support for language
immersion schools and restoration programs in addition to language
activities inside the classroom. Research shows that Native children
perform better academically when they are taught in a manner that is
consistent with their traditions, languages, and cultures. Native
language immersion programs, which have been proven to dramatically
improve Native student achievement in English and in Native languages,
highlight the reasons to strengthen Title VII.
Specifically, Native language immersions programs have fostered
higher academic achievement and interest in learning from American
Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. Studies have shown
that, while Native American children and youth have exhibited stagnant
educational achievement (and have the poorest achievement of all
American ethnic groups), Native language immersion has demonstrated
remarkable promise in educational achievement.\3\ National studies on
language learning and educational achievement indicate the more
language learning, the higher the academic achievement. Native language
immersion programs provide a proven method to enable Native students to
achieve academically in the areas of math, reading, and science as well
as in the areas of arts and languages. For many Native students living
in rural and isolated areas, subjects that are taught in non-cultural
pedagogies and removed from a tribal perspective are often lost on
Native students due to the non-relevance of the materials to their
lives and identities.
Solid data from the immersion school experience indicates that
language immersion students experience greater success in school
measured by consistent improvement on local and national measures of
achievement.\4\
For example, students in the Lower Kuskokwim School District in
Alaska receive instruction in their Native languages and achieving
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In a Navajo immersion school, both the
third and fifth graders are performing at higher levels than their
mainstream counterparts in the state reading, writing, and math
assessments. Native students attending language immersion schools are
learning state content standards of math, reading, writing, science,
and social studies in addition to Native language and culture
standards. Native language immersion students are meeting and exceeding
the state standards in English and academic standards nationally and
are making the academic benchmarks for AYP under NCLB.
While data specific to Native American language immersions schools
is continuing to be compiled, national studies from both the public and
private sectors emphasize the positive impact of language studies on
educational achievement.\5\ Language revitalization and maintenance
programs must be incorporated into NCLB so that the implementation of
education provisions does not hinder or preclude the offering of Native
American languages efforts, including immersion for Native Americans as
a part of their educational experience. NCLB must recognize and support
Native language revitalization and maintenance efforts of Native
American communities.
Improving Cooperation Among Tribes, States, and the Federal Government
NIEA seeks stronger emphasis in encouraging states, tribal
governments and communities, neighboring areas, and the federal
government to work together in developing the educational standards and
related assessments. NIEA's proposed amendments provide for the
inclusion of tribal input on the development of the various state,
local educational agency, and school plans. Additionally, NIEA's
amendments promote coordination of programs across Titles I and VII to
foster better programming to meet the unique cultural, language, and
educational needs of Indian students.
NIEA supports the strengthening of NCLB assessments that considers
the cultural and educational needs of Native students. States should be
required to involve tribes located within their boundaries in the
development of state plans to allow for the coordination of activities
under the different titles of NCLB. Further, NIEA supports the
strengthening of NCLB to provide resources for collaboration among
tribes, states, and the Federal Government to allow for increased
opportunities in the development of standards that recognize the
cultural backgrounds of Native students. Local educational agencies
should also be required to consult and seek the input of tribes located
in the areas they serve when developing their district plans.
Throughout NIEA's extensive consultation with Indian Country, we
have learned that when a school is placed on school improvement for
failing to make AYP, they are often advised to focus their activities
on reading and math programs. This redirected and ill- advised focus
results in the exclusion of language and cultural programs to the
detriment of increasing achievement for Native students. NIEA has
proposed that school improvement plans include the input of tribal
representatives and promotion of culturally based education as a proven
method of increasing academic achievement.
Improving Support for Teachers of Native Students
Many Native communities are located in rural areas where the number
of highly qualified teachers is in short supply. NIEA seeks to
strengthen NCLB by including programs to build capacity within Native
communities for increasing the pool of teachers. This initiative to
provide for improved professional development through pre-service and
in-service training for teachers and administrators would also prepare
Native peoples to become highly qualified teachers who are also
cultural practitioners and can continue upon a career ladder as School
Administrators, Board of Education members, and community educators.
The definition of ``highly qualified teacher'' in NCLB for teachers
who educate Native students enhances school accountability through the
achievement of AYP. When teachers are able to understand and apply
culture and language skills and abilities of Native students in their
classes, the students flourish. This definition of highly qualified
should include opportunities for Native language and cultural experts
in the curricular programs of schools.
Improving Opportunities for Parents, Families, and Tribes and other
Native Communities to Participate in the Education of Native
Children
The schools that are successful are the schools where the parents,
families, tribes, and the local communities are actively involved and
engaged in the school's programs and activities. NCLB should be
strengthened to allow increased opportunities for parents, families,
and tribes and other Native communities to become more involved in
their children's schools and in the development of their educational
programs. NIEA advocates for increased parental involvement by
improving their knowledge, skills and understanding of standards-based
education and school accountability. NIEA supports NCLB in the
promotion of standards-based education as a family responsibility that
helps children to achieve.
Improving the Measurement System for Adequate Yearly Progress
The current accountability system needs to be strengthened to allow
for broader measures of academic achievement over a period of time
within the 2014 goal. Instead of focusing on state-wide standardized
tests in only math and reading, NCLB could be strengthened to include
success on multi-disciplinary and multi-level curriculum and
instruction as additional measures of achievement.
Many factors in Native communities affect student and school
achievement, such as poverty, transportation, poor health care, and
poor housing. NIEA supports the encouragement of best practices that
increase Native student academic achievement but also seeks flexibility
in achievement measures to accommodate these extenuating factors.
Further, flexibility in the measurements for accountability could
accommodate Native language immersion programs, which have been proven
to significantly increase Native student academic achievement over
time. To further explain, Native language immersion schools have
reported to NIEA that they struggle in the early elementary schools
grades to meet AYP because the testing is in English. However, over
time, these same students in the latter elementary school grades
dramatically outperform their peers academically on tests in English
and that these immersion schools are meeting AYP.
Requiring the Collection of Data and Research on the Education of
Native Children
NIEA supports the strengthening of NCLB by providing resources to
conduct culturally based research. Support for best practices research
to educate Native students and use of indigenous research criteria for
federally assisted education programs benefits Native student
achievement and improves academic measures of school success. NIEA
supports the strengthening of NCLB to build capacity of Native
education systems to develop, implement, collect and analyze systematic
data on the educational status and needs of Native students. NIEA
supports the strengthening of NCLB to assist Native education systems
to use data to inform and improve student academic achievement. NIEA
supports the strengthening of NCLB through partnerships with Native
education school systems and the Departments of Education and Interior.
This research initiative could provide for partnerships to support
efforts in Native communities that improve education program services
and program accountability.
Increasing Funding for NCLB, especially Title VII
When NCLB was enacted, Congress promised to provide the resources
necessary to meet its many requirements, provide school improvement
funds to schools that failed AYP, provide increased resources
especially for disadvantaged students and to help close achievement
gaps by improving teacher quality, student achievement, and program
accountability. However, NCLB has never been funded at the authorized
levels. NIEA supports the strengthening of NCLB Title VII through
resources that would support pre-service and in-service training for
teachers, resources that support national research activities,
fellowships for Native students, programs for gifted and talented
Native students, grants to tribes for education administrative planning
and development, educational services programs for Native students, and
educational opportunity programs for Native students. Only by funding
these critical programs on a sustained basis can we ensure that No
Child is Left Behind.
NIEA also supports the strengthening of NCLB by providing resources
that adequately fund Title I programs. NIEA supports the strengthening
of NCLB by ensuring that Title VII resources cannot be supplanted to
meet the shortfalls in other Titles of NCLB. NIEA supports the
strengthening of NCLB through the inclusion of language that protects
the limited resources of Title VII.
NIEA continues to be concerned with the inadequate funding in the
Department of Education and the Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, for Indian education programs and activities. Due to
the tight federal budget, NIEA proposes in its amendments a moderate
increase from the current authorizing level of $96.4 million to $130
million for Title VII, Part A, Subpart 1, which is an amount equal to
an increase of 5% each year beginning in fiscal year 2003. NIEA has
also increased the authorization for Subparts 2 and 3 to $34 million,
which is an amount equal to an increase of 5% each year beginning in
fiscal year 2003.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools
There are only two education systems for which Federal government
has direct responsibility: the Department of Defense Schools and
Federally and Tribally operated schools that serve American Indian
students through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the
Department of the Interior. The federally supported Indian education
system includes 48,000 elementary and secondary students, 29 tribal
colleges, universities and post- secondary schools. Approximately 10%
of Native children attend BIA schools while the remaining 90% attend
public schools supported through the Department of Education.
Only one third of the BIA funded schools are achieving AYP. NIEA is
concerned about the applicability of state standards to Native children
attending BIA schools. More often than not, states develop the
standards without consultation and inclusion of the tribal communities.
Tribal communities are in the best position to determine the needs and
the appropriate assessment methods for Native students. NIEA's
amendments provide for the ability of a consortium of tribes, BIA
funded schools, or school boards to apply for a waiver of the
definition of AYP. Currently, a single tribe, school board or BIA
funded school may apply for a waiver, however, considering the
significant amount of time and resources needed to successfully submit
an application, very few tribes, if any, have been able to submit an
application on their own. NIEA strongly supports the possibility of
developing and applying alternative tribal standards to measure AYP for
students attending BIA schools.
Conclusion
NIEA is committed to accountability, high standards and rigorous
education of our children; however, the implementation of NCLB by the
federal government does not enable Native students to meet their
academic potentials given the lack of consideration of their cultures,
languages, backgrounds, and identities. Cultural identity and rigorous
educational standards are compatible and complementary. We believe with
good faith collaboration that we can provide our children with an
education that honors who they are as Indian children while preparing
them for successful futures as they define it.
As part of its efforts on reauthorization, NIEA will continue to
perform as much outreach as possible so that the Congress can better
understand the needs of Native students, thereby allowing student needs
to be addressed during reauthorization of NCLB. We are extremely
appreciative of Chairman Dale Kildee's unparalleled support for Indian
education and for his tireless and steadfast commitment to Indian
Country. Indian Country has no better friend than Chairman Kildee. We
are also appreciative of Chairman George Miller's and Representative
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's tour of school conditions and meetings with
students, teachers, and tribal leaders at the Pine Ridge and Rosebud
Reservations in South Dakota on March 22, 2006. We thank this Committee
for making Indian education a top priority and for holding this
important hearing today. We hope that there can continue to be more
Congressional outreach to Indian Country, including additional field
hearings in other regions of Indian Country, so that the challenges and
issues impacting Native students can be better understood.
endnotes
\1\ Title VII of the No Child Left Behind Act incorporates the
Indian Education Act of 1972.
\2\ Correspondence from Bernard Garcia, Group Leader, Office of
Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, to Patricia Harvey,
Superintendent, St. Paul Public Schools, received on November 4, 2005.
\3\ Pease--Pretty on Top, Janine. Native American Language
Immersion: Innovative Native Education for Children & Families.
American Indian College Fund: Denver, Colorado. 2003.
\4\ McCarty, Teresa L. and Dick, Galena Sells. ``Mother Tongue
Literacy and Language Renewal: The Case of the Navajo.'' Proceedings of
the 1996 World Conference on Literacy. University of Arizona: Tucson,
AZ. 1996.
\5\ Sugarmen, Julie and Howard, Liz. ``Two Way Immersion Shows
Promising Results: Findings of a New Study.'' Center for Applied
Linguistics, ERIC/CLL Language Link. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and
Linguistics: Washington, DC. September 2001, p. 2-3.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
And Dr. Bordeaux?
STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER BORDEAUX, DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF
COMMUNITY TRIBAL SCHOOLS
Dr. Bordeaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee for allowing us to spend a few minutes with you just
to talk about the impacts of NCLB on Indian education in the
different areas.
I want to especially thank you for the nearly 30 years of
helping Indian children and Indian tribes and Indian
communities, specifically with education. When you decided to
take over Indian education for the Committee on Ed and Labor in
1979, that was a real wise decision on your behalf and it has
helped us greatly.
One of the examples is our own school itself at Tiospa
Zina. In 1984 you specifically worked with the Administration
to make sure that we were able to get a 638 contract because of
some moratorium language there. And just to make sure that you
understand that we are grateful for what you did.
Our school started in 1982 with 12 kids. And this year we
are servicing over 600 children. And it is something that you
had a great impact on in establishing. And those are the kind
of success that exist in Indian communities and tribal schools
in a lot of other places. It is not all about making adequately
yearly progress, it is not all about making sure 100 percent of
our children are proficient, even though that is a very good
goal to have. I mean, there are a lot of other successes that
exist in Indian communities that need to be recognized instead
of saying you make it or do not make it AYP and you are up the
creek. So, I think, you got to make sure that people understand
that education is not only about making adequate yearly
progress. And we have some suggestions for possible changes in
doing that.
You also heard from a number of other people about the
problem with the resources that we have. For tribal schools 100
percent of our funding is federal funding. The only other money
we get is we have to go out and solicit money from our tribes
or possibly in a few cases are able to get some state funds.
But all of our funds are federally funded. So we have to go to
Congress and advocate for what we need.
Tom said there is a $1500 shortfall in basic support in
tribal schools, shortfall in Johnson O'Malley, the unfunded
stuff; everything that happens with NCLB is a direct result of
what the Administration recommends to Congress and what
Congress is able to pass. So that is something that is really
important to us is in working with the Federal Government to
try to get those resources that we need.
There is a lot of schools that are on reservations that are
in the poorest counties of the United States. I think I said
that in our testimony, that the top 15 poorest counties in the
United States, seven of them are in North and South Dakota. And
the poorest county, their average per pupil--I mean their
average income in a household is a little over $5,000 a year.
So if you have a family of four and you tried to live on $5,000
a year, it is very difficult.
In making a decision, even if your student happens to be
late in the morning for five or ten minutes, making a decision
to feed your family for the $5 that you have or buying a gallon
and a half of gas to take your child to school and back is a
real tough decision to make. I mean, people got to realize that
a lot of communities, and especially Indian communities, are in
the poorest counties of the United States and they need some
specific help in trying to help themselves to become better.
And the best way for that to do is through education.
I had also provided three or four different illustrations
to talk specifically about what I consider deficit model for
academic improvement. A lot of the schools that are struggling
right now with making adequate yearly progress I would almost
venture to guess that nearly 100 percent of them are proud of
their school and they are making academic success. But because
they started out when No Child Left Behind started, because
they started out below the state's average on making adequately
progress, they have to make the 20 or 30 percent deficit up in
one or two years or three years to try to make it--to make
adequately yearly progress, even if you try to use Safe Harbor
or two year averaging. If the school's population starts at 30
percent and the state starts at 50 or 52 percent, there is a
deficit right there, but the law expected them the very next
year to be up where adequate yearly progress is. And if you are
not able to make it, you can increase from 30 to 35 to 38 to 40
and stuff like that. You may not make it through--you will not
make it through the normal way. It will be real difficult to
make it through Safe Harbor or using the 2 or 3 year averaging
process. But there has to be a way of recognizing academic
progress and still not making adequate yearly progress. So we
have a lot of written recommendations for you, and hopefully
you will take a look at the recommendations that we have.
Thank you.
[Statement of Dr. Bordeaux follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Roger Bordeaux, Director, Association of
Community Tribal Schools
My name is Dr. Roger Bordeaux; I am a Sicangu Lakota serving as the
superintendent of Tiospa Zina Tribal School on the Sisseton Wahpeton
Oyate reservation, the Executive Director of the Association of
Community Tribal Schools Inc. (ACTS) and a board member of Oceti
Sakowin Education Consortium. I have been the Superintendent for 17
years and the Executive Director for 22 years.
Chairman Kildee and members of the Sub-Committee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education I would like to thank you
for holding this field hearing on the NCLB impact on Indian Education.
Mr. Chairman since you took over responsibility to oversee Indian
Education issues for Committee on Education and Labor in 1979, you have
been our staunchest advocate for American Indian Tribes and their
desire for self determination. You have fought to remind America of the
many treaties the federal government has with the Indian people. I
remember the fights you helped us with, including keeping BIA Education
out of the new Department of Education in the 1970's, arbitrary and
unilateral school closure attempts of the 1980's, helping with the
passage of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988, advocating for
positive change to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, through
specific Indian Education amendments, in the 1990's and helping with
specific Indian Education language in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2002. The Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. George
Miller, is also a strong advocate for Indian Education and showed his
advocacy by visiting the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservation in the fall
of 2006. We are blessed that at this critical time of decisions
regarding Indian students, local control and the future of Self-
Determination, we have our greatest advocate for Indian Education in a
position to assist us.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind you that you have a very close
relationship with our school, Tiospa Zina. Despite the Self-
Determination Act of 1975 and the Education Amendments of 1978, in
1981, Assistant Secretary Smith had the BIA place an effective
``moratorium'' on new schools. Sine there was no authority for such an
act, the BIA made this effective by slowing down the processing of
applications, in our instance losing the paperwork at least once. In
1984, you were directly responsible for cutting through this red-tape
at the BIA and making sure we were offered our first contract under
self-determination. This is in keeping with your long history of
advocacy for Indian Tribes, Indian people, Indian children and Indian
schools and we remember it. Tiospa Zina started in the spring of 1982
with 12 students as an alternative to a public schools system which
showed little interest in its Indian students. Now, in excellent
facilities, serves over 600 students each year. Prior to the start of
Tiospa Zina the local public school drop out rate of tribal members was
75%. The drop out rate for Tiospa Zina is about 40% and we have
graduated over 375 tribal students since we started.
Tribal schools
The tribal school movement started in 1966 with Rough Rock
Demonstration School (which ironically was an Office of Economic
Opportunity grant). Tribal schools were started for one primary
reason--dissatisfaction with the education content and quality provided
to Indian students in public and BIA operated schools. When the
Education and Labor Committee jerked the BIA into the 20th Century with
its sweeping changes to Indian education law in 1978, the BIA ran more
than 230 schools, of which only 5 were accredited by any organization.
Drop outs were expected, and going to college was a dream for many and
a reality for few. Indian tribes, educators and, most of all, parents
knew there had to be a better way.
In the early 1970's, Tribes and communities began to take action
under many funding mechanisms. The Indian Education Act of 1972 allowed
alternative schools to get started. Tribes devoted other funds and
whole communities gave time and money. Originally, there were fewer
than 15 tribal schools, now there are over 125 Tribal elementary and
secondary education programs, serving more than 28,000 students. Many,
though not all, of these schools were created by Tribal take-overs of
BIA programs.
The tribal schools provided a new educational philosophy for Indian
communities. We came to our task, not as outsiders, but as Members of
communities who cared about, and for, our future. Expectations rose and
children and parents began to see education as a means to an end--
success in Life, as defined by our Indian Community, not some other
segment of society. We taught that one can be successful in the World,
in America, in our States, and in our Tribal communities through
recognizing who we are and making that our goal. Curricula were
invented and refined--teachers became long term parts of the Children's
lives. Community school boards met and took meaningful action. Our
counterparts in public schools realized our children were well educated
and could do well, which made relationships between schools possible.
The new relationship with the schools are decreasing drop out rates.
The schools have articulation agreements with local tribal colleges.
Graduation rates increased and so did college participation. As more
Tribal Members went to college, we had more resources, folks with
degrees and expertise which they willingly brought back to their
reservations and homes. They became role models for other children, and
the future has become brighter.
The challenge
We are becoming more and more successful despite the challenges we
face in many Tribal communities. Mr. Chairman, I know you realize the
conditions on many Indian reservations which make our success more
difficult and more rewarding. You know that when we talk of poverty and
lack of educational, social and learning resources, we are not just
``looking for excuses to fail'' or ``restating past situations''. These
are ongoing facts. Substandard and poor housing is a fact, and it
cripples many of the abilities generally considered critical to
success. Unemployment and its attended curses of alcoholism and what is
recognized as an epidemic of methamphetamine abuse make it hard
sometimes for children to see the way to a successful future.
We need to be sure you can communicate to Congress and the other
Members, on our behalf, the reality of these situations and the fact
they do make a substantial difference in our ability to meet the model
of measuring success set forth in No Child Left Behind. We know that
other schools have similar problems and their own concerns. However, in
no other school system do we find such a conjunction of problems, which
have been of such long-standing, and a history of local control which
goes back less than 20 years.
The current model of a deficit school improvement program as found
in NCLB is simply not applicable, especially in rural, poor, Indian
reservation areas. Many of the schools funded by the BIA that are in
school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring are in the
poorest counties of the United States. For instance, six of the 15
poorest counties in the United States are in South Dakota and 1 of them
is in North Dakota. These counties are within the Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation boundaries. The lowest
per capita income was $ 5,213. (Statistics derived from U.S. Census
Bureau data; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Survey of Current Business; and DataQuick Information Systems, a public
records database company located in La Jolla, San Diego, CA.)
NCLB--problems
We know many in Congress who support NCLB. We support its concept--
for Indian Tribal people, no person should be left behind. We support
mastery of education topics for all our students, and we do not seek
special consideration unless it is justified. However, reality must
drive the program as it relates to BIA funded schools or failure is a
foregone conclusion. These are the realities for us in NCLB:
1) We still face inadequate resources. I KNOW TALKING FUNDING IS
UNPOLITIC WITH SOME AND MAY LEAD TO DEAF EARS BEING TURNED IN OUR
DIRECTION. However, I also know you understand our plight. The BIA
budget request is not computed based on any measure of real need to run
the program. In fact, BIA regulation state clearly:
``25 CFR 39.101 Does ISEF assess the actual cost of school
operations?
No. ISEF does not attempt to assess the actual cost of school
operations either at the local level or in the aggregate at the
national level. ISEF provides a method of distribution of funds
appropriated by Congress for all schools. ``If this isn't clear enough,
it is restated in essentially the same language at 25 Fed. Reg 39.201.
This is on spite of a BIA's own policy statement (25 Fed. Reg.
32.4(aa)) that it will ``[A]gressively seek adequate appropriations * *
*''. I submit to you that if any state entity or local school board
said its budget to ``fund'' its schools was not based on what needed
for the program, the public would not stand for it.
2) However, this does not mean the BIA does not have a method for
computing such a need based sum. That is also found in regulations,
which involve a computation for academic costs and home-living/
residential costs. If these computations were made and then the budget
was submitted based upon the total, much more progress in Indian
Education would be possible.
However, despite the presence of these regulations, the BIA simply
does not make the computations and does not submit this information to
Congress. Why does Congress not require such a submission?
3) As the following chart illustrates, the amount for the Indian
Student Equalization Fund, which funds all of our academic and
residential facilities, is actually going down when inflation is
included to the total amount.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
4) Unlike any other school district in the Country, our schools are
wholly reliant on federal funding. Federal funds do not make up 8--10%
of our funding. They are the whole package. Title I of NCLB does not
fund a small part of our program--it funds over 18%, with IDEA funds
essentially covering the majoriy costs for children with disabilities.
We have nowhere else to go for money--not the State, not the local
jurisdictions, nowhere.
5) As was noted above, this inadequacy of funding is exacerbated by
the serious conditions of poverty and lack of resources in our
communities in general. These problems, from housing, to unemployment,
to inadequate health care, to meth are also partially caused by no
funding in those problems. All of these factors bring their combined
misery to the school door.
6) We do not ask for special treatment, and we do not say progress
for the schools and the children is not possible. It is and we stand
behind our proud record of achievement in the last two decades. We want
to be a part of the greatest school system on Earth, the schools of the
United States of America, and whatever happens, we will remain
committed to our children, our communities, our Tribes, and our Nation.
We are, however, concerned that those who govern our future through
the consideration of NCLB and any amendments to it, may make decisions
not based on correct information. We do not want to have the good we
have done undone when we have not been allowed an adequate chance for
success. That is what we see in the actions of some States and in the
``recent consultation'' of the BIA and the Department of Education.
States are eligible for many programs in NCLB and other Federal
laws to which the Tribes have no access. In order to get access, they
tell us our schools must alter our programs, standards and process to
conform with State restrictions. In some instances, we believe the
States are making these demands to accommodate Federal agency pressure
to have all programs receiving a benefit fit one pattern. In some
States, it is simply a matter of Administrative actions. In any event,
such pressure means less local control. After over 100 years of schools
being controlled by non-local, non-Indian entities, we ask that some
provision be made in the reauthorization to accommodate Tribally
operated schools within these programs.
Of primary concern, however, is potential action by the BIA, the
Department of Education, and the Administration to use failure to meet
AYP as an excuse to force Tribal schools to either 1) radically change
their programs and make-up, thus re-establishing a Federal, BIA run/
operated system, close or 2) have these children attend public schools,
public schools which are ill prepared and over crowded in most of our
communities.
Our Concern is real. Mr. Kildee, you, more than any other Member,
must remember the past fights to establish and maintain local control
and self-determination. You were the author and sponsor of the Tribally
Controlled Schools Act, the direct response to the BIA closures and
threats of unilateral action of the 1980s. You stood on the floor to
fight the closure of the Phoenix Indian School and the InterMountain
Tribal School, because you knew that was wrong. You sponsored the
language prohibiting unilateral action by the Secretary of Interior for
any closure:
``SEC. 127. Section 1121(d) of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25
U.S.C. 2001(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the
following:
`(7) APPROVAL OF INDIAN TRIBES--The Secretary shall not terminate,
close, consolidate, contract, transfer to another authority, or take
any other action relating to an elementary school or secondary school
(or any program of such a school) of an Indian tribe without the
approval of the governing body of any Indian tribe that would be
affected by such an action.' ''
How crucial this language is was shown when it was deleted by
accident in the original NCLB. The Administration, through the BIA,
actually began to plan forcible modification to Tribal programs, with
the reason that the provision barring such unilateral action was gone.
It had to be hurriedly replaced in 2004.
We are concerned the failure to reach AYP in some BIA funded
programs will lead to the argument that the schools are not meeting the
needs of their students, they are ``bad'' schools, and that resumption
of the school by the Federal government or another authority should
somehow be undertaken. At the least, we are concerned that BIA or
Department of Education will be allowed to force unilateral changes in
programs without regard for the true factors causing problems and
without allowing Tribal control.
Now we ask that you hear our voice and continue your proactive
support of Indian Education as well as insure that any reauthorization
does not diminish the local control of Indian Education.
NCLB and solutions
1. The current Deficit Model of Academic Success in Title I of NCLB
is flawed and can be fixed by recognizing school success even when a
school does not reach the annual measured objective (AMO) and
specifically target poor areas with a 150% allocation
The current Title I model of school improvement provides penalties
for schools that do not reach annual measured objective established by
states. The state's AMO is directly related to state content standards
and are based on the total population of the state. There was little or
no participation from tribal governments and tribal schools in the
development of the state content standards and state assessments. We
are treated as second class citizens and are now being blamed for
schools not making adequately yearly progress. This is even worse for
the students with disabilities not to mention tribal students who have
disabilities.
The law requires all states to disaggregate data based on types of
students. The disaggregated groups include low income, minorities, and
students with disabilities. Many of the disaggregated groups started
far below the state average targets but were expected to make more
progress than the rest of the population. If any of the disaggregated
groups did not make annual measured objectives (AMO), then the school
did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Even if a school and the
disaggregated group makes annual academic progress but never reach's
the AMO they are classified as a bad school. The following chart
illustrates the deficit model.
Illustration 1.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The above illustration shows that even when the school and the
disaggregated groups made academic progress, they do not make AYP.
Schools and disaggregated groups that do not make AYP are considered
non-performing, almost ``bad'' schools and end up in corrective action
or restructuring. These ``bad schools'' will also lose financial
resources and students because NCLB allows students and parents to use
Supplemental Educational Services.
The following chart show academic progress at Tiospa Zina Tribal
School over a number of years but the school has been in and out school
improvement primarily because of disaggregated groups (SPED). The
school made adequately yearly progress this past year because of the
use of safe harbor. Over 50% of the students at TZTS have been at the
school for less than 4 years. The majority of the students came from
public schools.
Illustration 2.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Illustration 3.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Illustration 4 shows the effects of SPED disaggregated populations.
The TZTS Spring 2005 achievement results are shown with and without
SPED student data.
Illustration 4.
READING COMPREHENSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Students Without SPED students
---------------------------------------------------
Number Percentile Number Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic....................................................... 103 (45%) 59 (36%)
Proficient.................................................. 117 (52%) 101 (60%)
Advanced.................................................... 7 (3%) 7 (4%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATH PROBLEM SOLVING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Students Without SPED students
---------------------------------------------------
Number Percentile Number Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic....................................................... 113 (50%) 69 (41%)
Proficient.................................................. 108 (48%) 92 (55%)
Advanced.................................................... 6 (2%) 6 (4%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANGUAGE ARTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Students Without SPED students
---------------------------------------------------
Number Percentile Number Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic....................................................... 111 (49%) 73 (44%)
Proficient.................................................. 107 (47%) 87 (52%)
Advanced.................................................... 8 (4%) 6 (4%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCIENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Students Without SPED students
---------------------------------------------------
Number Percentile Number Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic....................................................... 88 (39%) 56 (34%)
Proficient.................................................. 129 (57%) 104 (63%)
Advanced.................................................... 9 (4%) 6 (3%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SCIENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Students Without SPED students
---------------------------------------------------
Number Percentile Number Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic....................................................... 65 (29%) 42 (26%)
Proficient.................................................. 146 (63%) 110 (68%)
Advanced.................................................... 11 (4%) 10 (6%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The solution is to use growth models that recognize schools and
disaggregated groups who make academic progress but do not make Annual
Measured Objectives.
One possibility is to allow those schools to stay in school
improvement and not force them into corrective action and
restructuring. Those schools that are in high poverty areas and need
additional financial resources. One possibility is to fund the high
poverty schools at 150% of the state allocation.
2. Lack of respect from state and federal government.
Allow tribal schools access to all NCLB programs and assure that
states do not attempt to impose state statutes on tribal governments or
tribal schools.
3. Amendments in Attachment A are a collaborative effort with
members of the Association of Community Tribal Schools Inc. and the
National Indian School Board Association. These organizations sponsored
4 meetings on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind Act. The
meetings were conducted over the last 2\1/2\ years. The changes focus
on BIE funded schools.
4) We are also attaching amendments which would delete from title
25 of the United States Code provisions which are clearly out of date.
The continuing presence of provisions to allow agency superintendents
to withhold rations for failure to attend schools or select specific
Indian girls to act as unpaid matrons, illustrate this point.
Mr. Chairman, I submit this testimony on behalf of the Tribal
schools in the states of Maine, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi,
Louisiana, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, California, Washington,
Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
support in the past and thank you for your continuing support in the
future. If there is any way on which we may help you in your endeavors,
please let our schools know.
Footnote
There are at least 20 programs that are authorized by the No Child
Left Behind Act that tribal schools are not eligible for but public
schools can access these programs. Many states do not recognize tribal
schools as equals to their own public schools. The state of South
Dakota has required tribal schools to be state accredited if they want
to apply for any federal flow through funds including 21st Century
After School Grants.
Attachment A.
Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988
1) Section 2502(a)(3) (Use of Funds) is amended by adding a new
subparagraph:
``(C) Amendments to grants
(1) At any time during the academic year for which funds are
provided under this Act, the school board of the tribally controlled
school which receives a grant under this Act may request an amendment
or amendments of the grant by submitting such amendments or amendments
in writing to the Secretary or appropriately designated representative.
(2) If the Secretary fails to make a final decision on any
amendment or amendments submitted under this provision, within 180 days
after the filing of the request, the Secretary shall ____
(i) be deemed to have approved such request; and
(ii) immediately upon the expiration of such 180-day period amend
the grant accordingly.
(B) Rights
A tribally controlled school board tribe or organization described
in subparagraph (A) may enforce its rights under subsection (a)(2) of
this section and this paragraph, including rights relating to any
denial or failure to act on such tribe's or organization's request,
pursuant to the dispute authority described in section 2507(e) of this
title.''
2) To move up the date of the last payment. Note--a similar change
is required for BIA operated schools, in section 2010 of the BIA
related amendments, see note 11.
Section 2506(a)(1)B) is amended by striking the term ``December''
and substituting the term ``October''.
3) Section 2507(a)--this is where deletions from existing chapter
25 language should be made----
Legislation administered by the Department of the Interior relating
to Indian education which needs to be considered for amendment or
repeal.
1) P.L. 93-638--Title II, Part A, section 203--requests a study of
the interrelationship of all programs providing supplemental services
to Indian students and a report if there is a need for redistribution
of funds or further services. Now obsolete.
Part B--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to help public
schools with substantial Indian student populations to fund
construction. I don't think this has ever been used, but just having it
on the books is a problem. If there is any money for construction, it
should be used for tribal or B.I.A. schools, and no conversation. This
should be repealed.
2) 25 USC 48--says that where the Secretary determines that tribes
are competent to direct the activities of ``their blacksmiths,
mechanics, teachers, farmers or other persons engaged for them'', the
Secretary may give authority over those persons to the tribal
officials. At least with respect to teachers and education personnel,
no longer needed. May want to amend or repeal. Enacted in 1834.
3) 25 USC 104--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to purchase
(when advantageous) for use in the Indian service products produced by
Indian manual and training schools. No longer applicable. Enacted in
1880.
4) 25 USC 231--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow
State officials to enter any reservation for the purpose of inspecting
schools or enforcing compulsory attendance State laws (doesn't apply to
IRA tribes unless they allow it). However, is on the books and a
dangerous precedent (I shudder to think what A.S. Swimmer could have
done with this). Should be repealed. Enacted in 1929.
5) 25 USC 278a--prohibits funds from being used for education of
Indian students in sectarian programs, except where the student chooses
such a program for postsecondary education. Enacted in 1968.
6) 25 USC 307 and 308--transfers the Bushnell General Hospital to
the BIA, to become the Intermountain vocational school. Since
Intermountain is closed and the property transferred (part is now a
golf course) , this is obsolete, and should be repealed.
7) 25 USC 471--authorizes no more than $250,000, annually, for
loans to Indians for vocational and trade schools, providing not more
than $50,000 may be used for high school or college and the funds must
be repaid. There are other programs which cover this, and I am not
aware it is even being used. Should be repealed. Enacted 1934
8) 25 USC 66--allows the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to assign
the duties of an Indian agency superintendent to an education officer
or superintendent of an Indian school whenever he determines such
officer can conduct the duties, provided the pay of such officer may
then be increased by no more than $300.00 per annum. This was
overridden by section 1126 of P.L. 95-561 and should be repealed.
Enacted in 1972.
9) 25 USC 101--payment for transshipment of goods by wagon from a
central point to a school shall be paid for from funds appropriated for
that school. Probably doesn't fit anymore and should be repealed.
Enacted in 1913.
10) 25 USC 102--costs for inspection, storage, transportation and
so forth for coal for schools shall be paid for from a support fund of
the school or agency for which the coal was purchased. I am not aware
that this is still a problem or that if coal is used, it is not being
paid for from some other fund. Anyway, I suggest it is not needed, and
should be repealed. Enacted 1920.
11) 25 USC 155--All miscellaneous revenues produced ``from Indian
reservations, agencies and schools'' (except for `Five Civilized
tribes') shall go to the Treasury, into an account called ``Indian
monies, proceeds of labor'' and may be available for the Secretary to
use for the benefit of Indians. This runs counter to the idea that
money produced by the actions of the school stays with the school, and
could complicate the student products part, the investment part, the
tuition staying at the school section and others. I suggest its repeal.
Enacted in 1883, updated in 1928. This would seem to be a relic of the
old Indian industrial and agricultural school era.
12) 25 USC 271--The President, in each case where he deems it shall
improve `the habits and conditions' of the Indians, and where the tribe
agrees, may employ `persons of good moral character'' to instruct the
Indians in agriculture and their children in reading, writing and
arithmetic, under such rules and regulations as he shall provide. Of
great historic interest, but of no purpose today. I suggest its repeal.
Enacted in 1819.
13) 25 USC 272--the President shall appoint, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, a person with knowledge and experience in
the ``management, training and practical education of children'' to be
``Superintendent of Indian Schools'' and to visit any school operated
by the government or funded with Federal funds and report to the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs on deficiencies and remedies, with
reports also made to Congress. This does not sound like a staff
position to the Commissioner. It sounds more like a school inspector,
who would be separate from the Indian Service. As such, while this
provision may be out of date and is no longer used, it is an idea which
may merit some consideration. However, with respect to the provision
itself, it is obsolete and I recommend repeal. Enacted in 1889.
14) 25 USC 273--the Secretary of the Army may detail officers, not
above the rank of captain, to special duty in Indian education. I
really don't think we need this anymore, and I suggest repeal. Enacted
in 1879.
15) 25 USC 274--the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may hire Indian
girls as assistant matrons and Indian boys as farmers and industrial
arts teachers in all Indian schools, where practicable. Repeal. Enacted
in 1897.
16) 25 USC 275 Teachers in schools may be allowed, in addition to
annual leave, educational leave in every alternate year, provided they
receive no additional pay, for attendance at educational gatherings,
conventions, institutions and training schools, where it would be in
the interest of the government. I believe this provision has been
overtaken by other regulations and laws and that it is no longer
necessary. Repeal. Enacted in 1912, updated as late as 1957.
17) 25 USC 276--the Secretary of the Army is authorized to set-
aside vacant posts and barracks for normal and industrial schools `for
the youth from the nomadic tribes' and to detail Army officers to aid
in the education. With the next round of base closures under
consideration, lets not be hasty. Anyway, I think this can be repealed.
Enacted in 1882.
18) 25 USC 277--the former Fort Apache military post is to be
turned into the Theodore Roosevelt Indian school, providing the land
remains with the Army and is under the control of the Secretary of the
Interior only so long as used as a school. I foresee problems with
this. Maybe we should change, so the land was transferred and becomes
tribal if no longer needed as a school. In any case, should be
reworded. Enacted in 1923.
19) 25 USC 279--Mission schools on reservation serving Indian
students are to receive the same rations of food and clothing which
such children would receive if living at home. This is a stumper. Do
these still exist? If so, is this a backdoor way of getting them some
help? Do we want to do so? Enacted in 1906
20) 25 USC 280--grants patents of up to 160 acres to mission
schools functioning as of Sept. 21, 1922, with reversion of land to
Indians if the school ceases to function. Are there any of these
around? Enacted in 1922.
21) 25 USC 280a--essentially grants patents for lands for
missionary or private schools serving Indians in Alaska (uses term
``Indian''). Do any of these still exist? Enacted in 1900.
22) 25 USC 281--says that any children of any Indian who has taken
land in ``severalty'' (that is, in fee) is still eligible for Federal
educational services. Hasn't this been overrun by time and practice.
Maybe, should be left, just to be sure. Otherwise, I would suggest
making it plain in our rewrite of P.L. 95-561. Enacted in 1894.
23) 25 USC 282--authorizes the Secretary to promulgate and enforce
mandatory school attendance reg.s Enacted in 1920.
24) 25 USC 283--authorizes the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to
withhold food, clothing, annuities, and other rations from parents of
children who do not attend school, provided that adequate schools are
available and that notice of this is given to parents. The schools
covered are obviously boarding schools. Should be repealed . Enacted in
1893.
25) 25 USC 285--specifically authorizes the withholding of rations
from Osage parents if their children do not attend school. No reason
given why they were singled out. Suggest repeal. Also obviously applies
to boarding schools. Enacted 1913.
26) 25 USC 286--no child may be sent out of State to a boarding
school unless with the consent of the parents or next of kin, and the
Indian agent may not withhold rations or take any other steps to coerce
such consent. Sounds like a good idea to me, and maybe one we should
incorporate into the rewrite of P.L. 95-561. However, this particular
provision should probably be repealed (though seems to do no real harm)
Enacted in 1894.
27) 25 USC 287--Once a child is in school, the child may not be
taken to a school in another State without parental consent. See
comment above. Enacted in 1896.
28) 25 USC 290--prohibits the transportation ``at government
expense'' of any child under the age of 14 out of State to attend an
Indian school. What does this mean for some Navajo and off-reservation
boarding schools. I think it is being ignored, but needs to be
considered. Enacted in 1909.
29) 25 USC 291--Where there is any property at an Indian school not
necessary to that school, the Secretary is authorized to move it to
another Indian school, where it is needed. Enacted in 1907.
30) 25 USC 292--the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may suspend or
discontinue any education program at his discretion and dispose of the
property and furnishings, with the money to be used for the benefit of
other schools (remember Phoenix Indian School) as the Secretary of
Interior directs. This is directly contrary to the current language in
P.L. 95-561 and should be repealed, though the idea that if any closure
takes place, all the proceeds should be used for Indian education is an
idea to be considered for incorporation into P.L. 95-561 (remember
Intermountain and Phoenix [where some land swapped for everglades swamp
for alligators]--could be overridden by Appropriations but gives
something to argue). Enacted in 1904.
31) 25 USC 293--Another sale provision. Authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to sell any property brought by the U.S. for use as a
school no longer needed for a school and put the money into the
Treasury, unless the property originally brought with tribal funds, in
which case it should be put into the tribal funds. See discussion on
preceding section. Should be repealed and substituted with language
that proceeds must be used for education, with tribes having first
option (I think they may have this under GSA language). Enacted in 1917
32) 25 USC 293a--the Secretary is authorized to transfer to State
or local governmental entities any land and improvements used for an
Indian school and no longer needed for such purpose, retaining a right
of reverter if the land is not used for a school ``or other public
purposes'' and retaining mineral and prospecting rights. If land held
in trust, requires tribal permission. No longer necessary--should be
repealed. Enacted 1953, updated as late as 1962.
33) 25 USC 294 The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to sell
, at no less than appraised value (remember Phoenix) ``any abandoned
day or boarding school plant or abandoned agency building'', with the
proceeds to be credited to the Indians ``to whom said lands belong''
(What does this mean?) Suggest covered now under GSA language and is no
longer necessary. If want the idea, than move to rewrite of P.L. 95-
561, with money to be used for education. Enacted 1920.
34) 25 USC 295--All expenditure of funds for education shall ``be
at all times under the supervision and direction of the Commissioner'',
and shall be spent `` in conformity with such conditions, rules, and
regulations'' as he shall prescribe. He is also to control the
``conduct and methods of instruction''. Runs contrary to 93-638, 95-561
and 100-297 and should be repealed. Covered by other statutes. Enacted
1908.
35) 25 USC 302--From schools being operated, the Secretary is to
designate one as ``an Indian Reform School'' and make ``all needful
rules and regulations for its conduct''. Permission of parents or next
of kin shall not be required for placement here. I think we have
outgrown this, though it is a concept discussed as recently as 1976.
Repeal. Enacted 1906.
36) 25 USC 304--In South Dakota, the course of study taught at any
Bureau school shall, upon a majority vote of the parents of the school,
be the course of study taught in South Dakota schools. No longer
necessary--Repeal. Enacted 1949.
37) 25 USC 304a--the Secretary is to carry out a study of education
of Indian students in the continental U.S. and Alaska and report to
Congress. To be done by 1958 (never heard of it--doubt it was done).
Obsolete and should be repealed. Enacted 1956.
38) 25 USC 304b--there may be student funds and student activity
associations established and funds maintained for these purposes, under
Bureau regulations. Should be incorporated in a rewrite of 561. Enacted
1959.
Below are amendments to Title XI of 95-561 (as amended)
4) Caveat on new or expanded schools below (new subsection (e)(7)),
but until we get the appropriations language lifted, this is moot----
Section 2001(e)(1)(A(i)) is amended by deleting ``The Secretary''
and substituting ``Subject to the limitations of paragraph (7) of this
subsection, the Secretary.''. Clause (i) is amended by deleting
``Bureau funded school;'' and substituting the term ``Bureau funded
school as of the date of enactment of ____ (whatever this new bill is
called;''
Section 2001(e) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(7) Limitation
The Secretary shall not commence funding for any new school or
extension or any program changes submitted by application subject to
the provisions of this subsection which would otherwise commence
funding under paragraph (5) of this subsection in any Fiscal Year in
which appropriations for programs funded under section 1127 of this
Title are not more than the funding for such programs (adjusted for
____ whatever they are using) in the Fiscal Year preceding the Fiscal
Year in which the application change would otherwise become effective,
provided that the new school or change for any approved applications
will be commenced, in the order in which such applications were
approved, beginning in any Fiscal Year in which appropriations referred
to exceed the limitation amount, and shall continue in each succeeding
Fiscal Year.''
For reference
Finally, Section 2001 (d)(7): for reference, I know Leg. Counsel
will have the latest for mark-up, but those working off the web will
miss the change in (d)(7) which was included in an appropriations bill.
Don't let anyone mess with this provision without a lot of thought.
Source: H.R.2361 which was included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act PL 108-447, Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or
Passed by Both House and Senate).
SEC. 127. Section 1121(d) of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25
U.S.C. 2001(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the
following:
`(7) APPROVAL OF INDIAN TRIBES--The Secretary shall not terminate,
close, consolidate, contract, transfer to another authority, or take
any other action relating to an elementary school or secondary school
(or any program of such a school) of an Indian tribe without the
approval of the governing body of any Indian tribe that would be
affected by such an action.'.
Also, for reference, here is the moratorium language:
Source: any final Interior approps bill since FY 1996
Under: General Provisions, Department of the Interior
Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for schools
funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the schools in the
Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. No funds available to the
Bureau shall be used to support expanded grades for any school or
dormitory beyond the grade structure in place or approved by the
Secretary of the Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as
of October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not be used
to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school (as that term
is defined in section 1146 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25
U.S.C. 2026)), except that a charter school that is in existence on the
date of the enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to operate during
that period, but only if the charter school pays to the Bureau a pro
rata share of funds to reimburse the Bureau for the use of the real and
personal property (including buses and vans), the funds of the charter
school are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau
does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of the State
in which the school is located if the charter school loses such
funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools sharing a campus with a
charter school and performing functions related to the charter school's
operation and employees of a charter school shall not be treated as
Federal employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code.
Finally delete Subsection 1001(h), which was the GAO study on
funds. They never really did anything, and this is obsolete.
5) Section 2002(a)(1) is amended by inserting the term ``facilities
requirements'' between the terms ``space,'' and ``and''. At the end of
the paragraph, add the following new language:
``All the factors set forth in this paragraph shall be set subject
to the procedures and requirements of section 2017 of this Title.''
6) This is the problem: the BIA is requiring tribal resolutions for
each child for each year, which increases paperwork, who attends a non-
reservation boarding or school site. The hammer they are using is
cutting off travel funds for the student. That was never the intent.
Section 2004(f) is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
``(3) Construction
The provisions of subsection (d)(2) of this section shall be
construed to require only one tribal authorization for each student for
the duration of attendance at an off-reservation home living school or
dormitory, provided that each tribal council may determine to cover
more than one student.''
7) They are for studies and plans, which were never done----
Section 2005 (a) and (b) are deleted and the Subsections re-
designated accordingly.
Also, education control of facilities management for schools (un-
numbered as of yet) Direction and supervision of certain personnel and
operations of the office of facilities management and Construction
(1) In general
Any other provision of law notwithstanding, not later than 180 days
after date of enactment , the Director of the Office shall direct and
supervise of all aspects of the operations of all personnel directly
and substantially involved in the provision of services to schools
operated by or funded under Section 1127 of this Act provided prior to
such date by the Office of Facilities Management and Construction, or
other entities within the Bureau or Department, relating to operations
and maintenance, major or minor improvement and repair, and any
facilities information system relating to facilities which are
primarily involved with the provision of education services.
(2) Transfers
The Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs shall, not later than ____ , coordinate the transfer of
functions relating to this provision to the Director.
8) Section 2007--As for clarification of travel----
Section 2007(a)(1)((B)(ii) is amended by inserting after the term
``transportation'' the following ``including but not limited to
transportation related to necessary student academic or home living
related activities''.
9) Section 2008--To be sure the recipient and not the BIA defines
what these funds will be used for, subparagraph 2008(a)(1)(B) is
amended by deleting ``may include'' and substituting ``may, at the
determination of the recipient of a grant made pursuant to this
section, include''. if the Study provisions no longer needed (and I
doubt they are) then:
Section 2008 is amended by deleting subsection (i) and
redesignating all remaining subsections.
10) Section 2009--Delete entire section--this is just embarrassing.
This means renumbering the sections, which everybody has to get used to
a new nomenclature for the rest of the bill, and everything written
before now is obsolete. Anyone got a totally new, meaningless (or even
meaningful) section to stick in here to help?
11) Section 2010 currently (see above -probably renumbered the
sections).
The language from the TCSA is much better and rather than cut and
bite, I suggest the following:
Section 1010(a) is amended by deleting subsection (a) and
substituting the following:
``(a) Payments
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Secretary
shall make payments to grantees under this chapter in two payments, of
which----
(A) the first payment shall be made not later than July 1 of each
year in an amount equal to 80 percent of the amount which the grantee
was entitled to receive during the preceding academic year; and
(B) the second payment, consisting of the remainder to which the
grantee is entitled for the academic year, shall be made not later than
October 1. ``
Section 2010(a)(3)(A) is amended by deleting the term ($50,000''
and substituting the term ``$100,000''/Clause (2010(a)(3))(A)(i) is
amended by deleting the term ``$15,000'' and substituting the term
``$25,000''.
Furthermore, I suggest we delete the sequestration language (or at
least figure out if still applicable):
Section 1010(a), as amended above, is amended by deleting (4).
12) Section 2015 deals with an annual report and audit--to my
knowledge, this isn't done, but I am looking for leverage here--if we
amend this to include a new provision regarding a computation of the
amount to conform to the regulation dealing with ISEF and a minimum
amount (see below) then we can at least get that amount before
Congress. It won't work u8nless people (mainly on the Hill) hold the
BIA to actually doing it, but the first step is to get something in
statute which can then be enforced. Also, putting it here and relying
on something already in the regulations makes it harder to argue
against the provision. Finally, I tied it to a date, because if the BIA
is smart, they will delete the reg.
Section 2015 is amended by redesignating the current provision
``(b) Budget request'' as (b)(1) Budget request'' and adding the
following new paragraph immediately following that provision:
``(2) The annual budget request for the education programs of the
Bureau, as submitted as part of the President's next annual budget
request under section 1105 of title 31 shall include a computation of
the factors included in 25 CFR Part 39.804 et seq, as in effect on ____
, based on each preceding academic year's information relating to
student counts and other information.''
Information--you referenced the minimums in the regulations
already--how does this mesh? They are not in 25 CFR Part 32 (which is
Education policies) but they are in 25 CFR 39 (39.804 et seq.) The
reason I point out they are not in policies is that within 39, which
deals with funding, there are two clear provisions 39.201 and 39.101
which clearly state the ISEP has nothing to do with what the program
actually cost (they are a stitch and should be referred to the
Committees time and time again--I have never seen the like). If they
were in the policies, we would be in a stronger position to use them.
13) Section 2018--dealing with regulations and negotiated rule
making--I think if you include/re-state the definition of regulation
already in the Act in Section 2003(b, there can't be too much debate.
If they say it is already in there, then say you want a reference, for
clarity. This will get you further than trying to put in manuals, etc.,
per se.)
Section 2018 is amended by adding the following new subsection:
``(d) Definition of regulation
In this section, the term ``regulation'' means any rule,
regulation, guideline, interpretation, order, or requirement of general
applicability prescribed by any officer or employee of the executive
branch.''
Attachment B.
25 CFR 39.100 What is the Indian School Equalization Formula?
The Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF) was established to
allocate Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) funds. OIEP applies
ISEF to determine funding allocation for Bureau-funded schools as
described in Sec. Sec. 39.204 through 39.206.
25 CFR 39.101 Does ISEF assess the actual cost of school
operations?
No. ISEF does not attempt to assess the actual cost of school
operations either at the local level or in the aggregate at the
national level. ISEF provides a method of distribution of funds
appropriated by Congress for all schools.
25 CFR Subpart H-Determining the Amount Necessary To Sustain an
Academic or Residential Program
39.801 What is the formula to determine the amount necessary to
sustain a school's academic or residential program?
(a) The Secretary's formula to determine the minimum annual amount
necessary to sustain a Bureau-funded school's academic or residential
program is as follows:
Student Unit Value x Weighted Student Unit = Annual Minimum Amount
per student.
(b) Sections 39.802 through 39.807 explain the derivation of the
formula in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) If the annual minimum amount calculated under this section and
Sec. Sec. 39.802 through 39.807 is not fully funded, OIEP will pro
rate funds distributed to schools using the Indian School Equalization
Formula.
39.802 What is the student unit value in the formula?
The student unit value is the dollar value applied to each student
in an academic or residential program. There are two types of student
unit values: the student unit instructional value (SUIV) and the
student unit residential value (SURV).
(a) The student unit instructional value (SUIV) applies to a
student enrolled in an instructional program. It is an annually
established ratio of 1.0 that represents a student in grades 4 through
6 of a typical non-residential program.
(b) The student unit residential value (SURV) applies to a
residential student. It is an annually established ratio of 1.0 that
represents a student in grades 4 through 6 of a typical residential
program.
39.803 What is a weighted student unit in the formula?
A weighted student unit is an adjusted ratio using factors in the
Indian School Equalization Formula to establish educational priorities
and to provide for the unique needs of specific students, such as:
(a) Students in grades kindergarten through 3 or grades 7 through
12;
(b) Special education students;
(c) Gifted and talented students;
(d) Distance education students;
(e) Vocational and industrial education students;
(f) Native Language Instruction students;
(g) Small schools;
(h) Personnel costs;
(i) Alternative schooling; and
(j) Early Childhood Education programs.
39.804 How is the SUIV calculated?
The SUIV is calculated by the following 5-step process:
(a) Step 1. Use the adjusted national average current expenditures
(ANACE) of public and private schools determined by data from the U.S.
Department of Education-National Center of Education Statistics (NCES)
for the last school year for which data is available.
(b) Step 2. Subtract the average specific Federal share per student
(title I part A and IDEA part B) of the total revenue for Bureau-funded
elementary and secondary schools for the last school year for which
data is available as reported by NCES (15%).
(c) Step 3. Subtract the administrative cost grant/agency area
technical services revenue per student as a percentage of the total
revenue (current expenditures) of Bureau-funded schools from the last
year data is available.
(d) Step 4. Subtract the day transportation revenue per student as
a percentage of the total revenue (current revenue) Bureau-funded
schools for the last school year for which data is available.
(e) Step 5. Add Johnson O'Malley funding. (See the table, in Sec.
39.805)
39.805 What was the student unit for instruction value (SUIV) for
the school year 1999--2000?
The process described in Sec. 39.804 is illustrated in the table
below, using figures for the 1999--2000 school year:
Step 1--$8,030 ANACE.
Step 2--$1,205 Average specific Federal share of total revenue for
Bureau-funded schools.
Step 3--$993 Cost grant/technical services revenue as a percentage
total revenue.
Step 4--$658 Transportation revenue as a percentage of the total
revenue.
Step 5--$85 Johnson O'Malley funding.
Total: $5,259 SUIV.
39.806 How is the SURV calculated?
(a) The SURV is the adjusted national average current expenditures
for residential schools (ANACER) of public and private residential
schools. This average is determined using data from the Association of
Boarding Schools.
(b) Applying the procedure in paragraph (a) of this section, the
SURV for school year 1999--2000 was $11,000.
39.807 How will the Student Unit Value be adjusted annually?
(a) The student unit instructional value (SUIV) and the student
unit residential value (SURV) will be adjusted annually to derive the
current year Student Unit Value (SUV) by dividing the calculated SUIV
and the SURV into two parts and adjusting each one as shown in this
section. (1) The first part consists of 85 percent of the calculated
SUIV and the SURV. OIEP will adjust this portion using the personnel
cost of living increase of the Department of Defense schools for each
year. (2) The second part consists of 15 percent the calculated SUIV
and the SURV. OIEP will adjust this portion using the Consumer Price
Index-Urban of the Department of Labor.
(b) If the student unit value amount is not fully funded, the
schools will receive their pro rata share using the Indian School
Equalization Formula.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Dr. Bordeaux. And
thank all of you for your excellent testimony. It certainly
indicates the importance of this Committee coming out and
talking to people who are literally in the field and know the
needs of--the unique needs of education in Indian Country.
There are various types of Indian schools. There are the
BIA schools or the contract schools. And thank you for your
comment on what I did back in 1979. And there are tribal
schools. The contract, the BIA and public schools.
Governor Rhodes, in your sovereign nation do you have a
mixture or are your schools state public schools or BIA schools
or contract schools or a mixture of those three?
Governor Rhodes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We do have a mixture of
parochial and public school. Yes.
Chairman Kildee. Again, Governor.
Governor Rhodes. My answer was that there are a mixture of
schools here in Gila River.
Chairman Kildee. Okay. So you have contract schools and BIA
schools and some state public schools?
Governor Rhodes. Yes.
Chairman Kildee. So Johnson O'Malley money would flow to
those public schools then?
Governor Rhodes. Yes. I am going to let Dr. Girard respond
to the Johnson O'Malley.
Chairman Kildee. Sure. Dr. Girard?
Dr. Girard. Yes. Good morning.
The Community is comprised of every kind of school you can
list. We have got private, we have Catholic, Seventh Day
Adventist Christian, charter schools, BIA grant schools and
public schools. And we have got every kind. And we are working
to unify those schools.
Our Johnson O'Malley funding is not used like most tribes
use the funds where they just issue certain amounts to the
public schools that are in their communities serving their
students. Rather Gila River employs actual staff. We call them
Johnson O'Malley Student Advisors. And right now in our program
we have eight advisors to cover the two ends of the Community,
the east end and the west end.
The funds we receive right now do not cover operational
costs, and they cover maybe two staff salaries with all the
benefits. So the tribe is supplementing those funds by at least
80 percent.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much. That clarifies that
for me and very concisely.
Chairman Nosie, you discussed the need to improve teacher
recruitment training and retention. What specific resources do
teachers in the Fort Thomas and San Carlos School Districts
need to improve their ability to help their students and what
could we do to help you retain those teachers?
Chairman Nosie. Well, Chairman Kildee, what we see in our
teaching work is that we really need to have more funding going
into the programs that have more. And I think it's going to
take a visit to every school--to every unique Indian tribe. And
it's going to take a visit or that information to be provided
to show that there are some programs that have been working
already in the schools, but more funding to reach out for the
teachers, professional training as far as how they can interact
with the students. Because being an isolated area, it brings a
lot of different problems and so we really need a program
design that's going to have the students and the teachers
interact together.
Retaining, it falls back on the same thing. Being an
isolated area all the problems that we have interact together;
the housing, supporting housing funds, economic development. So
I think those are the key things that we really need to look
at, especially in an isolated area how we could bring that
together so that we look at retaining teachers on the
reservation. But funding going to how teachers can interact
with students and having parent involvement will be very
important.
So as we release more of our resources, funding would be
good channeled into our schools.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller, on your schools at Sault Ste. Marie
do you have a variety of schools also? Do you have BIA
schools and state schools and contract schools?
Mr. Miller. Yes. We're pretty much like Gila River. It's
public, charter, BIA grant schools.
Chairman Kildee.
You know, it's interesting that you talk about the $1500
less per student in the BIA schools. That's even harder for you
then because Michigan itself in 2006 is underfunded. The
President has his budget submitted to Congress. Michigan was
shortchanged just in one year $331 million for Title I. So you
lost money there for your public school services and you lost
money through the BIA shortfall also.
Mr. Miller. Yes. There is nothing like taking it across the
board. That is what we are doing right now.
Chairman Kildee. You know, really it is a shame. Education
should be one of our top priorities. The one hopeful thing is
that the budget that was passed just about a month ago, the
budget before we do the appropriations, increased two areas in
this nation's priorities; health and education. One of the big
problems, of course, is that about five years ago, not with my
vote, they cut taxes $2 trillion. Not with Congressman
Grijalva's vote either, they cut taxes $2 trillion. You need
revenue for expenditures. And really you've been a victim of
that.
Mr. Miller. Right. In the State of Michigan the public
school systems that handle a number of the Native students have
recently just taken a $125 cut at the end of the normal school
year. So they are being stressed even further from their
operating budgets. And indication is it is something that is
not going away. That is something that the state government and
the Federal Government has to address. This is not going to be
a one time fix. That is something that will be here 100 years
from now, we will be having the same concerns that education be
funded adequately. And, hopefully, some day both the State and
Federal Governments realize that fund it adequately so we are
not having our meetings here to discuss how to make education,
or how to treat things to do with less money. Hopefully, we
will have an over abundance of money, which would be a nice
problem for a change.
Chairman Kildee. And I will yield to Congressman Grijalva.
What has emerged here is that when we look at both the
authorization of No Child Left Behind or any of the education
bills and at the appropriation, we should put our glasses on to
look at how this will especially adversely effect Indian
students. Because you are hit with a double or triple whammo,
are you not, as in Gila River?
Mr. Miller. Yes. We take the domino effect all the time.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
And now I yield to the Gentleman from Arizona, Congressman
Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am struck by obvious fact, and I believe this is why
this hearing is important and why the reauthorization as it
relates to Native American communities is so important, that in
most tribal nations the population between 13 and 21 represents
almost half of the population of those nations. So what we are
talking about here is about the future. That is not counting
the babies under 13 at this point. That is the future that is
going to be responsible for the communities that they live in
and are a part of.
Dr. Bordeaux, if I may, I have a couple of questions for
you.
I have heard from my constituents in relationship to ISEP
that your rolling average has posed significant funding
problems. You mentioned in your testimony that it is not the
best way to calculate need.
And at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask to
take this opportunity to submit to the record a letter from the
Department of Interior's Secretary Weiner requesting $1 million
to address the shortfall caused by ISEP calculation. And I
found it interesting. In his letter he admits that this
regulation has posed problems to schools who have seen their
enrollments number increase year-to-year, and let me read the
one point in that letter.
``The rulemaking did not make provisions for the two year
transition period before the three year rolling average is
fully implemented, the reprogramming funds that provides
supplemental funding to those schools whose enrollment
increased in recognition that the schools have not fully
transitioned. This is a short term issue.''
I would like to state that I have made an inquiry to BIA as
to how they consider the problem to be short term since it is
my understanding that these schools will always being playing
catch-up due to the misreporting of the student numbers at the
outset of No Child Left Behind. And I have also followed Mr.
Kildee's lead and have asked GAO for a report to continue to
shed light on this.
As it stands now, ISEP does not exist in statute. And my
question to you, Dr. Bordeaux, how would you propose a remedy?
Does Congress create a statute particular to this issue or do
we leave it through this regulation process?
Dr. Bordeaux. It would certainly hold more weight if it was
in statute. There is current regulation right now that requires
the Bureau to identify the need of what it costs to educate an
Indian child and what it costs to provide a residential program
for an Indian child. It is in regulation. And it uses the
national per pupil expenditure average from the most recent
number from three or four years ago that is hard data, and adds
and subtracts the revenue that schools get that would relate to
that national per pupil expenditure average, including
transportation, operation, maintenance, and that kind of stuff.
So I think in my testimony the sample that we used was from
like maybe eight years ago, but it actually comes out to
somewhere between $1500 and $1800 less just for ISEP. It does
not include anything else. There would be a need of $1500 more
for rated student unit, and that is to educate a child in
grades four through six and does not count anything else.
The three year averaging stuff, and you got to remember
ISEP, Indian School Equalization Program, is a distribution of
appropriations and nothing more. It does not tell you what the
need is, it does not do anything else. It just distributes
whatever Congress appropriates.
So when they did the three year averaging, if you went from
100 to 150 to 200 over three years, your three year average was
150 students and did not recognize those 50 you got until three
years down the road. So it is always going to be an up and down
thing. So in order to get any additional revenue, you have to
increase enrollment every year because the Administration never
requests the amount that is needed that is based in those
regulations.
Mr. Grijalva. And so, as I understand it from what you are
saying, the power of statute would be the corrective step or
the remedy at that point?
Dr. Bordeaux. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And I have two questions and then I would like yourself and
Mr. Gilbert to try to give us your perspective on.
Let me start with one that we just finished in one of the
hearings. In light of the Reading First scandal that we have
been dealing with in your experience, both of you gentlemen,
have the contractors at BIA schools had the expertise in
culturally and linguistically appropriate approaches in reading
and language arts or quite frankly, have the contractors been
predominately non-Native American businesses with a
supplemental service side?
Dr. Bordeaux. Non-Native. They are all non-Native because
the Reading First legislation and the way it is implemented by
the Administration really restricts what you can use. So there
might only be seven or eight companies out there that you can
use.
Dr. Gilbert. Thank you.
In my experience coming from the university environment
providing assistance to tribes, culturally based instruction,
it has been very successful and very positive for our Native
students. Let me give you an example, if I may.
Mr. Grijalva. But my question is particular to this, Dr.
Gilbert. And I realize that.
And the question is as we have narrowed the contracting
options for public schools and I am assuming that it extends as
well to Nations as to the contractor that has those appropriate
skills that you represent in the cultural linguistic competency
and content. And my question is are the contractors that are
being relied upon to supplement and support students, Native
American students, do they have that competency that you were
going to speak to?
Dr. Gilbert. In most case they're are not a Native. They
are usually the external contractors that come in and mostly do
that.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Dr. Gilbert. Provide that service.
Mr. Grijalva. Last question for both gentlemen and then my
time has run out, but if you would extend one courtesy. Thank
you.
When we consider the growth models what special concerns
should we as a Committee in this process include for tracking
the individual progress of Native American students as we go
through the growth model discussion, through the measurement
discussion to the testing discussion? If you can provide us
with a short response or----
Dr. Gilbert. Yes. My experience, once again, is working
with school districts is that if you look at how the Native
American children are assessed by AYP, there is a grave concern
there because AYP does not assess students individually, they
assess students across the board or by school. And in my
opinion I feel that we should take a look at assessing students
individually. Because each and every student is different.
One example that I use is that I use the portfolio
assessment technique, which basically tracks the child from the
time the student enters our educational system all the way
through to the time they graduate. That is a more productive
and more reliable type of assessment.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Bordeaux?
Dr. Bordeaux. I think there can be a process designed very
easily to track individual student progress and even progress
of disaggregated groups so that if you want to look at Native
populations or look at students with handicapping conditions or
low income children or, whatever it is you should take those
children where they are at when they enter that year and track
their progress through the end of that year and see how they
are doing and see if they are making progress. If they are
making progress, then you should recognize that progress and do
not say well you did not make the standard that is much higher
right now. You should always reach for that standard and try to
always make 100 percent of your children proficient, but the
reality of life is it takes time and it takes each individual
child to make that progress, not everybody at the same time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And thank you for the extra time,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. You are very welcome. It is your District.
Chairman Nosie, on your sovereign land, do you have a
mixture of schools; public, BIA and contract schools also?
Chairman Nosie. Chairman, we do have public schools and
parochial and the one charter school that we have at San
Carlos.
Chairman Kildee. Do you have any BIA schools or contract
schools?
Chairman Nosie. Not on the reservation, but we do have them
attending.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you.
And if I may address a question to Governor Rhodes and if
you wish you may refer to Dr. Girard.
We have the AYP, adequate yearly progress and then there is
some talk about using some growth models. Growth models
actually follow the child rather than the grade level, which is
what we measure now.
There is some talk of doing more pilot work in using some
growth models. And in a Nation as yours with a variety of
schools, do you think that that might be a place to perhaps use
some growth models to see how they work vis-a-vis the AYP?
Dr. Girard. I think that is very feasible with the schools
that we have in our community. And the public schools are
already demonstrating consistent growth. And so at the end of
every school year we have a form that we have each school
report to the tribe. And they use the same forms so that we can
measure the data to assess growth or weaknesses.
So, yes, that can happen.
Chairman Kildee. That might be a place where we could
compare how one may work.
Dr. Girard. Absolutely.
Chairman Kildee. With growth models you would have to keep
data on individual students. Because this AYP you say what
third grade did this year and what third grade did the next
year, but they are different people, are they not? While with
growth models you actually measure the specific individuals,
how they are growing?
Dr. Girard. Either that or you would do--now I'm drawing a
blank. But when you have this you follow the same group. You
know, so third grade this year would be fourth grade the
following year and fifth grade the year after that. And one or
two of the schools is doing that also. But with the mobility,
it is hard. It is tricky to track individual students. And that
is why we are trying to unify our schools to discourage the
mobility, say, so that if a student goes from one, say a BIA
grant school to the Catholic school, they will find that there
is no difference as far as the philosophy, the rules and the
standards. And so eventually, theoretically, the kids will find
that there is no real benefit to go bouncing from school to
school and they will tend eventually to stay put. And then we
can follow them that much more.
Chairman Kildee. And the growth models, the record has to
follow the child then?
Dr. Girard. Exactly.
Chairman Kildee. And could you do that if we did have, say,
some models out here, growth models, would you see that the
record could follow the child?
Dr. Girard. That is what our tracking database is going to
do. We are implementing one and we expect it to be up and
running and functioning by August 1. And it will cover student
attendance and academic progress. So, yes, it will follow as
long as they stay within the community, yes, we will have their
record from kindergarten on to the 12th grade.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Some time I think we will be visiting the schools. Because
you do find a mix of various types of schools. I think it would
be very helpful to me personally to go out and visit. I can do
it up at Sault Ste. Marie also.
But let me ask another question of Dr. Gilbert. Can you
discuss ways in which Title VII is helpful to students and how
we might improve Title VII?
Dr. Gilbert. I think that as far as an educator kind of
from the university setting, also a former teacher, Title VII
has positive aspects to it. One of the things that I highly
agree with is the assessment as far as providing database fine
data, you know, where to improve our instruction and our
techniques an our strategies to work with Native American
children. Unfortunately for AYP our assessments are determined
by the State Department of Education. But then again, I think
that there are some highly qualified instructors out there that
also provide that kind of needed assessment for Native
students.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Again, I will yield to the Gentleman from Arizona such time
as he may consume.
Mr. Grijalva. Very kind, Mr. Chairman. I will not abuse the
privilege. I appreciate that.
Governor Rhodes, if I may ask you, much discussion has
happened around No Child Left Behind dealing with the issue of
truancy, high levels of truancy and high drop out rates. One of
the questions is do you think that by narrowing the curriculum
where we are studying those four content areas, that we can
somehow for the purpose of taking the tests, that we somehow
contributed to that truancy drop out rates that are increasing?
Governor Rhodes. Unfortunately--Can you please repeat the
question?
Mr. Grijalva. Okay. As we narrow the curriculum so that we
are concentrating on core subjects that are for test taking
purposes, so we are teaching to the test. And in the high
schools there has been indications that one of the unintended
consequences has been a higher drop out rate and a higher
truancy rate. And I am asking in your experience has that been
the case or it has not been the case?
Dr. Girard. I do not think that the AIMS testing and the
teaching to the test, I do not think that that is a major issue
in the truancy. I think it is just something that we all suffer
as a society and our kids are learning--for our individual kids
it is a huge cultural shock coming if they attend reservation
schools and elementary school and they choose to attend a high
school outside the Community. It is huge. It is very
intimidating. Because they are coming from a school with 200 to
300 kids, and maybe in instances of less than 200 kids, to
schools with populations of 3,000. And so it is intimidating
and discouraging. And that is where our Johnson O'Malley staff
come in.
When they come to those schools, we are there to help them
to develop that self esteem and confidence they need to stay
in.
But the truancy I think is related to a lack of self
confidence and just a frustration of getting culturated,
deculturated.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Anyone, there as a curious statistic--not curious,
disturbing statistic we had at one of the hearings on drop outs
and what was going on nationally with No Child Left Behind that
over 50 percent of the drop outs in this country are coming
from 15 percent of the high schools in this country. And this
begs the questions where should we be concentrating your
resources, but that is another story.
If I may, Chairman Nosie, and I appreciate you made a
comment about everything is interrelated; the issues of
poverty, the issues of health are interrelated to the success
or failure of many of our students. I think we sometimes narrow
how we are doing our decisions and forget about the other
factors that are impacting on a child in a family's life. And I
appreciate those comments very much.
One of the factors as it effects your Nation, the issue of
transportation and the ability to get children back and forth
and the cost of the consequence. If we could just briefly
comment on that.
Chairman Nosie. Congressman, thank you again. I will have
Ms. Steele answer.
Ms. Steele. Would you repeat that question, please?
Mr. Grijalva. Transportation.
Ms. Steele. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And the pressures and the costs and the
impediment that that creates for your Nation and your children
in terms of a successful school, et cetera. I mean what is the
consequence of those transportation issues that in some Nations
that I have heard of are severe issues that they have to cope
with just getting the kids to and from their schools?
Ms. Steele. Well, I think one of the other--I think people
mentioned that there is problems with deciding whether, you
know, they should buy gas or should they not with that last $5
bill that they have. And in our situation we also have those
same problems. We have a couple of bus runs that are made on
the reservation. And often times the children miss the bus. And
they do not have an alarm clock because children of poverty
often do not have that, that time element in there. So when
they are late to school, they will walk there or parents will
sometimes try to bring them, or they just miss school entirely.
So transportation is a problem. We do not have any other public
mode of transportation on the reservations except for the buses
and if families have cars.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller, one question. This ongoing debate, discussion
about the reorganization or we are or we are not going to
reorganization in education if it were to happen, as we have
talked about, what impact would it have on the children you
serve or for that matter on Native children all over?
Mr. Miller. The proposed reorganization that the Bureau was
trying to implement in BIE would have left us in a state of
chaos. There was little thought about the logistics of the
regions as they tried to realign them. It was just a very, very
poorly thought out plan.
I believe right now there are two law suits in--three law
suits in--three that are in the process right now to stop this.
So as far as the reorganization, we hope it ends up being a
dead deal and does not go any further than it has to this
point.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Congressman Grijalva.
I understand that earlier this month the Departments of the
Interior and the Department of Education met with the tribal
leaders, the school board members and tribal community members
to discuss formation of various laws including No Child Left
Behind that impact Indian education. Were any of you involved
with those meetings or do you have any comment on them?
Mr. Miller. Last week I attended the consultation hearing
in Rapid City, and the consultation item was there is a
perception within the Administration that there is a conflict
between No Child Left Behind, primarily Title I and some other
pieces, and the Improving American Schools Act or the Indian
Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, the on
contract schools. And I think the conflict exists because over
the last 10 or 15 years more and more the Federal Government
has been requesting additional information from schools and
from tribes and everybody else that has no bearing to those
laws. They are asking for far too much data that deal with
individual students, individual staff and stuff like that. And
so the Department of Education has determined that they think
that there is conflict between Title I and the Improving
American Schools Act when in reality the Schools Act, which you
Mr. Chairman, introduced in 1988, specifically gives tribal
control of those schools to the local community as long as they
comply with being accredited and do audits and some other
things like that. And so there's a conflict up there.
And I talked to people that went to the one in Nashville. I
talked to people, the one down here and also over in New
Mexico. And there was not anybody from the field that saw a
conflict at all. So it did not exist and they probably wasted
$50,000 for all those meetings.
Chairman Kildee. When they meet with you quite often the
meeting are productive if the right attitude is brought. And I
am not trying to form your answer for you, but do you feel that
when the Federal Government meets with the various tribal
leaders in matters like this that they recognize that this is
sovereign talking to sovereign or do they not realize that?
Dr. Bordeaux. The answer is no, most of the time they
already have an idea of what they want to do. And sometimes--
most of the time they will present it, but sometimes they will
not. But by the time we start talking to them and trying to
have a dialogue, their decision is already made and then they
will try to force that upon tribal governments and tribal
school.
Chairman Kildee. So it's not really a give and take
consultation, it's almost an informational meeting?
Dr. Bordeaux. Yes. It is not in the true sense of
consultation as written the No Child Left Behind or in the
Executive Order.
Chairman Kildee. And that is one thing very important to
me, because I keep trying to remind them that they are talking
sovereign to sovereign.
You know, many in the Federal Government have this idea of
the trust responsibility that it is some kind of patronizing
trust. The trust responsibility came into being to protect you
from State government. Because very often State government
would be intruding upon you, certainly when the Cherokee were
forced from the eastern states to Oklahoma. But the trust
responsibility is not demeaning or diminished in anyway, shape,
manner or form by sovereign to sovereign relationship that is
embedded in our Constitution.
And anytime that you feel that they are not recognizing
that, that these are equals talking to equals and not just
coming to a meeting to be told what is going to happen or to
discuss what might happen, putting their ideas, your ideas
together and seeing what consensus you can reach, please let us
know. Because we have to change some attitudes when these so
called consultation processes take place.
Dr. Bordeaux. I think another thing before I sit down is
that there has been at least two or three times where the
Bureau of Indian Education have gone to the State departments
and tried to negotiate some memorandum of agreement on behalf
of tribal schools and tribal governments without us even being
involved. There is a big caution out there that needs to go on
tribal governments and the Federal Government needs to know
more of what is going on.
Chairman Kildee. Whenever you hear of any instance of that
happening, if you could email me or call me. I would like to
remind them that this is a sovereign to sovereign.
Yes?
Dr. Gilbert. Congressman Kildee, I would like to introduce
Lillian Sparks, Executive Director of NIEA. And I think she can
provide additional testimony on this issue.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sparks. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
I would just go back on Dr. Bordeaux's comments with
regards to the misperceived idea of what the conflict is
between Department of Ed and Department of Interior.
And like Dr. Bordeaux was saying is that there is this idea
that there is conflict between Schools Act and No Child Left
Behind and tribally controlled schools being accountable under
NCLB. And I would just like to say that our schools are already
accountable. There are provisions provided under Title I. They
are reporting the information. They are being accountable to
Department of Education, Department of Interior. And it is not
very clear in terms of exactly what the consultation issue is.
And we think that those meetings could be better served to
actually talk about how the two departments could meet, talk
together and work out a plan and strategy to better serve the
needs of Indian students under BIA so that there is
collaboration among the departments instead of talking about
who is accountable to whom under Tribally Controlled Schools
Act and under NCLB. Because that is already very clear under
the law.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
I think we have got a basis of some of the things that we
can emphasize to make sure that you have a greater say in
educating your own people with the obligation of the Federal
Government to continue to carry out either its treaty
obligations, its Executive Order obligations or any historical
or legal ties that are just between the sovereign tribes and
sovereign United States.
I have been in Congress 30 years now and I have constantly
tried to remind people in the Federal Government that they are
dealing with sovereign nations out there. And sovereignty is
not determined by size.
In Michigan, you are probably one of the bigger tribes, Mr.
Miller, tribes in Michigan. But we have some very small tribes,
but it is not determined by size. Luxembourg is not a very big
country, but it is sovereign. Out here in the west, of course,
you find bigger tribes. But I think it is very important that
you, and I know you have a great record out here of defending
your sovereignty, not let someone come in and say we are from
Washington and we are going to tell you what our results for
our consultation is. But if you need some help from those of us
in Congress, please let us know that.
I got involved in Indian matters 42 years ago. And I do
read treaties. I do read Executive Orders. I do read these
various things. And I happened to have read the Treaty of
Detroit. And in the Treaty of Detroit the Indians of Michigan
including your ancestors, Mr. Miller, gave up millions of acres
of land. One thing they were promised in return was education
in perpetuity. And I read that. And I and Jackie Vaughn, a
member of the legislature, wrote a bill carrying out this
treaty; that any Michigan Indian could go to a public college
in Michigan and the State would pay the tuition. That is still
the law in Michigan.
And justice demands that. And when you are going to be a
seeker after justice, you have to be seekers after your own
justice. And out here particularly in this area, I find that
you have a strong feeling towards your sovereignty. And I am
edified by that.
I know the Sioux Tribe has really fought hard to make sure
that neither the State nor the Federal Government encroached
upon your sovereignty. But there are little things that happen,
sometimes irritating things but things that really effect you
and your ability to carry out your responsibilities. We want to
know that in Congress. Because I am like the Governor here, I
am going to stay in Congress as long as God and the voters are
willing. I want to really make sure that one of the things that
I make a top priority is to protect on a daily basis
sovereignty.
And never let them come--I am preaching now--but never let
them come--they will never come probably and take a big hunk of
your sovereignty away. They might come a little slice here, a
little slice there and kind of make a little concession here.
Just do not let them do it. And out here particularly you will
find a strong feeling of sovereignty. But keep that going.
As a matter of fact, I always say, and you can do what you
want because you are sovereign, you can do with your Nation
what you want. But I always refer to them as citizens, as I
mentioned to Governor Rhodes in my office last week.
You know Mr. Grijalva and I are citizens. We have two
citizenships. I am a citizen of the State of Michigan, Mr.
Grijalva is a citizen of the State of Arizona. I am a citizen
of the United States, as is Mr. Grijalva. You are citizens of
your respective States. You are citizens of the United States
with all the rights and responsibilities of those citizenships.
But you are also citizens of another real sovereignty. You are
citizens of your own tribe, your own Nation. And I want to help
you, I want to help you make sure that no one comes with a
little slice and takes a tiny slice of your sovereignty whether
it be saying you are coming in for consultation and find out
here is the result of the consultation. I want to work with you
on that.
This has been a good hearing. It has been a good hearing on
education. It has been a good hearing on sovereignty.
I was here ten years ago. I can come back and see you, but
all you can really use that sovereignty, give it a chance to
have some economic development. You are a really an example for
indigenous people all around the world.
I met with people from Australia, or indigenous people of
Australia. I believe that you have a certain common bond with
indigenous people and how they are treated by the central
government.
So I'm edified. I have learned about education. I learned a
lot about how you govern yourself out here. I look forward to
working with you. And I am going to at this point conclude
thanking all of you. We are all better informed because of
this.
The Members, as I mentioned before, will have seven
calendar days to submit additional materials for the hearing
record. And any Member that wishes to submit follow up
questions in writing to the witnesses, you may get some
questions in writing either from myself or some other members
who are not here today. If you would coordinate with the
Majority Staff within the requisite time.
The hearing is now formally adjourned.
[The prepared statement of the Navajo Nation follows:]
Impact of the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' (NCLB) on Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) Funded Schools and Students
Submitted by: The Navajo Nation, April 28, 2007
Based on the reported experience of Navajo Nation schools and
students,\1\ as it has been implemented the NCLB has been a virtual
disaster for elementary and secondary Navajo Tribal Education.
The NCLB was conceived out of a US State Public School System model
and the experience of United States Department of Education (USDEd)
officials with that model. Its provisions assume a number of
characteristics of that State Public School Model that are generally
inapplicable to the BIA funded Federal Indian School system. Several
examples follow:
I. The Act assumes that public education in the United States is
primarily the responsibility of ``State Education Agencies'' (SEAs) and
``Local Education Agencies'' (LEAs), all of which from the national
perspective of the USDEd are ``local'' in nature. In the Public School
Systems:
Control of public education is lodged primarily at the local State
government level, as a residual ``State's Right'' never ceded to the
Federal Government.
It is exercised by an SEA through more decentralized LEAs, on down
to the local School level, where it is implemented by a local
Principal, and subordinate ``Department'' administrators, who are in
charge of actual instruction.
At each of these levels, ``public'' control of education is
maintained, sometimes through public election of top officials, and
almost universally by the roles of publicly elected Boards of Education
and/or Parent Policy groups, with varying powers and authorities, to
whom the top officials at each level report.
But this is simply not the case with BIA funded schools:
a) Federal Indian Schools were initially created as a fully
centralized ``top down'' system, run from Washington DC through a
hierarchy of appointed Federal officers and subordinate employees. It
had no school boards, no parent policy groups, and no formal ties to
any local governments.
b) The documented failures of this system were found by the
Congress in 1969 Senate Report on Indian Education to be a ``National
Tragedy, a National Challenge''. In consequence, a number of measures
have been instituted since to establish local control of BIE schools
analogous to that in the Public School systems. This is reflected in
the resulting law (Title X, Part D Sec. 1131) that ``It shall be the
policy of the United States to facilitate Indian Control in all matters
relating to Education.'' \2\
There is absolutely nothing in the BIA funded school system
analogous to an SEA.
c) The BIE Central Office is in no sense `` local'', nor are any of
its officials accountable to the Indian public at the polls as State
officials are. It is a distant, unresponsive federal bureaucracy.
d) BIE is made up of Federal Civil Service employees; career
bureaucrats with virtually ironclad job security, automatic pay
increases and generous fringe benefits, irrespective of whether they
serve any interests aside from promoting their own personal careers.
e) There is still no publicly elected ``Board'' or ``Public
Policy'' group (other than the United States Congress itself) to whom
BIE Washington bureaucrats are in any sense accountable. Further, the
Indian citizens whose interests they are supposed to serve have no
recourse other than costly lawsuit against the actions of these
officials.
Neither is there anything genuinely analogous to an LEA in the BIE
school system.
f) BIE Education Line Offices, previously termed Education Agency
offices, headed by a Line Officer, are more analogous to the federal
officer hierarchy of the failed fully Federal system prior to 1969 than
to Public School Districts.
g) Because of the sparsity of BIE funded schools, the Line Officers
oversee large geographical areas more analogous to States than to
Counties or School Districts (LEAs). They are not readily accessible to
most Indian families served by the schools they oversee, and are in no
sense ``accountable'' to them. Further, BIE's current reorganization
plans (now the subject of tribal lawsuits) would eliminate several
existing Line Offices and make them even less ``local'' than in the
past.
h) ``Agency school boards'' do exist, but the Line Officer is
actually accountable to a remote federal supervisor in Washington, DC.
These boards have no direct way to hold a Line Officer accountable for
his/her actions or inactions, and further, BIE's recent reorganization
plans would further reduce the authority of the agency school boards
with regard to Line Office actions.
i) The Line Officer directly supervises the Principals of the BIA
operated schools under his or her office, as federal employees. At the
same time, because of the Indian control laws, he/she has virtually no
authority over the tribally operated schools in the Agency.
The analogue to universal public control of public education in the
State school systems, i.e. the legislated federal policy of ``Indian
control in all matters relating to education'', has been subject to
continual obstruction in practice by BIE bureaucrats whose authority
over Indian people and programs it clearly diminishes.
j) Trying to implement local level Indian control of BIE services,
and turning BIE into a ``technical assistance'' agency to facilitate
that control, has been a generations-long pitched battle between
Interior's federal employee hierarchy and Indian tribes and leaders
seeking to implement Indian self-determination for the benefit of their
citizens.
k) This battle has produced multiple laws all attempting to bring
BIE's bureaucrats into compliance with this policy.
(1) One recent skirmish was BIE's focusing all its efforts, as a
self-appointed ``State Department of Education'' for the schools whose
funds flow through it, on developing a cadre of what might be called
``accountability police to enforce NCLB'' on the schools, especially
with regard to ``meeting AYP''.
l) So the ``Indian control'' issue still appears to be in doubt,
with the most recent BIA/USDEd consultation issue papers (cc attached
FYI) projecting a ``conflict'' between:
(1) Indian self-determination legislation; and
(2) Bureaucratic authority to hold tribal school recipients of
USDEd supplementary funding ``accountable'' for compliance with their
regulations.
II The Act assumes that State and Local school systems have, or can
generate, the resources to create and adopt system-wide instructional
content standards and related standards-based test instruments that
meet USDEd criteria for validity and reliability, to guide consistent
system-wide public instruction.
This is in no way true for the BIE school system:
BIE totally rejected its SEA responsibility for instructional
system development ``on a regional or tribal basis'', as mandated in
the Act at Sec. 1116.(g)(A)(i), and has neither developed any such
systems, nor given any of the resources allotted by USDEd for this
purpose to Indian Tribes to do the job themselves.
m) Because of this failure, BIE funded schools have been subjected
by default to State Public School content standard and testing systems
designed for native English speaking middle class urban populations,
with little or no Indian input.
(1) Despite the commonsense educational principle that if you are
going to teach a person something, you have to begin with and build on
what he or she already knows, State school curricula often start far
beyond the entry level English language skills and mainstream cultural
background knowledge brought from home by deep reservation Indian
students.
(2) Such curricula simply assume a shared student mainstream
culture background at each grade level, and seek to build on it. This
is a critical problem for many other ``minority'' populations, but
unassimilated Indian students from isolated reservations have
experienced it to a far greater degree than most others.
III The Act also assumes that the various School Systems generate,
control, and, if necessary to meet federal standards, can increase
their own revenue and resources to support appropriate basic public
education at all levels in the system. Part of this assumption is that
USDEd funding only ``supplements'' locally generated revenue, and can
be made contingent on the ``USDEd approved'' use of local revenue as a
condition of continued receipt of these federal funds.
This is totally untrue of the BIE. The entire BIE school system
including tribal schools is 100% federally funded, in direct annual
competition with the other Bureaus and Agencies in the Department of
the Interior. At no place in the system is there any way to generate
any other revenue!
Further, BIE's basic education funding has been systematically
constrained by the Executive branch in budget requests over the years,
as a low priority ``domestic program''.
n) As a result, many of the local schools have come to regard
USDEd's funding as an ``in no way supplemental'' resource, critical to
their survival as an institution. Any ``threat'' to this funding is
seen as an institutional ``death threat''.\3\
IV The Act also assumes that the local School Systems generate
sufficient market share to assure profitability for the commercial
publication of curricula and teaching materials aligned with their
State Department adopted, USDEd approved, content standards and test
instruments.
Again, this is not true of the BIE school system:
o) Even if they were a homogenous group, which they are not, all
the students now in BIE funded schools are not a big enough market to
support commercial curriculum publication. And that's even if the
schools had enough funds to purchase new curricula, which many do not.
Further, there are many tribes, including Navajo, whose students
really need custom designed curricula built on the tested needs of that
tribe's member students at different levels, to accommodate for the
degree of cultural and linguistic assimilation of the students at
various locations on their reservations.
V The Act also assumes that the various School Systems have the
infrastructure and resources to train/retrain and accredit their own
professional education personnel, and so can be required to upgrade the
qualification requirements for such personnel as a condition of
continued receipt of USDEd funds.
Again, this is simply not the case with BIE education.
p) The State systems have and operate colleges of education, to
meet the requirements of their own systems. As a general rule, they
train their teachers to ``follow the teachers manual'' in the published
curricula endorsed by the State Department. Few if any train teachers
to meet the unique needs of on-reservation Indian schools and
students.\4\
q) BIE operates no ongoing professional educator training programs
or institutions in support of its schools. Some few tribes have tribal
community colleges, but nothing equivalent to the State University
Colleges of Education.
VI And finally, the Act assumes that given systematic compliance
with the educational approaches outlined in the NCLB and other federal
education funding administered by the USDEd, all students will reach
grade twelve ``on grade level'' by the end of a 12 year period,
regardless of individual differences between them. This is sheer
amateurish nonsense.\5\
What can be done about it?
IN GENERAL: In approaching reauthorization of NCLB, the Congress
should openly recognize that with few exceptions the Act is not
producing the results it envisioned for many of the ``non-standard''
students across all school systems. It has many good ideas in it about
how to achieve results, but the ``one size fits all'' notion needs to
be rejected outright, and a ``continuous progress for every student
from a measured beginning point'' model should be adopted instead.
Perhaps a new title such as ``No Child Abandoned'' might be adopted
to emphasize the difference.
Further, in Pub. L. 107-110, Title VII,Sec. 7135m 25USC, Sec. 2020,
previously existing and reauthorized federal law already authorizes
formation of and funding for Tribal Departments of Education, but BIE
has consistently failed to ask for funds in its budget to support their
formation and operations. This is a ``last straw'' in a long history of
Interior Department abrogation of its trust.
Consequently any reauthorization of NCLB should recognize that the
practice of allocating all USDEd funding for tribal schools through the
BIA is simply an outmoded artifact of the days before Indian Self-
Determination in Education became a reality. BIE has no authority over
these schools any more, so why should it control pass through funding
for them from another federal Department?
a) This cozy ``stacked bureaucracy'' relationship between federal
agencies needs to be formally rejected in the Act for the health of the
system, and a pro-rata percentage of BIE's USDEd administrative
resources allocated directly to Tribal governments to defray the costs
of their administering the USDEd programs in their own school systems.
The Act should, further
b) specifically apply the ``Indian Control in all matters relating
to education'' policy to USDEd, not just BIE. It should also clarify
that such Indian control is exercised only at the Tribal and local
Indian community levels, not by any federal bureaucrat regardless of
his or her ethnicity.
c) Mandate that BIE may only act as the SEA (and pass-through
funding agent for USDEd supplementary program funds) for the schools it
directly operates.
d) Authorize Tribal Departments of Education (and inter-Tribal
Consortium Departments in the case of tribes with too few students or
schools to warrant a single Tribe Department), with reasonable and
appropriate standards and criteria to be met for federal recognition as
such; and should
e) promote agreements between Tribal and State governments for
tribal ``SEA analogous'' oversight of public schools on tribal lands;
and
f) Provide specifically for funding of tribal credentialing of
professional educators to work in tribal schools, as well as tribal
accreditation of tribal schools independently of the States and
regional accreditation associations.
g) Authorize and mandate adequate direct government to government
funding of such Departments through the same fund from which USDEd now
funds the State Departments of Education, without going through BIE.
The Act does provide for tribes to ``waive'' inappropriate
standards and to propose alternate standards and test instruments in
their place (Pub. L. 107-110, Sec. 1116 (1)(g)(B). However:
a) it only allows 60 days for the development and proposal of such
alternates, and gives approval power to the non-Educator Secretary of
the Interior; and.\6\
b) Further, some of the States required two or three years to
develop their systems, not just 60 days, before achieving USDEd
technical approval for what they had done.
Consequently the revised Act should also:
c) Provide for government to government grants by USDEd directly to
such Tribal Departments of Education, in sufficient amounts and over
sufficient lengths of time to finance the development of alternate
definitions of AYP for all schools on lands under Tribal jurisdiction,
under Tribal Department oversight and accountability management.
These should be approved by USDEd directly, with appropriate
technical assistance through Regional Laboratories or Universities, and
no deadlines or interference in any way by BIE.
d) Make the Tribal Departments of Education the pass-through
funding agents for USDEd supplementary program funds on a government to
government basis, with appropriate safeguards to assure that such funds
actually reach the tribally operated schools.
e) Provide for government to government grants by USDEd directly to
such Tribal Departments of Education, in sufficient amounts and over
sufficient lengths of time to finance the development and publication
of custom aligned curricula and teaching materials to implement
tribally developed definitions of AYP.
Perhaps some of the above could be initiated with the Navajo Nation
on a pilot project basis, once the panic rush deadlines in the current
Act are eliminated, and reasonable research and development activity is
allowed for. The Navajo Nation has already created and organized its
own tribal Department of Education and could undertake such an effort
quickly.
endnotes
\1\ Except for a few students whose families have already been
almost totally assimilated into the off-reservation mainstream culture.
\2\ It is worth noting that, despite the fact that many
contemporary BIE officials are now ethnically Indian pursuant to
``Indian preference'' in employment requirements, their actions are
taken as federal bureaucrats accountable only to higher level federal
bureaucrats, and in fact constitute the exact opposite of the ``Indian
control of education'' envisioned in the law. Any pretense that because
these bureaucrats are ``Indian'' they do constitute such ``Indian
control'' is simply racism!
\3\ NCLB's provisions making USDEd funds contingent upon ``making
AYP'' simply recalls how, in the past, BIA's bureaucrats have used the
``golden rule'' (i.e. ``He who hands out the gold, rules! '') to try
and dictate how BIE funded tribal school programs are operated. The
bitter battles over this past practice were the source of many of the
constraints on BIE now in the law, as well as the legislated Uniform
Direct Funding and tribal schools' Indirect Cost Formulas.
\4\ Being required by accreditation mandates to use teachers and
administrators trained to operate a wholly different Public School
system makes about as much sense as requiring a diesel Semi-Truck
repair garage to use mechanics trained to repair Toyota hybrid sedans.
\5\ This ``one size fits all'' approach is not only out of touch
with reality in the BIE funded schools, it is inapplicable everywhere
else in the nation's Schools, except where they serve the highly
motivated mainstream students that the State systems almost universally
built their AYP definitions to benefit.
\6\ In truth, it takes major resources to develop such systems, and
the aligned curricula to implement them, that the tribes, with some of
the poorest populations and land areas in the Nation, simply don't
have. And Interior has never requested funding in its budgets to enable
such tribal level development.
______
[The prepared statement of Delia M. Carlyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Delia M. Carlyle, Chairman, Ak-Chin Indian
Community
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit
written testimony in response to the April 28, 2007 field hearing which
addressed the impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) in Indian
Country. My name is Delia M. Carlyle, and I am Chairman of the Ak-Chin
Indian Community (``Community''). I have been a member of the
Community's Council for 20 of the past 25 years. I served as a board
member of the Maricopa School District School Board for six years; most
recently in 2006. I also worked at the Community Center for 20 years.
The Center is where our Early Childhood Development Program is housed
along with our Day Care.
Our Community is a small urban community comprised of approximately
800 members, 305 of which are 17 years of age or younger. We are
located within Pinal County in the State of Arizona. Due to our small
size, the Community does not have tribal or BIA schools; instead, all
of our children attend public school in neighboring Maricopa City.
According to our 2007 numbers, there are 225 Community members enrolled
in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Though the Community does not
directly provide our students' education, we have a vested interest in
ensuring that these children succeed. Our children need to obtain good
educations today so they can assume leadership roles in our Community
in the future. The Community supports our students outside of
traditional education programs by providing tutoring and Head Start
Programs through the use of tribal and federal grants funds. Despite
these contributions, our students are not obtaining Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). My testimony explains some of the contributing factors
to Native students' failure to obtain AYP, as currently defined by the
NCLBA.
One of the Key Negative Impacts of the NCLBA is Use of a Standardized
Assessment System that Does Not Truly Reflect Student Knowledge
Assessments are key for proper student placement; however an
assessment must be appropriate for the student if that assessment is to
yield accurate results. Assessments are used to identify students who
have special needs and those who are appropriate for advance placement.
Like any student, Native students of all ability levels are negatively
impacted when the assessments do not properly measure student ability.
Therefore it is important to designing an exam with the test taker in
mind. Such considerations ensure that the test is appropriate.
Unfortunately, most standardized exams were not designed with Native
students in mind. Designing an exam with the test taker in mind does
not give an edge to the test taker. For example, a school cannot
accurately assess the knowledge and ability of a 12th grader using an
exam designed for a 3rd grader. Similar inaccurate results are obtained
when a Native student is given a test that was not designed with that
Native student's in mind. The best way to ensure that an assessment is
appropriate for the student is to incorporate the student's culture
into the exam, thereby allowing students to relate to the questions
asked. If Native students cannot relate to the exam, then, those
students cannot convey their knowledge. If the standardized assessment
does not enable Native students so share what they know, then those
students will not be directed to the appropriate resources and services
to help them continue succeeding.
The Standardized Assessments Administered to Native Students Do Not
Incorporate Tribal Culture and Are Not Relevant to and
Reflective of Native Students' Knowledge
In Arizona, tribes were not involved in developing the student
assessment tool. In Arizona, the assessment tool is called the AIMS,
which stands for Arizona Instrument to Measure Standard. There has been
no evidence that any cultural considerations were made or incorporated
into the AIMS. The AIMS's failure to incorporate student culture has a
direct impact on student success and AYP rates. Students have higher
AYP rates when what they learn, and are subsequently tested upon, is
related to or applicable to the student's life. It is extremely
difficult for students to convey their knowledge when they cannot
relate to the questions asked in an assessment test.
The reported statewide AIMS test results of Native American
students reveal that, across the board, a majority of Native students
either fall far below or approach the AYP standards. Few students meet
the standards. Even fewer exceed the standards. This strongly suggests
that the AIMS is not asking questions in a way that the Native American
test takers understand and can relate to. It is interesting to note
that the AIMS report for the Maricopa schools, which most of our
students attend, reveals that Native American students do consistently
better in meeting the AYP goals for Writing than in Math and Reading.
This suggests that Native students perform better when they are given
the opportunity to convey their knowledge using their own words,
instead of answering a multiple-choice question.
Native Students Are Disproportionately Affected by Factors That
Negatively Impact Student Achievement Levels, As Reflected By
Standardized Assessments
In addition to inability to relate to the test, Native students are
disproportionately impacted by other factors that detract from their
achievement and test taking ability. The levels of domestic violence in
Indian Country far exceed that found outside of tribal reservations.
Domestic violence impacts students by drawing their attention away from
their education to other matters. Instances of domestic violence do not
schedule themselves around students' educations. These situations may
occur the night before test day or result in excessive absences while
the family addresses the situation.
Truancy is also a factor that impacts student achievement. Students
who have frequent absences (excused/unexcused) are already in a
situation of falling behind on their academic program. If the student
is not there, the student cannot be assessed and properly placed. As
mentioned earlier, all of the Community's students attend school
outside of the Community. Like most other students, the Community's
students must be bussed in or be dropped off by parents. Unfortunately,
due to the distance between the Community's homes and the schools, if
one of the Community's students misses the bus, that student may have
to miss an entire day of school. Often student's families do not have
access to a vehicle. Even if a vehicle is available, due to the poverty
levels of Native families, families must choose whether to spend $5 on
food or gas to get the students to school.
In addition to increased truancy rates, the distance between
students' homes and school also causes lower student achievement.
Native students attending schools off-reservation must travel far
distances to get to school. Generally speaking, Native students must
get up earlier than their non-Native peers in order to catch the bus
and get to school on time. There are studies that conclude that not
only lack of adequate sleep but also waking adolescent children too
early in the morning can result in lower test scores. For example, most
teen's bodies begin producing sleep-inducing hormones at around 10:00
or 11:00 p.m. This production continues until approximately 8:00 a.m.
the next morning. In other words, teens bodies tell them to rest until
8:00 a.m., and their minds and bodies are not awake and ready for
education until about 9:00 a.m. or so. If Native students must travel
farther to get to school, they must also rise earlier, thereby
resulting in higher rates of sleep deprivation among Native students.
These are just some of the factors that impact Native students'
achievement, as reflected by standardized assessments; however, simply
modifying the assessment tools will not address all issues raised by
NCLBA in Indian country.
The ``Highly Qualified Teacher'' Characteristics, Under the NCLBA, Do
Not Recognize the Importance of Understanding the Students'
Culture, Including the Ability to Relate Education to Native
Students
Recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers to teach
students prior to the assessment is crucial. The current definition of
a ``highly qualified teacher'' under the NCLBA does not include all
aspects that make a teacher highly qualified. Notably absent in the
description of highly qualified teacher characteristics is any
reference to a teacher's knowledge or willingness to learn and be
sensitive to the cultures of the student populations the teacher
serves.
The ethnic population of each school is unique and the size of
ethnic groups varies form campus to campus. It is very advantageous for
school districts to hire teachers who have previous experience working
with students from similar cultures. In some instances, when dealing
with some cultures, communication can be a barrier between teachers and
students in terms of language and dialect. Hiring teachers, as well as
support staff, who can understand students and their parents, including
language and culture, has significant impact on the overall school
system. Understandably, there will be a limited number of teachers and
other staff who are knowledgeable in the cultural background of
students from the beginning; however, resources should be made
available to assist these teachers to learn about their students.
Programs need to be implemented to give teachers the skills needed to
incorporate the tradition and culture of all children, Native and
otherwise.
The Focus of the NCLBA Needs to be Shifted from a Rigid, Penalty
Focused System to a System that Recognizes and Measures
Individual Progress
Assuming that assessments are made more appropriate and teacher
qualifications reflect the need to incorporate the culture, the NCLBA
poses other problems that any reauthorization should address. Overall,
the NCLBA focuses on schools and students that do not obtain the AYP
benchmarks. While it is important to identify when schools are failing
to properly educate students, the progress that schools do make should
also be acknowledged. NCLBA needs to be amended to create rewards for
schools that are making progress. Further progress should not be
exclusively defined to mean only those schools that make the AYP
benchmarks. Rewards should be made to schools and teachers who make
efforts to learn and incorporate student culture. Students' progress
should be measured individually, not against rigid AYP benchmarks. The
method of student assessment should be shifted from a system that uses
a small number of tests to determine student progress to a more
encompassing assessment system, such as a portfolio assessment system.
Additional Topics that Reauthorization of the NCLBA Should Address
In addition to reexamining the student assessment systems used to
meet and comply with the NCLBA, the NCLBA needs to be amended to
address other factors critical to student success. School districts
need to be directed to implement After-School Tutoring Programs to
assist all students in Grades K--12. It is more advantageous for
students to receive tutoring sponsored by the school districts, as
students need to be prepared to pass the state assessment tests.
Tutoring programs on campus allow the use of educational tools and
support staff is familiar with the assessment tools and test
instruments utilized by the school district. Schools also need to be
directed, and given the necessary resources, to collaborate and
communicate with their feeder schools. This is especially important for
children at an early age.
Finally, whether it be fulfilling the original mandates of NCLBA,
or addressing proposed amendments such as tutoring and school
collaboration, schools must be supported with funding authorizations
from Congress. If Congress is truly committed to ensuring that no child
is left behind, then Congress needs to commit the resources necessary
to follow through on this policy statement.
Conclusion
The Ak-Chin Indian Community supports the intent behind the NCLBA
and believes that, with modifications to address the above discussed
concerns, the NCLBA can help ensure that Native American students are
taught by highly qualified teachers and properly assessed, thereby, be
given an opportunity to receive the best education possible. Thank you
for the opportunity to submit these written comments.
______
[Letter from Todd Honyaoma, Sr., follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]