[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHALLENGES FACING BUREAU OF
INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS IN
IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-108
__________
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
44-214 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 Senior Republican 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 [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican 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
[Vacancy]
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 9, 2008................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.................................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashby, Cornelia, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Dudro, Anne, Chief of Staff, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.......... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Gilbert, Dr. Willard Sakiestewa, president, National Indian
Education Association...................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional material submitted for the record............. 11
Hamilton, Theodore, executive director, Oceti Sakowin
Education Consortium....................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Holder, Stanley, Chief, Division of Performance and
Accountability, Bureau of Indian Education, Department of
the Interior............................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
CHALLENGES FACING BUREAU OF
INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS IN
IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
----------
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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 10:05 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Scott, Kucinich, Grijalva,
Payne, Holt, Woolsey, Castle, and Ehlers.
Also present: Representative Herseth Sandlin.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Catherine
Brown, Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Director of
Education Policy; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Lloyd
Horwich, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secretary Education; Fred Jones, Staff
Assistant, Education; Jessica Kahanek, Press Assistant; Joe
Novotny, Chief Clerk; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant,
Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant;
Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Kirsten Duncan,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Chad Miller, Minority
Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education
and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/
Assistant to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority
Staff Director.
Chairman Kildee [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 12, any member may submit an opening statement
in writing which will be part of the permanent record. And I
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, ``Challenges Facing Bureau of Indian
Education Schools In Improving Student Achievement.''
Last year, we held a hearing at the Gila River Indian
Community in the district of our fellow subcommittee member,
Mr. Grijalva. That hearing was on how the No Child Left Behind
Act has impacted Indian education generally.
Today's hearing is on issues facing Bureau of Indian
Education-funded schools specifically.
Nearly 50,000 students, 10 percent of all Indian students,
attend one of the 184 BIE schools. Of the 184, BIE operates 61
directly, and contractors operate the other 123.
It was in the early days of my tenure here in Congress that
we began to encourage the contract schools. Al Quie, who used
to sit right here, Al Quie, who later on became governor of
Minnesota, played a very important role in that. And I think Al
Quie and the governor sitting next to me right now have both
illustrated through those 32 years that Indian education has
been a real genuine bipartisan concern.
I have had an abiding interest in Indian education since my
election to the Michigan legislature in 1964. In Michigan, I
wrote the Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver Act to bring the state
into compliance with its treaty obligations.
The Act provides for a tuition-free education for Michigan
Indians at Michigan public colleges. Jackie Vaughn, who has
gone on to his eternal reward, and I wrote that bill and the
governor signed the bill. A Democratic Legislature passed it,
signed by a Republican governor. Again, illustrating that we
have a bipartisan concern with our obligations to America's
first citizens.
Today, I am able to express my interest not only through my
chairmanship of this subcommittee but also as the founder and
Democratic chairman of the House Native American Caucus and as
a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
I often say that land and language are the two anchors for
protecting tribal sovereignty. A third anchor for protecting
tribe 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 and their family's station in life. But in one
respect, the challenge facing tribes is the same challenge
faced anywhere in the United States--our success to 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,
including every Indian child, with a world-class education. And
that is why we are here today.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide
us with insight on the unique challenges facing BIE schools and
improving student education.
Because, while the need for education may be the same
everywhere, the way to educate children is not. Our witnesses
will discuss a recent Government Accountability Office report
on how to improve BIE's assistance to tribes to help them
implement academic accountability systems under NCLB to take
into account Indian culture and languages.
The report describes a number of shortcomings in that
assistance.
Moving forward, we must clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the many agencies involved--the Departments
of the Interior and Education, States, and tribes.
And, in particular, we must ensure that the tribes, which
are sovereign entities, are full partners in the process. The
law contemplates that the federal government will work with the
tribes, not dictate to the tribes and that the process will
work out a system that is relevant to the unique situation of
the tribes including their culture and language.
Some of our witnesses also will discuss the need to
increase federal support for Indian education, and that also is
critical.
So I look forward to the testimony, and it is my pleasure
to yield to my good friend, the governor of Delaware, Mr.
Castle.
[The statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
I'm pleased to welcome the public and our witnesses to this hearing
of the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary
education--``Challenges Facing Bureau of Indian Education Schools in
improving Student Achievement.''
Last year, we held a hearing at the Gila River Indian Community--in
the district of our fellow subcommittee member, Mr. Grijalva. That
hearing was on how the No Child Left Behind Act has impacted Indian
education, generally.
Today's hearing is on issues facing Bureau of Indian Education-
funded schools specifically. Nearly 50,000 students--10 percent of all
Indian students--attend one of the 184 BIE schools. Of the 184, BIE
operates 61 directly and contracts with tribes to operate the other
123. I have had an abiding interest in Indian education since my
election to the Michigan Legislature in 1964. In Michigan, I wrote the
Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver Act--to bring the state into compliance
with its treaty obligations. The act provides for a tuition-free
education for qualified Michigan Indians at Michigan's public colleges.
Today, I am able to express that interest not only though my
chairmanship of this subcommittee, but also as the founder and
Democratic Chairman of the House Native American Caucus, and as a
member of the Natural Resources Committee. I often say that land and
language are the two anchors for protecting tribal sovereignty. 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 and
their family's station in life. But, in one respect, the challenge
facing tribes 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--including every Indian child--with a world-class
education.
And that is why we are here today.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide us with
insight on the unique challenges facing BIE schools in improving
student achievement. Because, while the need for education may be the
same everywhere, the way to educate children is not. Our witnesses will
discuss a recent government accountability office report on how to
improve BIE's assistance to tribes to help them implement academic
accountability systems under NCLB that take into account Indian culture
and languages.
The report identifies a number of shortcomings in that assistance.
Moving forward, we must clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
many agencies involved--the Departments of the Interior and Education,
states, and tribes.
And, in particular, we must ensure that the tribes--which are
sovereign entities--are full partners in the process.
The law contemplates that the federal government will work with the
tribes, not dictate to the tribes. Some of our witnesses also will
discuss the need to increase federal support for Indian education, and
that also is critical.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Castle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing. Thank you for your interest in education and,
particularly, Indian education. You are deeply steeped in this,
and for that, we are all very appreciative.
And we thank our witnesses for being here for making
themselves available to us today. I look forward to your
testimony, as a matter of fact.
As most of you know, the federal government, through the
U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Education, which
is the BIE we are referring to, providing educational
assistance to Indian children to ensure that they receive a
high quality education comparable to their peers.
Currently, the BIE-funded education system for Indian
students includes 174 schools and 14 peripheral dormitories for
students attending public schools nearby.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires states in the BIE to
define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly
progress towards meeting the goal of 100 percent academic
proficiency.
In June of this year, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office, which we know as GAO, issued a report that examined how
the BIE and Indian tribes have implemented the requirements of
No Child Left Behind. The report, entitled ``Improving
Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement
Academic Accountability Systems,'' found that BIE and almost
all of its schools have adopted state definitions of AYP.
The report did note, however, that the BIE has not
completed agreements with several key states, delineating terms
that BIE-funded schools access to the state assessment systems.
As the BIE moves forward with the process of improving student
academic achievement and as No Child Left Behind is considered
for reauthorization, I believe, as many proponents of American
education do, that we must explore options which can provide
additional flexibility to BIE schools in helping them meet the
law's requirements.
Although I believe strongly that the BIE should continue to
have the flexibility necessary to develop assessments that
accurately measure student achievement, Congress must work to
ensure that we and the BIE remain committed to the high
standards and quality all students and schools should be held
to.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about what
is happening on the ground regarding this issue.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Castle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Castle, Senior Republican, Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Good morning and thank you Chairman Kildee for holding today's
hearing on the important topic of ``Challenges Facing Bureau of Indian
Education Schools in Improving Student Achievement.'' I would also like
to thank today's witnesses for sharing their time and expertise with
the Subcommittee on this issue.
As most of you know, the federal government, through the U.S.
Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), provides
educational assistance to Indian children to ensure that they receive a
high quality education comparable to their peers. Currently, the BIE-
funded education system for Indian students includes 174 schools and 14
``peripheral dormitories'' for students attending public schools
nearby.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires states and the BIE to
define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly
progress (AYP) towards meeting the goal of 100 percent academic
proficiency.
In June of this year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report that examined how the BIE and Indian tribes have
implemented the requirements of NCLB. The report, entitled ``Improving
Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic
Accountability Systems,'' found that BIE and almost all of its schools
have adopted State definitions of AYP. The report did note, however,
that the BIE has not completed agreements with several key states
delineating the terms of BIE-funded schools' access to the state
assessment systems.
As the BIE moves forward with the process of improving student
academic achievement, and as NCLB is considered for reauthorization, I
believe, as many proponents of Indian education do, that we must
explore options which can provide additional flexibility to BIE schools
in helping them meet the law's requirements.
Although I believe strongly that the BIE should continue to have
the flexibility necessary to develop assessments that accurately
measure student achievement, Congress must work to ensure we and the
BIE remain committed to the high standards and quality all students and
schools should be held to.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about what is
happening on the ground regarding this issue. Thank you.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle.
I would now like to introduce the very distinguished panel
of witnesses here with us this morning.
Cornelia Ashby is director of education, workforce, and
income security issues for the Government Accountability
Office. Ms. Ashby joined GAO in 1973.
In 1992, she was selected for GAO's senior executive
candidate development program and in 1994, was appointed an
associate director for education and employment issues.
She began her current position in the year 2000.
Dr. Willard Gilbert is president 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.
Stan Holder is the chief of the Bureau of Indian
Education's Division of Performance and Accountability where he
administers all programs funded under NCLB for the Bureau.
He has published research on instructional and behavioral
programs that improve student achievement and behavioral
outcomes. He also is a former vice president of the Wichita and
affiliated tribes.
Anne Dudro is chief of staff for the Department of
Education's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Ms.
Dudro joined the Department in 2005, and is a special assistant
to the secretary.
She also was appointed that year as a member of the U.S.
Delegation to the 33rd General Conference of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
I now ask unanimous consent to yield to Representative
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to introduce our next witness, Ted
Hamilton.
In yielding, I would like to note that it is my pleasure to
serve with Representative Herseth Sandlin both on the Natural
Resources Committee and the Native American Caucus. She is an
outstanding advocate on education and Indian issues.
I yield to her.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Kildee and Ranking Member Castle, for holding this very
important hearing, for your extraordinary leadership on this
issue, and for allowing me a chance to join you on the dais for
the purposes of introducing a fellow South Dakotan and a leader
in Indian education, Mr. Ted Hamilton.
Mr. Hamilton is the executive director of the Oceti Sakowin
Education Consortium, also referred to as OSEC. He has 22 years
of experience working with tribal colleges, grant schools, and
public schools across the Great Plains.
Mr. Hamilton was one of the founders of OSEC. It started
nearly 10 years ago. Based on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation, OSEC is comprised of numerous tribal colleges and
tribal schools and provides a range of valuable services to
these schools.
Through his work with schools eager to develop an
alternative adequate yearly progress standard, Mr. Hamilton has
become intimately familiar with the impacts of No Child Left
Behind in Bureau of Indian Education schools.
I know you will appreciate his insights and perspective on
the matters before the subcommittee today.
With 22 schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education
in South Dakota, the topics that will be addressed today are of
critical importance to the native communities in my state.
In March of 2006, Chairman George Miller and I conducted a
series of visits to Indian country schools in southwestern
South Dakota. After meeting with educators, administrators,
students, and concerned community members, two themes emerged:
the importance of considering native culture within achievement
and accountability standards and the unique management
challenges created by the BIE's authority over much NCLB
implementation.
As we all know, the federal government has a unique
government-to-government relationship with American Indian
tribes, and this relationship is based on the United States
Constitution and hundreds of treaties signed by tribes and the
U.S. Government.
Education is one treaty-based responsibility. The GAO study
confirms what schools in my district have reported: the federal
government still has work to do to better uphold its trust
responsibilities with regard to Indian education.
When we consider that only 31 percent of BIE schools, less
than one in three, met adequate yearly progress in 2007, it is
clear that Congress must work to address the challenges facing
these schools. The Department of the Interior and the
Department of Education should continue to engage with tribes
in a manner that respects tribal sovereignty and empowers
tribal self-determination.
So, again, thank you for holding this hearing, for allowing
me to introduce Mr. Hamilton this morning. I commend his
testimony.
To all of you on the subcommittee, this hearing is a truly
important step toward assessing the impact of NCLB in Indian
country and guiding our future actions to further improve
education of native students across the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
And, again, welcome to all our witnesses. For those of you
who have not testified before this subcommittee before, I will
explain our lighting system and the 5-minute rule.
Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes for
presentation or questioning. The green light will be
illuminated when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow
light, it means that you have 1 minute remaining. When you see
the red light, it means your time has expired and you need to
conclude your testimony.
There is no ejection seat there, so you may finish up your
sentence or your paragraph and conclude.
Please be certain as you are testifying to turn on and
speak into the microphone in front of you and turn it off when
you are finished.
We will now hear from our first witness, Cornelia Ashby,
director of education, workforce, and income security issues
with the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
You may begin.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIA ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE,
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Ms. Ashby. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges tribal
groups and BIE schools face with respect to the measurement of
Indian students' academic progress. My testimony is based
largely on our June 2008 report on this topic.
As a condition for receiving grants under NCLBA, schools,
including BIE schools, must measure yearly progress in meeting
academic standards in math, reading, and science. In 2005, as
required by NCLBA, the Secretary of the Interior determined
that to measure such progress, each BIE school would use the
definition of adequate yearly progress of the state in which
the school is located.
Recognizing that students in BIE schools may have unique
needs and special circumstances, NCLBA allows tribal groups to
waive all or part of the secretary's definition of AYP and
propose an alternative.
Under BIE regulations, the definition of AYP covers the
academic standards and assessments used in measuring academic
progress. Although all of the 174 BIE schools have measured
academic progress--almost all have measured academic progress
in accordance with their state's definition of AYP.
To establish the terms under which BIE schools access
assessments and scoring arrangements, BIE has established
memorandums of understanding with about half of the 23 states
that have BIE schools.
While the remaining states, with the exception of
California, have allowed BIE schools access to their
assessments, without MOUs, there is increased risk that the
terms of access will change. California officials have not
given the two BIE schools in the state access to the state
assessment because they fear a breach in security. They only
administer the assessments to public schools in California.
However, state officials were willing to make an exception
for BIE schools, but requested a $1 million bond in security.
BIE and education officials are trying to work with the state
to resolve the issue.
Three tribal groups, the Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin
Education Consortium known as OSEC, and the Miccosukee,
representing BIE schools in five states and about 44 percent of
BIE students are in the early stages of developing alternative
definitions of AYP.
Officials from the Navajo Nation with BIE schools in three
states have requested technical assistance for developing an
alternative definition of AYP, citing the desire to include
cultural components in the standards and assessments, compare
the progress of Navajo students across states, and develop a
Navajo-specific measure that could influence AYP determination
regardless of the state in which the school is located.
OSEC seeks to develop alternative standards and alternative
assessment to improve student performance, define the
graduation rates to include 6 years rather than 4, and replace
the attendance component with a language and culture component.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Florida is considering options for
developing an alternative assessment in developing standards
for Miccosukee culture and language to serve as the additional
AYP indicator in lieu of attendance for their students in third
to eighth grade.
Other tribal groups have not pursued alternatives for
various reasons including the desire to remain compatible with
public schools in their state and potential challenges and
resources required to develop alternatives.
For example, officials representing BIE schools in
California, Mississippi, and Washington told us that it was
important that their schools be compatible with the local
public schools. In addition, school and Department of Education
officials and BIE education line officers identified several
potential challenges the tribal groups might encounter,
including not enough of the specialized knowledge required and
funding and extensive time commitments that might not be
sustainable given changes in leadership in both the tribal and
BIE levels.
The three tribal groups seeking alternatives reported a
lack of federal guidance on the alternative development process
and frustration with the pace and quality of communication with
BIE. But they have more recently reported receiving some
assistance from BIE and Education.
BIE's education line officers, who are the tribal group's
primary contact for information on developing an alternative,
generally indicated they had not received guidance or training
on this provision. In communicating with tribal groups
regarding alternative AYP definitions, BIE did not consistently
apply its processes for providing accurate and timely
responses.
In our June 2008 report, we made recommendations to the
Secretary of the Interior related to BIE's ensuring access to
state assessments, guidance and training on the process for
seeking alternatives, and communication with tribal groups
seeking alternative definitions for AYP by establishing
internal time frames and processes.
Interior agreed with our recommendations and reported
taking actions in response to them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Ashby may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081125t.pdf
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much for your testimony,
and we will look forward to questioning.
Dr. Gilbert?
STATEMENT OF WILLARD SAKIESTEWA GILBERT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Dr. Gilbert. Thank you, Chairman Kildee for championing on
behalf of native children. I thank you for your support, and we
greatly appreciate it.
My name is Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, president of the
National Indian Education Association. I am also a member of
the Hopi tribe.
Today, I would like to share NIEA's membership concerns
regarding the disparity in academic achievement between schools
funded and operated by BIE and other schools.
NIEA has held 12 field hearings on reauthorization of NCLBA
and recently conducted four of its five regional hearings on
issues that impact native students who attend BIE-funded
schools.
Well over 200 witnesses have testified and have submitted
written testimony regarding challenges our native students have
encountered by NCLBA, school transportation, construction,
maintenance, and facilities needs as well as JOM and tribal
education department funding and other pressing issues.
The following is a summary of their testimony.
There is little collaboration between the Departments of
Education and Interior in helping BIE students meet
requirements of NCLB. For the past 3 years, only 30 percent of
BIE schools made AYP goals established by the states in which
the goals were located.
In 2004, the executive order was signed that directed the
two departments to work together to assist American Indian and
Alaska native students in meeting the challenging students
academic standards of NCLB Act of 2001 in a manner that is
consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.
NIEA encourages a stronger relationship between the two
departments given the limited capacity of BIE and the larger
pool of expertise in education and increasing academic
achievement that is available at the Department of Education.
In particular, NIEA would like for the Department of
Education to serve as technical advisers to the BIE regional
and education line officers when the expertise is not available
at the BIE on how to improve academic achievement and in
development of tribal standards and assessments that are
culturally and linguistically appropriate.
BIE should strongly support culturally-based education and
native language instruction. Current research demonstrates 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.
NIEA proposed amendments to Title VII to 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 will result in
successful academic achievement of Indian students.
As reported by the National Indian Education Study of 2007
Part II, BIE students are receiving some exposure to
instruction in native language and cultural topics. NIEA
believes that these schools will be models for successful
integration of native language immersion programs and
culturally-based education if given the opportunity, support,
and resources need to implement these types of programs that
have demonstrated academic success.
But lack of new construction and the poor facilities and
maintenance of BIE schools negatively impact the achievement of
BIE students.
In March of 2008, the consensus building initiative issued
a report that stated in their findings that the conditions of
BIE schools--that many schools are ill-equipped for the
information age and aging or poor design may lead to a
substandard educational environment.
Operation and maintenance needs are not matched by
operation and maintenance annual funding. And, overall,
overcrowding is a major concern and a source of accelerating
physical decline.
On the average, BIE education buildings are 60 years old,
but 40 years is the average age for public schools serving the
general population.
According to the Hopi tribe chairman, students are at
extremely higher risk because of exposure to hazardous
materials in their school facilities. In recent years, they
have experienced severe reductions in annual appropriations for
the building operations, maintenance, and repairs program which
then results in the ever-increasing number of projects placed
in the facilities, maintenance inventory system.
While waiting for funding, Hopi students and staff were
subjected to exposure to hazardous materials, but all the
schools have asbestos and radon issues, which puts the students
and staff at risk.
The research on school building conditions and student
outcomes find a consistent relationship between poor facilities
and poor performance. A recent study has shown that students
attending school in newer, better facilities score 5 to 17
points higher on standardized tests than those attending in
substandard buildings.
It is unjust to expect our students to succeed academically
if we fail to provide them about a proper learning environment
to be successful.
As reported by a witness at regional hearings in South
Dakota--Wounded Knee, located on Pine Ridge Reservation, runs
13 bus routes every day traveling an average of 1,575 miles per
school day, totaling 267,715 miles annually.
In conclusion, NIEA is committed to accountability, high
standards, and rigorous education. And I would like to leave
one word with you, and that is, this is a testimony given by a
third grader, Samantha Todechine Navajo.
And she said: ``Good afternoon. My name is Samantha
Todechine. I am from the Near To Water Clan. I go to school at
Black Mesa Community School.
During the winter, when it rains, the road gets muddy. The
bus driver always tries to stay on the road, but we always
slide off the road.
This past winter was terrible. I live across the wash. The
bus couldn't get across the wash to pick us up. So me and my
two sisters had to walk about a mile to meet the bus.
I was crossing the wash when I lost both of my shoes in the
mud. The bus driver and my sister helped me cross the wash and
tried to find my shoes.''
Also, Chairman, for the record, we would like to submit our
transcripts from the testimonies and also our NCLB amendments.
Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection, they will be included
in the record.
[The material may be accessed at the following Internet
address:]
http://www.niea.org/issues/policy.php
------
Dr. Gilbert. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Gilbert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, President,
National Indian Education Association
Chairman Kildee and other Members of the Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education,
thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
National Indian Education Association with regard to the Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE) and challenges facing BIE schools in improving
student achievement. I would like to give a special thank you to
Chairman Kildee for being such a great champion for ensuring that the
educational needs of Native students and their communities are met.
Indian Country has no greater friend in the Congress than Chairman
Kildee.
Founded in 1969, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA)
is the largest organization in the nation dedicated to Native education
advocacy issues and embraces a membership of nearly 4,000 American
Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian educators, tribal leaders,
school administrators, teachers, elders, parents, and students.
NIEA makes every effort to advocate for the unique educational and
culturally related academic needs of Native students. NIEA works to
ensure that the federal government upholds its responsibility for the
education of Native students through the provision of direct
educational services. The trust relationship of the United States
government includes the responsibility of ensuring educational quality
and access for American Indians. Recognizing and validating the
cultural, social and linguistic needs of American Indians is critical
to guaranteeing the continuity of their communities. The way in which
instruction and educational services is provided is critical to the
achievement of our students to attain the same academic standards as
students nation-wide.
NIEA is committed to accountability, high standards, and the
rigorous education of our children and will continue to hold the BIE
accountable for ensuring that BIE students meet their academic
potential with educational programs that consider their cultures,
languages, backgrounds, and identities. We believe with good faith
collaboration that we can provide our children with an education that
honors their Native identities while simultaneously preparing them for
successful futures by providing them with opportunities to incorporate
into the curriculum their rich cultural heritages, languages, and
traditions.
There are only two educational systems for which the federal
government has direct responsibility: the Department of Defense schools
and federally and tribally operated schools that serve American Indian
students through the (BIE) within the Department of the Interior (DOI).
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 BIE
schools while the remaining 90% attend public schools supported through
the Department of Education (DOE).
NIEA's membership is concerned about the disparity in academic
achievement between schools funded and operated by BIE and other
schools. As a result of these concerns, NIEA scheduled five field
hearings this year throughout Indian Country. We have already held
hearings in Rapid City, South Dakota, Seattle, Washington, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and Window Rock, Arizona. The purpose of these NIEA
facilitated sessions has been to gather information on the challenges
faced by BIE schools, including how NCLB is being implemented, and
additional concerns of BIE schools impacting the achievement of their
students. Testimony from the witnesses focused on the following topics:
1) NCLB and Adequate Yearly Progress, 2) Indian school construction and
facilities maintenance, and 3) student transportation. Additionally,
testimony regarding services and funding for Johnson O'Malley programs
and tribal colleges was offered. These sessions served as a focused
follow up discussion to the eleven field hearings NIEA held in 2005 on
the implementation of NCLB in Indian Country. The sessions in 2005
served as the basis for the legislative language NIEA has proposed for
inclusion in the bill to reauthorize NCLB.
This past June, the GAO issued the report, Bureau of Indian
Schools: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups
Implement Academic Accountability Systems pursuant to a request of
Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee, Representative Grijalva, and
Representative Herseth Sandlin. This report highlighted many challenges
that BIE and DOE schools, tribal communities, and Indian students face
under the Act and raised questions about the effectiveness of the BIE
and the Department of Education in providing educational services to
Indian students.
The following is a summary of the concerns NIEA has heard
throughout the past few years on BIE schools and student achievement.
NIEA has provided recommendations for some of the concerns raised,
including legislative amendments to NCLB provided to the Committee in
March of 2007.
Stronger Cooperation Between the Departments of Education and Interior
Executive Order 13336, signed by President Bush in April of 2004,
directed the DOE and DOI, among other Federal agencies, to work
together to ``assist American Indian and Alaska Native students in
meeting the challenging student academic standards of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) in a manner that is consistent
with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.'' \1\
DOE funds the education of Native American students by operating
Native American-targeted programs and setting aside funds within
programs open to all students and transferring these funds to the BIA
for BIE managed schools. Often, that is where the interaction between
the two Departments ends, despite the directive given in the Executive
Order for the agencies to work together. NIEA encourages a stronger
relationship between the two Departments given the limited capacity of
BIE and the larger pool of expertise in education available at DOE. In
particular, NIEA recommends that DOE serve as technical advisors to the
BIE Regional and Education Line Offices when the expertise is not
available at the BIE on how to improve academic achievement and in the
development of tribal standards and assessments.
Adequate Yearly Progress
For the past three school years, only 30% of BIE schools made
theAYP goals established by the state in which the school was located.
DOE statistics indicate that student performance at BIE schools is
lower than for students in public schools. In response to the lack of
performance at BIE schools, DOI has launched the Improving Indian
Education Initiative to help BIE students meet AYP under NCLB. NIEA
commends BIE for this effort and hopes to see positive gains in BIE
student academic achievement as a result. However, NIEA remains
concerned about the applicability of state standards to Native children
attending BIE schools given the limited, if any, opportunities Tribes
have had in the development of these standards.
Tribal communities are in the best position to determine the needs
and the appropriate assessment methods for Native students. NIEA's
amendments to NCLB provide for the ability of a consortium of tribes,
BIE funded schools, or school boards to apply for a waiver of the
definition of AYP. As the law is currently written, a single tribe,
school board or BIE 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.
Additionally, NIEA supports a structured process with BIE that
provides deadlines for the BIE to respond to tribes that submit an
application to waive the definition of AYP, in addition to an appeals
process. As reported in the GAO report ``one tribal group alerted BIE
of its intent to use an alternative assessment as early as October 2006
but did not receive any response from BIE until June 2007 and technical
assistance was not provided until November 2007.'' \2\
Other challenges that have prevented tribes from applying for an
alternative definition of AYP include the lack of technical assistance
provided to the tribe from the BIE, the lack of funding available to
develop the standards and assessments, and the lengthy commitment
needed to navigate the process to complete the application.\3\ NIEA
supports a defined process that provides a timeline in reviewing the
applications for alternative definitions of AYP and collaboration
between DOE and BIE to provide technical assistance to tribes seeking
to apply and develop an alternate definition of AYP.
Increased Collaboration among Tribes, States, and the Federal
Government
For tribes that are unable to develop their own standards and
assessments and must use the state definitions, 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. As documented in the GAO report,
more often than not, states develop the standards without consultation
and inclusion of the tribal communities although the BIE and ``almost
all of the 174 BIE schools have adopted state definitions of AYP''.\4\
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 under Title I.\5\ NIEA's proposed amendments to the
NCLB provide for the inclusion of tribal input in the development of
the various state, local educational agency, and school plans. 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. NIEA supports
assessments that consider the cultural and educational needs of Native
students. 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.
Culturally Relevant Programs
Current research demonstrates 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, cultural arts and other
subjects may be taught in curricula instilled in Native traditional and
cultural concepts and knowledge. The National Science Foundation funded
Native Science Connections Research Project at Northern Arizona
University, is a research model that successfully integrated native
language, culture and traditions into BIA funded schools' science
elementary curriculum. On-going analysis of data revealed increased
student mastery of science and math concepts, deeper levels of student
engagement in science and math and increased student achievement in
math and science.\6\
Title VII of NCLB recognizes that Native children have unique
educational needs due to their cultures and backgrounds. The purpose of
Title VII \7\ 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. In general, these
approaches include recognizing and utilizing native languages as a
first or second language, pedagogy that incorporates traditional
cultural characteristics and involves teaching strategies that are
harmonious with the native culture knowledge and contemporary ways of
knowing and learning. It also includes curricula based upon native
culture that utilizes legends, oral histories, songs and fundamental
beliefs and values of the community. In addition, it involves parents,
elders and cultural experts as well as other community members'
participation in educating native children utilizing the social and
political mores of the community.\8\ Part A of Title VII deals
specifically with the education of American Indians and Parts B and C
address the educational needs of Native Hawaiian and Alaskan Native
students. NIEA has proposed amendments to focus the purpose of Title
VII to include both academic achievement through culturally based
education and to increase the cultural and traditional knowledge base
of Indian students.
As stated above, Part A of Title VII contains provisions for
American Indian Education and provides supplemental grants to the BIE
and 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 traditional cultural practices with basic skills and
embraces the knowledge of the environment, Native fine arts and crafts,
leadership, character education and citizenship.
The National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II reported that
there is a higher percentage of students in schools with a high density
of Indian student population that receive instruction on topics related
to native cultures as compared to students in low density Indian
student population schools.\9\ Students attending BIE schools fall
within the high density schools definition. Additionally, the report
goes on to state that higher percentages of BIE school students than
public school students had teachers who reported integrating Native
culture and history into their curriculum. ``For example, higher
percentages of fourth- and eighth graders in BIE schools than in public
schools had teachers who said the integration of AI/AN culture and
history into their curriculum occurred ``almost every day.'' \10\ The
study also noted that ``teachers' reliance on AI/AN content or cultural
standards for reading/language arts instruction was reported for higher
percentages of BIE school students than for their peers in public
schools.'' \11\
NIEA believes that the BIE should expand upon the culturally based
instruction currently taking place in BIE schools by promoting stronger
integration of Native cultures and languages into the curriculum. 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 enrichment programs that supplement other NCLB
programs and will result in improved academic achievement of Indian
students
Native Language Programs
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 often experienced stagnant
educational achievement, those in Native language immersion programs
have demonstrated remarkable promise in educational achievement.\12\
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 other content areas. 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 environment, lives and identities.
The National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II reported that 16%
of fourth grade BIE students had teachers who used Native languages
frequently during instruction compared to one percent of the public
school students.\13\ NIEA is pleased that BIE students are receiving
some exposure and instruction in Native languages and supports stronger
Native language curriculum at BIE schools. NIEA believes that BIE
schools could be the models for successful integration of Native
language immersion programs and culturally based education if given the
opportunity and support needed to implement these specific types of
programs.
Indian School Construction
In 1997, GAO issued a report ``Reported Condition and Costs to
Repair Schools Funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs'' that documented
an inventory of repair needs for education facilities totaling $754
million. In 2004 the backlog for construction and repair was reported
to have grown to $942 million.
More recently, in March of 2008, the Consensus Building Institute
(CBI) with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
issued a Final Convening Report: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on
Bureau of Indian Affairs-Funded Schools Facilities Construction. CBI
reported in their findings of the conditions of the schools that ``many
schools are ill equipped for the information age'', ``security needs
and related funding are major sources of concern for many schools'',
``aging or poor design may lead to a substandard educational
environment'', ``operation and maintenance needs are not matched by
operation and maintenance annual funding'', and ``overcrowding is a
major concern and a source of accelerating physical decline.'' \14\
Additionally, the report stated in the findings that the Facility
Management Information System (FMIS) doesn't sufficiently allow for
educational programming needs, including libraries, adequately sized
classrooms and gymnasiums, wiring to allow for technological needs and
partitions and noise reducing walls.\15\
Testifying at the NIEA sponsored BIA/BIE Regional Hearing in Navajo
Nation/Window Rock, AZ, Hopi Tribal Chairman, Benjamin Nuvamsa stated,
``our students are at extremely high risk because of exposure to
hazardous materials in our school facilities * * * [recently] severe
reductions in annual appropriations for the building Operations,
Maintenance and Repairs (OM&R) program results in the ever-increasing
number of projects placed in the Facilities Maintenance Inventory
System (FMIS). While waiting for funding, our students and staff are
subjected to exposure to hazardous materials * * * almost all schools
have asbestos and radon issues which puts the students and staff at
risk.'' \16\
The amount of funding over the past few years have failed to fund
tribes at the rate of inflation, once again exacerbating the hardships
faced by Native American students. Further, the funding that has been
allocated over the past few years will not keep pace with the
tremendous backlog of Indian schools and facilities in need of
replacement or repair. The Mandaree Day School located in Mandaree,
North Dakota has taken out a loan in the amount of $3 million to cover
the costs of building a new education facility. The Mandaree Day School
could not wait any longer for the funding from DOI to build their
school. The loan only covers the facility structure and the 210
children attending this school have no playground and the teachers do
not have a paved parking lot.
The purpose of education construction is to permit BIA to provide
structurally sound buildings in which Native American children can
learn without leaking roofs and peeling paint. It is unjust to expect
our students to succeed academically, if we fail to provide them with a
proper environment to achieve success.
Indian Education Facilities Improvement and Repair Funding
The continued deterioration of facilities on Indian land is not
only a federal responsibility; it has become a liability of the federal
government. Old and exceeding their life expectancy by decades, BIA
schools require consistent increases in facilities maintenance without
offsetting decreases in other programs, if 48,000 Indian students are
to be educated in structurally sound schools.
Of the 4,495 education buildings in the BIA inventory, half are
more than 30 years old and more than 20% are older than fifty years. On
average, BIE education buildings are 60 years old; while, 40 years is
the average age for public schools serving the general population. 65%
of BIE school administrators report the physical condition of one or
more school buildings as inadequate. Although education construction
has improved a bit over the last few years, the deferred maintenance
backlog is still estimated to be over $500 million and increases
annually by $56.5 million. As noted by the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee in its Committee Report accompanying the FY
2006 Interior appropriations bill, ``much remains to be done.'' Of the
184 BIE schools, \1/3\ of the schools are in poor condition and in need
of either replacement or substantial repair.
School Transportation
Student transportation impacts student attendance and the ability
of school districts to offer educational programs. BIE provides
extensive student transportation required of largely rural and widely
dispersed school service populations. According to the FY 2009 DOI
Budget Request, Departmental Highlights, during the current school
year, BIE-funded school buses will travel nearly 15 million miles,
often over gravel or dirt roads. As reported by a witness during the
session NIEA held in Rapid City, South Dakota, the Little Wound School,
located on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, runs thirteen
bus routes each day during which the buses travel on average, 1,575
miles per school day totaling 267,750 miles annually for ``regular bus
runs not including activity runs.'' \17\ An additional seven buses run
each day for the after school activities for athletic trips, field
trips, activity runs, medical trips, etc., totaling 106,083 miles per
year. In addition, Navajo Nation's Black Mesa Community School
Principal Marie Rose testified that ``students ride the bus four hours
a day. However, when it rains or snows the average bus ride is seven
hours a day, if the roads are in drivable condition, which many times
are they are not.'' \18\
The FY 2009 DOI Budget Request notes that the condition of roads
often traveled by BIE-funded school buses increases the wear and tear
on vehicles, requiring more routine maintenance and more frequent
replacement of vehicles by BIE compared to other school systems and
further notes that the remote location of the BIE schools also results
in higher fuel costs relative to other locales.
The cost of fuel is steadily rising and transportation costs is a
major concern for a number of school districts that serve American
Indian and Alaska Native students and if assistance is not available
through federal or state resources, the high cost of transporting
students in rural areas may offset precious funding that could
potentially be used for instructional purposes. Little Wound School has
reported that a shortfall of $170,411.15 for transportation funding
``has had a tremendous effect on our budget.''\19\
Johnson O'Malley Funding
President Bush continues to attempt elimination of Johnson 0'Malley
(JOM) grants and NIEA and the Johnson O'Malley Association Board urge
Congress to continue supporting these programs crucial to Indian
students.
Although the purpose of JOM funding administered by the BIA is to
support Indian students in public schools, we find that JOM programs
have an impact on the education of many of the Indian students
attending BIE schools due to the transitory nature of Indian students
between BIE and public schools.
JOM grants are the cornerstone for many Indian communities in
meeting the unique and specialized educational needs of Native students
who attend public schools. Many Indian children live in rural or remote
areas with high rates of poverty and unemployment. JOM helps to level
the field by providing Indian students with programs that help them
stay in school and attain academic success. Even though JOM funding is
extremely limited due to BIA budget constraints, it is being used
across the country in a variety of basic as well as innovative ways to
assist Indian students to achieve academically. JOM funding provides
vital programs designed to build self-esteem, confidence, and cultural
awareness so that Indian students may develop and mature to become
productive and contributing citizens within their communities and
society respectively. For example, JOM funds help students achieve and
succeed by providing such services as: eyeglasses and contacts, resume
counseling, college counseling, culturally based tutoring, summer
school, scholastic testing fees, school supplies, transition programs,
musical instruments, Native youth leadership programs, student
incentive programs, financial aid counseling, fees for athletic
equipment and activities, caps and gowns, art and writing competitions,
etc. Other programs administered by the federal government, such as
NCLB funding at DOE, do not allow funding for these types of
activities.
For example, in Vinita, Oklahoma, Native students have benefited in
a variety of ways through its JOM program funds. by providing
``opportunities and activities that assist in the development of the
students leadership skills, enhances their self-esteem, provides
cultural education and pride and provides assistance to extremely
stretched parent budgets so their children have cultural educational
opportunities that they might not otherwise have. These activities have
involved the students, parents, community, schools and representatives
from the Cherokee Nation. Increased enrollments at Vinita have seen an
increased need for additional JOM funding therefore cutting the JOM
funding would be detrimental to all Native students including those in
Vinita.'' \20\
Under-funding of JOM is exacerbated by certain factors. In 1995, a
freeze was imposed on JOM funding through DOI, limiting funds to a
tribe based upon its population count in 1995. The freeze prohibits
additional tribes from receiving JOM funding and does not recognize
increased costs due to inflation and accounting for population growth.
NIEA urges that the JOM funding freeze be lifted and that other
formula-driven and head count-based grants be analyzed to ensure that
tribes are receiving funding for their student populations at a level
that will provide access to a high quality education.
Tribal Education Departments
As mandated in many treaties and as authorized in several federal
statutes, the education of Indian children is an important role of
Indian tribes. The involvement of tribes in their children's
educational future is key to the educational achievement of Indian
children. Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) provide tribes with the
opportunities to become actively involved in the education of their
children. The authorization for TED funding in DOI and in DOE is
contained in Title VII, Section 7135 of NCLB. Despite this
authorization and several other prior statutes, federal funds have
never been appropriated for TEDs. The use of TEDs would provide tribes
with greater ability to meet the educational needs of their students
and would ensure that tribes can more readily improve the education of
their youngest members.
TEDs develop educational policies and systems for Indian
communities that are attuned to the cultural and specialized academic
needs of Indian students. TEDs partner with the federal government and
state governments and schools to improve education for tribal students.
NIEA requests that both DOI and DOE fund tribal education departments.
Conclusion
As part of its efforts on reauthorization, NIEA will continue to
perform as much outreach as possible so that Congress can better
understand the needs of Native students, thereby allowing student needs
to be addressed during reauthorization of NCLB. I speak to you on
behalf of all our Native children and the need to ensure their
successful academic achievement. We, NIEA's membership, are their voice
and as President of NIEA, I am obligated and privileged to advocate for
their future.
I would like to leave with this last thought by Charles Eastman
(Santee). ``The public position of the Indian has always been entirely
dependent upon our private virtue. We are never permitted to forget
that we do not live for ourselves alone, but also for our tribe and
clan. Every child, from the first days of learning, is a public servant
in training.''
NIEA thanks the Committee for its tremendous efforts on behalf of
Native communities. With your support we are hopeful that we can
improve the programs and funding for education that Native communities
deserve.
Kwakwha!
endnotes
\1\ Executive Order No. 13336, American Indian and Alaska Native
Education (April 30, 2004).
\2\ United States Government Accountability Office,(June 2008).
Bureau of Indian Education Schools, Improving Interior's Assistance
Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability
Systems, p. 8.
\3\ Ibid, p. 5.
\4\ United States Government Accountability Office (June 2008).
Bureau of Indian Education Schools, Improving Interior's Assistance
Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability
Systems, p. 4.
\5\ NIEA's Amendments to the No Child Left Behind Act, March 2007.
\6\ The Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind in Indian Country:
Hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor
Committee, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (testimony of Dr. Willard
Sakiestewa Gilbert, President-Elect, National Indian Education
Association).
\7\ Title VII of the No Child Left Behind Act incorporates the
Indian Education Act of 1972.
\8\ Demmert, W. G. & Towner, J. C. (2003). A Review of the Research
Literature on the Influences of Culturally Based Education on the
Academic Performance of Native American Students. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, Portland OR
\9\ National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II.
\10\ National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II, p. 39.
\11\ National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II, p. 40.
\12\ Pease-Pretty on Top, J. (2003). Native American Language
Immersion: Innovative Native Education for Children & Families.
American Indian College Fund: Denver, Colorado.
\13\ National Indian Education Study: Part II, p. 38.
\14\ The Consensus Building Institute with the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution (March 5, 2008). Final Convening
Report: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Bureau of Indian Affairs--
Funded School Facilities Construction, pp. 16-18.
\15\ Ibid,. p. 19.
\16\ Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education:
Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Widow Rock,
AZ (August 21, 2008) (testimony of Benjamin Nuvamsa, Hopi Tribal
Chairman).
\17\ Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education
Transportation Cost Funding: Hearings before the National Indian
Education Association, Rapid City, SD, (July 10, 2008) (testimony of
Janice Richards, President, Little Wound School).
\18\ Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education:
Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Widow Rock,
AZ (August 21, 2008) (testimony of Marie Rose, Black Mesa Community
School Principal, Navajo Nation).
\19\ Ibid., p. 3.
\20\ Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education:
Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Widow Rock,
AZ (2008) (written testimony submitted by Lisa Trice-Turtle, Cherokee
Nation).
______
Chairman Kildee. Stan Holder?
STATEMENT OF STANLEY R. HOLDER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF PERFORMANCE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY, BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Holder. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Stan Holder. I am the chief of the
division of performance and accountability for the Bureau of
Indian Education in the Department of Interior.
I am pleased to be here to speak on behalf of the
department concerning the recent GAO report entitled, ``Bureau
of Indian Education Schools; Improving Interior's Assistance
Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability
System.''
The division of performance and accountability acts as the
state educational agency for the Bureau of Indian Education. As
such, the division is responsible for oversight and supervision
for 184 instructional and residential programs in 23 states.
Fifty-nine of the programs are operated by the BIE, and 125
are tribally operated under the provisions of Public Law 107-
110 and Public Law 93-638.
The GAO report states accurately that BIE has attempted to
negotiate MOUs with all 23 states to facilitate the assessment
process. This process is mandated by the final rule for
implementation of No Child Left Behind.
Today, BIE has been successful in acquiring 11 MOUs with
states that have BIE instructional programs. BIE shares the
GAO's concern for gaining MOUs with the 12 remaining states.
BIE has encountered varying responses from the states that
range from silence to unreasonable conditions.
Two states that have presented unique barriers are
California and New Mexico. California's initial response to the
BIE's proposal to establish an MOU contained the requirement
for a $1 million bond to be put in place to ensure test item
security.
Negotiations were stagnant until 2 months ago when, with
the assistance of the Department of Education, dialogue was
reestablished with the California Office of Assessment. BIE
would like to achieve a reasonable agreement and have an MOU in
place in the not-too-distant future.
The state of New Mexico initially agreed to and signed an
MOU with BIE. Shortly thereafter, New Mexico rescinded the MOU
and then insisted that BIE consult with a New Mexico tribe to
establish an MOU with the state.
This presents an issue since BIE is required to utilize New
Mexico's assessment process under the final rule. The final
rule was the result of the negotiated rulemaking which is
supposed to be the highest form of consultation.
The GAO report also addresses some of the issues
encountered in BIE's effort to provide technical assistance to
tribally-controlled schools that have requested alternate AYP
progress definition waivers.
To date, there have been three such requests. The three
requests are from the Navajo Nation, the Miccosukee Tribe of
Florida, and the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium or OSEC,
which is made up of 17 tribally-operated schools in North and
South Dakota.
The BIE and representatives of the Department of Education
met with the Navajo Nation within days of the Nation's initial
request. The BIE has also provided technical assistance to the
Navajo Nation via a contractor. BIE has not received additional
correspondence or requests from the Navajo Nation or the Dine'
Department of Education that acts on behalf of the Navajo
Nation.
The BIE and the Department of Education have had various
meetings and site visits with the Miccosukee tribal school,
tribal elected officials, and their tribal attorneys. The BIE
and the Department of Education have provided technical
assistance to the tribe via site visits and through a
contractor.
The most recent communication that we received from the
tribe was a call from the Miccosukee tribal school's
administrator stating that the school and the tribe did not
require any further technical assistance from the BIE.
BIE staff have traveled to South Dakota to meet with the
Oceti Sakowin Consortium representatives beginning in 2005 to
assist OSEC in developing their initial request for an
alternative AYP definition waiver.
The BIE and the Department of Education have met with OSEC
representatives to explain and provide technical assistance on
a waiver request process and a peer review process for
establishing an alternative assessment.
BIE has also provided technical assistance to OSEC through
a contractor. Most recently, the BIE transferred funds to
OSEC's fiscal agent for the purpose of initiating development
of a Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota language assessment process to
carry out the community activities and meetings necessary to
develop that assessment and to carry out legal research on
proposed changes to the BIE accountability workbook in an
effort to expedite that process.
The BIE is addressing the four recommendations made in the
GAO report which is stated in my written testimony.
In closing, I would like to state that the education of
Indian children is critical to improving the quality of life of
Indian communities. Assessments and resulting AYP
determinations are valuable measures used to determine the
quality of instruction in the classroom.
These measures provide administrators and teachers the
opportunity to improve instruction so that students can achieve
academic success.
NCLB has provided a framework and goals for all students to
be proficient in math and reading by 2014. Indian students in
BIE and public schools face unique challenges--poverty, loss of
identity, and isolated communities are but a few of these
challenges.
However, our children will compete for employment, post-
secondary education opportunities, and career opportunities on
a global scale.
It is all of our responsibility to ensure that they are
prepared to meet these challenges.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I
will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
[The statement of Mr. Holder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley Holder, Chief, Division of Performance
and Accountability, Bureau of Indian Education, Department of the
Interior
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Stan Holder, and I am the Chief, Division of Performance and
Accountability for the Bureau of Indian Education at the Department of
the Interior (Department). I am pleased to be here today to speak on
behalf of the Department about the recent GAO report entitled, Bureau
of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help
Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems. (GAO-08-
679)
Background
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) was established on August 29,
2006. The BIE is the former Office of Indian Education Programs, which
was renamed in 2006 to reflect the parallel purpose and organizational
structure BIE has in relation to other programs within Indian Affairs.
The BIE supports education programs and manages residential facilities
for Indian students of federally recognized tribes at 184 elementary
and secondary schools, and dormitories. The BIE operates 59 schools and
dormitories with the remaining 125 operated by the tribes through
contracts or grants. These schools are located on 63 reservations in 23
states. The BIE has the responsibilities of a State Educational Agency
(SEA) for this nationwide school system.
During the 2007 to 2008 school year, BIE-funded schools served
approximately 44,000 Indian students and residential boarders; however,
less than 10 percent of all American Indian children in the United
States attend BIE-funded schools. Approximately 5,000 teachers,
professional staff, principals, school administrators, and support
personnel work within the BIE-operated schools.
GAO Report
The ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001'' (NCLB), which reauthorized
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), emphasizes
accountability for results in improving the academic success of
students served by these programs. The statute requires schools
receiving ESEA, Title I funds to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP)
based on annual targets towards the goal of all students achieving
academic proficiency in reading and mathematics by school year 2013-
2014. Under the statute, a school's achievement of its annual AYP
targets is based primarily on student assessment results broken out by
race and ethnicity, poverty, disability status, and limited-English-
proficiency status.
The NCLB required the Department of the Interior to undertake
formal negotiated rulemaking to create regulations in certain areas,
including regulations defining AYP for BIE-funded schools. A team
comprised of federal officials, tribal leaders, and Indian education
professionals developed the regulations through ``consensus'' decision-
making. All twenty-five committee members agreed to the final
negotiated product. These regulations became effective on May 31, 2005.
The regulations defining AYP, mentioned above, provided that
tribally-controlled schools would implement the definition of the State
in which the particular school was located but could waive all or part
of the State definition and propose an alternative definition. The
alternative definition would be subject to approval of the Secretaries
of the Interior and Education.
On June 27, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued
a report entitled Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some
Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems. The report
identifies the challenges associated with the implementation of the AYP
final rule. It also included four recommendations that I would like to
discuss briefly.
Recommendation--establish Memoranda of Understanding with States that
lack agreements with the BIE
There are currently 23 different State definitions of AYP being
applied throughout the BIE school system, leaving the BIE without a
single standard AYP determination process. Instead, the BIE's
responsibility was to approach the States with the expectation that the
States would enter into a written agreement to provide assessments and
scoring results, and, in some cases provide AYP determinations for BIE-
funded schools in their respective States.
Currently, the BIE has 11 MOUs in place with the following states:
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. The BIE continues to pursue MOUs
with the following 12 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico (once signed and then
rescinded), North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin, in order to
complete an MOU with each.
One of the recommendations contained in the GAO report is that the
BIE finalize the remaining 12 MOUs. GAO is concerned that States
without an MOU could change policies regarding access to State
assessments and scoring services. The BIE agrees that MOUs should be
entered into with the remaining States. We are working with tribal
governments in pursuing negotiations with these States.
Recommendation--provide assistance to tribally controlled schools
seeking a different definition of AYP
Another issue raised by the GAO is its concern regarding the
assistance provided to Tribes that would prefer to pursue an alternate
AYP definition waiver. Two tribes, the Navajo Nation and the Miccosukee
Tribe, and one tribal consortium, the Oceti Sakowin Education
Consortium (OSEC), have begun to develop alternatives to State AYP
definitions, in part, to make standards and assessments reflect their
tribal culture. The report states that the two tribes and the tribal
consortium identified a lack of federal guidance and communication,
including having received limited technical assistance from the BIE.
In response, the BIE has contracted with Research in Action, Inc to
provide technical assistance to the Navajo Nation and OSEC to organize
the Tribes alternate AYP definition initiatives and expedite the
process. The contractor has identified the need for both the OSEC and
the Navajo Nation to develop focused purposes, expected outcomes, and
the administrative infrastructure needed to work with an assessment
vendor. This development structure will also assist tribal groups in
understanding the need for an administrative infrastructure to initiate
and maintain an assessment system.
Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation submitted a request for an alternate AYP
definition waiver request to BIE in November 2007. BIE responded and
attempted to set a date for an initial meeting with the Navajo Nation
on November 15, 2007. Representatives from the BIE and the Department
of Education met with Navajo Nation representatives on March 6, 2008,
as an initial step in the technical-assistance process. The Department
of Education's representatives explained the requirements for
developing, administering, and maintaining a standards and assessment
system, including the external peer review of each assessment system to
ensure that it meets the requirements of the ESEA.
The Navajo Nation discussed the conceptual framework they would use
to assess students. The frame work was based on standards and
assessments that would have the results weighted on social pathology
that exists in reservation communities. Both BIE and the Department of
Education provided guidance as to the difficulty that would be embedded
in such an approach. Also expressed was the concern that adding weight
based upon the proposed process would minimize the identification of
these social issues and could possibly decrease efforts to address the
therapeutic and rehabilitative services to address them. The BIE has
not received further correspondence or requests from the Navajo Nation
for alternate AYP definition waiver purposes. The BIE consultant,
Research In Action is still available to the Navajo Nation for
technical assistance, upon request.
Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium (OSEC)
OSEC made its initial request on August 6, 2006. BIE staff have met
with OSEC to explain the process and to establish tasks and timelines
to facilitate its request. We are waiting for the OSEC to provide a
focused process that would pass the peer review process in the
Standards and Assessment Peer Review Guidance dated April 2004 (and
updated December 2007) and distributed by the U.S. Department of
Education (Education) for all State and tribe standards and assessments
systems.
Extensive discussions have taken place between the BIE and OSEC to
arrive at objectives that are in compliance with statute and can be
accomplished and supported by the current structure of the BIE. For
example, OSEC's most recent request is to (1) extend the time frame for
all students to be proficient by 2014 to 2018; and (2) extend the
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) to reflect this change These changes
are statutory and would require amendments to the ESEA.
Miccosukee Tribe
The Miccosukee Tribe submitted a request for an alternate AYP
definition waiver to BIE in 2007. The Tribe also requested that the
school be held harmless for AYP-determination purposes until the
alternate AYP definition was granted. The BIE has honored this request
with the expectation that the Tribe would move quickly to request the
amendment to the State Accountability Workbook, develop standards and
assessments, and prepare for peer review.
The BIE and the Department of Education met with the Miccosukee
Tribe in the State of Florida on November 20, 2007, and again on
February 8, 2008, to provide technical assistance and an overview of
the requirements for a standards and assessment system, and an overview
of the peer review requirements. In addition, the BIE has offered
ongoing technical assistance to the Tribe through the BIE contractor,
Research in Action.
The Miccosukee Tribe has communicated verbally to the BIE that it
does not need further technical assistance in the form of funding or
contractual support and that the Tribal Council has determined that the
Tribe will absorb the cost and be responsible for developing the
request. As of this date, BIE has not received any further information.
However, a determination will have to be made concerning how long a
school can be held harmless for an AYP determination.
Recommendation--provide guidelines and training to tribally controlled
schools seeking an alternative definition of AYP
Another recommendation in the GAO report was for the BIE to provide
guidelines and training to tribally controlled schools on the process
for seeking and approving alternatives to defining AYP. As mentioned
above, we are assisting tribally controlled schools in pursuing
alternate AYP definition waivers. We are providing guidance and
training through presentations at national education meetings and
conferences throughout Indian Country. In addition, the BIE is working
on formalizing its guidance and training and will provide it to the
public on its website when ready.
Recommendation--BIE should establish internal response time frames and
process to ensure timely responses to tribal groups requesting
assistance
The GAO recommended that the BIE establish internal response times
and processes. The BIE is logging in all correspondence and responses,
including e-mails, regarding technical assistance requests. Upon the
receipt of a technical assistance request, the BIE will identify and
provide a point person to work with the Tribe on its request. A
consultant will provide guidance and a project- management document
identifying the activities and timelines for the technical assistance
with the tribal entity. BIE will require that a progress report be
provided at regular intervals and Education Line Officers will receive
training on standards, assessments, and accountability expectations for
alternate AYP definitions.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to state that the education of our
children is everyone's responsibility. Assessments, and the resulting
AYP determinations, are one important measure used to determine the
quality education children are receiving. They provide administrators
and teachers the opportunity to improve and tailor instruction to raise
achievement and close achievement gaps. NCLB has provided the frame
work and goals to facilitate this process. It is up to us, working
together, to set the standards and use the information we receive from
assessments, to facilitate improved instruction and truly close the
achievement gap for Indian students.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And Ms. Dudro?
STATEMENT OF ANNE CAMPBELL DUDRO, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Ms. Dudro. Good morning. Thank you Chairman Kildee, Ranking
Member Castle, and all the members of the subcommittee for
inviting the U.S. Department of Education to share with you
what we are doing to improve the education of Indian children
and provide technical assistance to tribal schools.
My name is Anne Dudro. I am the chief of staff for the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and I am pleased
to be here today to speak on behalf of the department about the
recent GAO report entitled, ``Bureau of Indian Education
Schools (sic): Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some
Tribal Groups Implement (sic) Academic Accountability
Systems.''
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended and
reauthorized by No Child Left Behind of 2001 provides federal
aid for disadvantaged students to state and local education
agencies as well as the Bureau of Indian Education.
Specifically, there are several requirements to which
states and the BIE receiving Title I funds must adhere. They
are: Develop academic content and student achievement
standards, measure student proficiency in reading, math, and
science with assessments aligned with these standards, and
determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress
with the goal that all students will meet or exceed the state's
proficient level of academic achievement in reading and
mathematics by 2014.
The ESEA requires the Secretary of the Interior to adopt a
definition of AYP and use it to make accountability
determinations for all BIE-funded schools.
In 2005, after negotiated rulemaking, the Department of the
Interior published a final rule establishing the definition of
AYP for BIE-funded schools as the definition of AYP used by the
state in which a BIE-funded school is located.
However, in recognition of the sovereign nation of tribes,
the SEA allows the governing body or school board of a BIE-
funded school to apply for a waiver from all or part of the
state's definition of AYP and propose an alternative
definition.
Such alternatives are subject to the approval of the
Secretaries of Interior and Education.
In February of 2007, the two agencies signed an agreement
to establish basic procedures for the review and approval of
any alternative definitions of AYP submitted to the Interior by
BIE-funded schools.
Over the past year, the Department of Education has worked
with BIE to provide technical assistance to three tribal groups
that have requested alternatives to state AYP definitions,
particularly in the form of developing new standards and
assessments that include components of native culture.
On August 23rd of 2007, GAO held an entrance conference
with the department. At that time, the department had not been
informed of any tribal requests for technical assistance
related to alternative definitions.
On September 6th of the same year, the department was
subsequently informed of the request of the Miccosukee Tribe
and a consortium of the Dakota Tribes, the OSEC. Upon receiving
the formal request from Miccosukee and after follow-up
conversations with the BIE, three staff persons from the
department traveled to the Miccosukee Reservation in Florida on
November 20th to provide technical assistance.
Nine days later, the department staff participated in a
similar meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota, to provide
technical assistance to the OSEC.
Upon the conclusion of these two meetings, the department
contracted with an external expert, who is a former assessment
director for a state educational agency, to provide additional
technical assistance to both tribal groups.
Shortly thereafter, on December 5th, the Department was
also informed of a request from the Navajo Nation for technical
assistance during a Title I monitoring visit to Albuquerque.
On March 6th, the department staff and the contractor
participated in the technical assistance meeting with the
Navajo Tribe in New Mexico. The Navajo meeting focused on a
conceptual framework for their assessment and accountability
systems. We have received no additional communication regarding
any subsequent meeting.
The request from the OSEC and the Navajo Nations for
alternatives to state definitions of adequate yearly progress
include consideration of both an accountability component and a
standards assessment component, while the request from the
Miccosukee focuses solely on the development and implementation
of new assessments.
There are seven requirements as outlined in statute in
regulation and further elaborated in the department's Standards
and Assessment Peer Review Guide first published in April of
2004 and then updated again in 2007.
They are: One, to develop academic content standards that
specify what all students are expected to know and demonstrate
in reading, language arts, mathematics, and science.
Two, develop academic achievement standards that are
aligned with the state or tribe's academic content standards.
Three, use a single assessment system for all students.
Four, demonstrate that the assessments meet standards for
technical quality, including that they are valid and reliable
measures of student knowledge.
Five, demonstrate that the assessments are aligned with the
state or tribe's content standards.
Six, provide for the inclusion of all students, including
students with disabilities, in the state or tribe's assessment
system.
And seven, produce reports at the individual student's
school, LEA, and SEA levels.
After an assessment system is fully developed, it must be
presented to the Department of Education for peer review. The
peer review determines if the organization, whether a state or
tribe, adheres to the standards for assessment development as
outlined in the guidance. In this manner, the department
ensures that tests are valid and reliable for the purposes for
which they are designed.
To conclude, the department has been working with our
colleagues at the BIE to respond in a timely manner to the
requests we have received for technical assistance from the
tribes. Department staff, once made aware of any requests, has
met with the tribes to discuss the issues and provide initial
technical service.
Furthermore, the department has provided for, and will
continue to provide and pay for, additional technical
assistance through a contractor to help the BIE and tribes.
We take our responsibility to help ensure a high quality
education for all Indian children very seriously. We also have
a responsibility to guarantee that all schools that receive
federal education funding abide by the applicable statutes and
regulations.
We are doing all that we can to support our colleagues at
the BIE to meet the needs of the tribes, BIE-funded schools,
and American Indian students.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I
am happy to answer any of your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Dudro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Dudro, Chief of Staff, Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education
I. Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and all the
members of the Subcommittee for inviting the U.S. Department of
Education to share with you what we are doing to improve the education
of Indian children and provide technical assistance to tribal schools.
My name is Anne Dudro, I am the Chief of Staff for the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, and I am pleased to be here today
to speak on behalf of the Department about the recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, Bureau of Indian Education
Schools: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups
Implement Academic Accountability Systems. (GAO-08-679)
II. Requirements for Assessments and Accountability under No Child Left
Behind
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended and
reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), authorizes
Federal aid to State and local educational agencies, as well as the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), for the education of disadvantaged
students. As a condition for receiving grants under Title I, Part A of
ESEA, States and the BIE are held accountable for the academic
achievement of students in all public schools, including BIE-funded
ones.
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) provides Title I,
Part A, and other formula grant funds to the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) for its use and for distribution to tribally controlled
schools and BIE-operated schools under the provisions of section 9204
of the ESEA. Under section 9204(a)(2), the Department provides these
funds to Interior under an Agreement entered into by both agencies
consistent with the requirements of the programs.
Specifically, Title I requires that states and the BIE develop
academic content and student achievement standards; measure student
proficiency in math, reading, and science with assessments aligned with
these standards; and determine whether schools are making adequate
yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal that all students will
meet or exceed the State's proficient level of academic achievement on
the State reading and mathematics assessments by 2014.
Section 1116(g)(1)(A) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of the
Interior to adopt a definition of AYP and use it to make accountability
determinations for Bureau of Indian Affairs\1\ (BIA)-funded schools. In
2005, after a negotiated rulemaking involving Federal and tribal
officials, the Department of the Interior published a final rule
establishing the definition of AYP for BIE-funded schools as the
definition of AYP used by the State in which a BIE-funded school is
located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), formerly the Office of
Indian Education in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was formed in
late June 2006. The BIE is now a separate bureau from the BIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in recognition of the sovereign nature of tribes, section
1116(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA allows the tribal governing body or school
board of a BIE-funded school to apply for a waiver from all or part of
its State's definition of AYP and propose an alternative definition.
Such alternatives are subject to the approval of the Secretaries of the
Interior and Education. In addition, section 1111(m) of the ESEA
identifies the various assessments that BIE-funded schools may use
depending on who accredits those schools, and gives the Secretary of
the Interior responsibility for approving the use of assessments where
the school would not use the assessments of the state in which the
school is located.
In February of 2007, the Departments of the Interior and Education
signed an agreement to establish basic procedures for review and
approval of any alternative definitions of AYP that a tribal governing
body or school board of a school funded by the BIE might submit to DOI.
Provision for such procedures between the two agencies is governed by
section 1116(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA and by final DOI regulations in 25
CFR Part 30.
When a tribal governing body or school board requests technical
assistance in developing an alternative definition of AYP, the BIE is
responsible for providing that technical assistance. The interagency
agreement calls for BIE to notify the Department's Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, which oversees the accountability provisions
under Title I of the ESEA, of all requests by tribal governing bodies
or school boards for technical assistance. Also under the agreement,
the BIE is to request guidance as needed in providing technical
assistance.
III. Requests for Alternate Definitions of AYP
Over the past year, the Department has worked with the BIE to
provide technical assistance to three tribal groups that have requested
alternatives to State AYP definitions, particularly in the form of
developing new standards and assessments that include components of
native culture.
On August 23, 2007, GAO held an Entrance Conference with the
Department. At that time, the Department had not been informed of any
tribal requests for technical assistance related to alternative
definitions. On September 5, 2007, the BIE sent an email to the
Department requesting a teleconference regarding assessment issues,
which ED convened for the next day. During this teleconference, the BIE
informed the Department of requests BIE had received from the
Miccosukee Tribe and from a consortium of the Dakota tribes, the Oceti
Sakowin Education Consortium (OSEC). Also during this teleconference,
the Department asked BIE to forward the formal requests from the
Miccosukee and OSEC. Upon receiving the request from the Miccosukee on
September 25, and after follow-up conversations with BIE, three staff
persons from the Department traveled to the Miccosukee reservation in
Florida on November 20 to provide technical assistance. On November 29
of that year Department staff participated in a similar meeting in
Rapid City, South Dakota to provide technical assistance to the OSEC.
Upon the conclusion of these two meetings, the Department contracted
with an external expert, who is a former assessment director for a
State educational agency, to provide technical assistance to both
tribal groups.
On December 5, 2007, the BIE informed Department staff of a request
BIE had received from the Navajo Nation for technical assistance,
during a Title I monitoring review in Albuquerque. At that meeting, the
BIE provided the Department with a copy of the Navajo Nation request
and a copy of BIE's response to the Navajo request proposing a meeting
between the three parties. According to the BIE, the Navajo Tribe was
delayed in responding, but on March 6, 2008, Department staff and a
contractor participated in a technical assistance meeting with the
Navajo Tribe in Albuquerque. The Navajo meeting focused on a conceptual
framework for their assessment and accountability systems, and we have
received no communication regarding any subsequent meetings.
IV. Requirements for Alternatives to State Definitions of AYP
The requests from the OSEC and Navajo Nations for alternatives to
State definitions of adequate yearly progress include consideration of
both an accountability component and a standards and assessment
component, while the request from the Miccosukee focuses solely on the
development and implementation of new assessments. The accountability
component is involved when different elements, such as the use of an
oral language proficiency assessment, are considered when determining
if a school has made AYP. The standards and assessment component
involves developing an assessment other than that provided by a State
(e.g, a more culturally appropriate assessment than that used by the
State).
While accountability and assessment are related activities, the
approval process for these various requests is different.
Accountability relates to the annual determination of whether a school
or local educational agency is making AYP; it depends upon the
assessment results as well as other factors such as the assessment
participation rate, the attendance or graduation rates, and, in the
request of OSEC, oral language proficiency. The ESEA leaves the
authority for the determination of proficiency and adequate yearly
progress to the State educational agencies or other appropriate entity
so long as the certain statutory requirements are met. While it is
reasonable for a tribe to desire to develop its own accountability
system, any request by a BIE-funded school to deviate from the State's
assessments or process to calculate AYP would need to be submitted by
the tribe to the BIE. These tribal amendments would need to be
reflected in the BIE's accountability plan, and submitted for review
and approval by ED. This is the same procedure used for all other
States' accountability plans. The BIE would need to note in their
accountability plan that certain amendments to AYP definitions would
apply only to the tribal schools requesting the alternative definition.
The development and implementation of new standards and assessments
must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I which
are guided by the Department's Standards and Assessments Peer Review
Guidance, first published in April 2004, and updated in December of
2007. There are seven requirements outlined in statute and regulations
and further elaborated in the peer review guidance. Under Title I,
States, or in this case tribes, must: (1) develop academic content
standards that specify what all students are expected to know and be
able to do in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; (2)
develop academic achievement standards that are aligned with the State
or tribe's academic content standards; (3) use a single assessment
system for all students; (4) demonstrate that the assessments meet
standards for technical quality, including that they are valid and
reliable measures of student knowledge (5) demonstrate that the
assessments are aligned with the State or tribe's content standards;
(6) provide for the inclusion of all students, including students with
disabilities, in the State or tribe's assessment system; and (7)
produce reports at the individual student, school, LEA, and SEA levels.
When the assessment system is fully developed it must be presented
to the Department for a Peer review. The Peer review process does not
involve looking at individual content standards or the format or
content of the tests. It is focused on whether the organization,
whether it is a state or a tribe, followed certain processes for
assessment development as outlined in the Department's Peer Review
Guidance to ensure the tests are valid and reliable for the purposes
for which they are designed.
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Department has been working with our colleagues
at the BIE to respond in a timely manner to the requests we have
received for technical assistance from the tribes. Department staff,
once made aware of any requests, have met with the tribes to discuss
the issues and provide initial technical assistance and the Department
has provided and paid for, and will continue to provide and pay for,
continued technical assistance through a contractor who is an expert in
State standards and assessment systems. We have a Federal
responsibility that all schools that receive Federal education funding
abide by the applicable statute and regulations and we are doing all we
can to support our colleagues at the BIE to meet the needs of the
tribes and BIE-funded schools.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton?
STATEMENT OF THEODORE HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OCETI
SAKOWIN EDUCATION CONSORTIUM
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member
Castle, members of the committee for inviting me to testify
today.
I want to thank Representative Herseth Sandlin for the
introduction--it was quite nice--and for her leadership both
here in Washington, D.C. on behalf of our state and in South
Dakota.
I am the executive director of the Oceti Sakowin Education
Consortium, and my name is Ted Hamilton.
The consortium is made up of, currently, 14 tribal schools,
four tribal colleges in South and North Dakota, and provides a
wide range of services, as Representative Herseth Sandlin
explained.
In the past 8 years, OSEC staff have provided services to
schools at the request of school superintendents and principals
through a cooperative-like structure. Unlike a traditional
educational cooperative model, OSEC maintains a school needs-
based model that creates annually-contracted projects
specifically developed for each school's needs.
This process provides a clear picture of the needs of the
schools and our higher education process.
I want to stress that OSEC is not an advocacy or
representative organization. The schools that are our members
own us, and we believe that our school boards and the tribal
education departments should be heard in policy-level
discussions.
We do, as an organization, provide technical support as
requested relating to policy-level decisions.
I have been asked today to discuss the work of our
organization related to the creation of a definition of
adequate yearly progress for some of our schools and our
reaction to the GAO study. And I have also been asked to make
some comments on some other issues related to our membership.
I handed in a fairly thick written testimony, and I will
refer to that as I go through this.
Related to No Child Left Behind and the GAO report, the GAO
report is a good case to point out some more general
difficulties our schools are having with the BIE system.
When NCLB was authorized, there was a process defined in
the Act called ``negotiated rulemaking.'' And in negotiated
rulemaking, members of the committee were assured that the
tribes would be provided support, both technical and fiscal, in
development of alternative assessments and standards.
As an interim step, schools would follow the accountability
workbook of the states in which they reside. Two of the members
of the negotiated rulemaking committee, Dr. Roger Bordeaux of
Tiospa Zina Tribal School, and Deb Bordeaux of Loneman School,
argued against the use of state workbooks and their associated
standards and finally reluctantly agreed to the state standards
and assessments provisions.
When they came home in 2002, we had a meeting, and eight of
the schools decided they would pursue an alternative definition
by pooling some resources. OSEC was asked to manage the process
and to act as a single point of contact with the Bureau in the
project.
I am attaching two of my testimonies and an appendix of the
timeline of our work. So we have been doing this now since the
last 4 years. It has been going on for a while.
Our first attempts to get this worked on, we were told
repeatedly by the Bureau that we could not apply as a group of
schools for an alternative definition. We were told it would be
too expensive and that there was no money for this type of
work.
While we were required to have our school boards pass
multiple resolutions agreeing to work together through the OSEC
organizational structure we generally did not receive any
correspondence from the Bureau other than letters telling us
that they did not have to help us.
In reading the No Child Left Behind Act, tribes and tribal
schools that wish to waive the state definitions for their own
definition are required to submit an alternative definition
within 60 days of alerting the Secretary of the Interior of
their intent to waive NCLB requirements.
The Secretary of the Interior is then required to give a
written response either supporting or denying the waiver. This
allows the tribe or tribes to begin a negotiation process with
Interior.
After four submissions, beginning in 2005, the OSEC schools
finally received their first written response to their proposed
definition in August of 2008. A significant aspect of
developing an alternative definition is the creation of
educational standards and assessment tools.
At the core of our concern about using state AYP
definitions is a lack of culturally-appropriate content
standards. On page five of the testimony, I quote the U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations which requires the use of content
standards--or that content standards used in schools be
culturally appropriate and that the primary native language of
the school population be assessed annually.
The state of South Dakota doesn't develop its educational
standards to meet those regulations and is not bound by those
regulations.
Our organization has repeatedly asked for funding to
develop assessment instructions for the standards we have
created. We met with BIE and DOE officials in late November of
2007. We were told funding would be available for assessment
development.
We were told to conduct a bidding process with companies
for assessment development, create a plan, and submit that
plan.
That was the third time we had completed that process. We
also submitted our third accountability workbook for approval
at that time. To help us, we were assigned a consultant from
the Department of Education that was referenced before, Mr.
J.P. Boudain. Mr. Boudain helped us review the bids we received
and helped us create a final budget that we submitted on March
4th of 2008.
The long and the short of it was we found out today,
actually--Mr. Holder told me today that the Bureau was going to
provide us some resources. For the Native American portion of
this, we haven't received any dollars for the rest of the
assessment.
In the testimony, I go on to talk about the Bureau's work
with us and the number of problems we have. On page eight, we
talk about some problems that we have had with determining
adequate yearly progress, telling parents if their schools are
succeeding or not.
We have yet to have a year where we have met the deadline
to let parents know that their schools are succeeding or not.
And this year, we will once again, miss that deadline if we
follow the Bureau's plan.
We also have real questions about the Bureau acting as an
SEA for our schools. A state education agency should be--in our
reading of the Indian Education Act--should be in the role of
the Indian tribal-controlled education departments. It should
not be--if we are going to continue to maintain government-to-
government relationships--between the Bureau of Indian
Education and the Department of Education.
And we feel that it is a violation of the government-to-
government relationship to have the Bureau acting as an SEA for
the tribes.
In conclusion, because I see my little red light here, I
want to say one thing, and it is a message from two people.
Once is Lionel Bordeaux, the president of Sinte Gleska
University, who you, Mr. Kildee, know. And the other one is
from my wife who is Ardis Iron Cloud. And she is a full-blood
member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Lionel said to me to tell your committee that every 40
years, we talk about the Bureau growing in strength, growing in
numbers, and the federal government continuing to tell tribes
what to do. And every 40 years, testimony is given and there
are rooms--and as an archivist for the Oglala Sioux Tribe,
which was one of my jobs I went to one of those rooms and saw
the bound papers going back over a hundred years of testimony
to congressional committees about education.
And we keep seeing the Bureau, once again, dictating to the
tribes what needs to happen instead of the tribes having
control over the their education. So we are hoping that this
year, this won't happen and we won't be back here 40 years from
now.
And from my wife, I am running for election in South Dakota
on our state House of Representatives. And one of my platform
issues is that currently in South Dakota, the Indian liaison
for tribes is housed in the department that deals with tourism.
And I noticed that in the House of Representatives, Native
American issues are handled in the Natural Resources Committee.
Now, my wife told me native people are not natural
resources, and they are not tourist subjects. I have a son who
is studying physics at the South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology. And while he talks about getting his degree, he
talks about coming home and doing for his tribe, taking the
knowledge that he has learned--and benefitting from the help
from the state of South Dakota--but strengthening the tribe.
And I am hoping that this work today and answering any
questions that you on the committee have might help so that we
are not here 40 years from now and that the tribes can continue
to have a voice and be heard in this arena.
I thank you very much for your time today.
[The statement of Mr. Hamilton may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://www.osdlc.org/AYP/documents/2008-09-09-TheodoreHamilton.pdf
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton.
I have been in Congress 32 years. I am not sure when those
40 years began or ended, but maybe I will see the full 40
years, God and the voters willing, of course, on that.
You know, we are dealing here with something that is simple
and yet complex. We clearly--and I never leave home without
it--I carry the Constitution with me. And this Constitution
does not grant sovereignty to the Indian tribes. It recognizes
sovereignty.
It is a real sovereignty. Indian tribes are not the Knights
of Columbus, which I belong to. They are not the VFW, which my
son belongs to. They are sovereign nations, and they are not
granted that sovereignty. It is a retained sovereignty.
And it is recognized in the Constitution in two different
places where it talks about all treaties entered into are the
supreme law of the land.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress
shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and
among the several states and with the Indian tribes.
It recognizes all three as sovereigns: foreign nations, the
several states. We have 50 sovereign states making up the
United States. It doesn't grant France or Germany or the
Russian Federation its sovereignty. It says that we recognize
that sovereignty.
So it is a real sovereignty. And that might create some
complications, but it is real.
And when we have three sovereignties--we also--most of us
up here have two citizenships. Probably most of you down at the
witness table have three real citizenships.
I am a citizen of the United States. I am very proud of
that citizenship. I am a citizen of Michigan, and I have
obligations, responsibilities, and rights that flow from both
those citizenships. And that is it. I have two citizenships.
My Chippewa and my Pottawatomi, my Indian tribes, those
members, those citizens, have three citizenships. And they have
rights and responsibilities that flow from all three of those
citizenships. We know, for example, the Indians have proven
their U.S. citizenship time and time again because a larger
percentage of Native Americans have served in our armed forces
than any other group.
They are citizens, and good citizens of the state of
Michigan and contribute a great deal, by the way, to the state
treasury. And then they are citizens of their sovereign tribes.
So those are the realities that the law has to work around.
And whenever we enact a law, we cannot ignore the Constitution.
And that is why, very often, we get into some of these contacts
between these three sovereignties. And that might create some
difficulties, but they are difficulties that are based upon the
Constitution itself.
So I appreciate all of you struggling with this, defending
your sovereignty, and recognizing the sovereignty when you deal
with the Indian tribes. It is extremely important.
And that is true on the state level. You know, most--I
think all the schools really pretty well accept the AYP program
of the states. But the state, when it has these Indian schools,
is required to sit down in good faith and talk to the Indian
schools, the Indian leaders in good faith and try to work out
what standards and testing the AYP will be on the state level.
That is a requirement.
And then when the Secretary of the Interior is looking for
alternatives to that, he or she has the obligation to sit down,
sovereign to sovereign, one not more equal than the others--you
can't be more equal. You are either equal or not equal. Sit
down and discuss and try to find some common agreement. And
that takes patience.
When we negotiate with friends, that takes patience. When
we negotiate with the Russian Federation, that takes patience.
But I think we have to recognize that when we sit down with
that person at the other side of the table, it is not ``Oh
gosh, we've got more work to do, these Indians want
something.'' No, these sovereigns want something.
And that sovereignty is guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution. And I think that is the attitude that we have to
take in. And then, perhaps, we can make some progress. And it
won't always be easy when you have to recognize the other side
has an equal voice at that table, and you have to reach
agreement. And not an imposed agreement. When you get a
memorandum of understanding, it can't be something that is
handed and said this is our understanding. It is a memorandum
of understanding based upon mutual agreement. And that is very
important.
So the Indians have the obligation to protect their
sovereignty. Those who are not representing the Indian tribes
directly have the obligation to recognize that and address the
matter in that fashion.
Let me ask this, as my sermon today. I especially try--when
at seminaries, I do preach a bit at times. But I agree with
that very strongly.
Let me just start--I will throw the question out. I will
throw it out to the GAO first.
In general, what would you say is the most significant
obstacle in tribal-federal and tribal-state relations?
Any of you may----
Ms. Ashby. All right. From the work we did with regard to
tribal-state--and I will take that first because that is a
little bit easier--it is negotiation of the memorandums of
understanding, the MOUs. There are MOUs currently with 11 of
the 23 states in which the BIE schools are located.
For the other 12 states, those MOUs have not been developed
to date except for California. The tribal schools have had
access to the assessments and standards and the scoring in all
the states. But without an agreement, some type of contract,
there is no guarantee that they will continue to have access or
they will continue to have access under the same conditions.
So it puts the tribal schools at risk because if they don't
have access to assessments, of course, that is the whole basis
for the accountability system under the No Child Left Behind
Act.
California, of course, has not granted access because of
its concern about security. And that needs to be worked out,
and that has not been worked out, as I understand it, to date.
So that is a major problem.
With regard to the tribal groups and the BIE, there
certainly was a rocky start in terms of providing assistance
and responding to requests for assistance or just requests to,
you know, maybe brainstorm sometime. Generally, in the early
years, it wasn't necessarily an official question for
assistance as much as the tribal groups needing to know what
they would have to do to get assistance to carry out their
waivers or what they might do in terms of alternative
assessments.
And they, apparently, did not get the degree of assistance
and response that they needed. Things have improved, as we said
in our statement and in the report.
Beginning last fall and continuing into this year, there
have been meetings between BIE and Education and the three
tribal groups who have officially sought waivers or sought to
begin the process for seeking waivers.
So things seem to be on a better footing. But as you said
in your statement, what is needed is more communication, better
communication, continued responsiveness, and sincerity on all
sides so that obstacles can be addressed and agreements can be
worked out.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gilbert, do you have a comment?
Dr. Gilbert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a comment,
and that has to do with assessments.
One of the main reasons why we are here today, again, like
you said, is to address those particular issues that deal with
our children and our educational system.
Our concern has always been with the idea of state and
tribal relationships. Everywhere from assessment and
accountability, AYP, and so forth.
But one of the things that we struggle with is the idea of
assessment. One test doesn't fit all. And when you talk about
culturally and linguistically inappropriate exams for our
children, that is one of the reasons why our children, perhaps,
aren't doing well on these exams.
Something that we need to take a look at, not only that,
but also to work closely with our state education agencies to
collaborate with one another to come up with some other types
of assessment techniques besides just one test. For example,
exams that may be portfolio assessments and some others that
provide that avenue of how we can better assess our children
and the growth of our children.
Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Mr. Holder?
Mr. Holder. Needless to say, managing 23 accountability
systems is no easy task for Bureau of Indian Education. Also,
some of the resistance that we have encountered with the states
as far as developing the MOUs to ensure our access to their
accountability systems and to be able to administer the tests
and receive the scores has been a challenge.
I believe that in the 20 years that I have been around
Indian education, there has been significant discussion on
developing tribal standards or Indian standards for our
students. No Child Left Behind is the statutory framework that
the BIE follows as far as managing programs, as far as state
accountability is concerned. And there is a provision for
tribes to request an alternate AYP definition that is contained
in the statute.
We follow the statute and support the statute. That is our
position. We partner with the Department of Education to
achieve that end. And I have pursued this, and very
aggressively, since I was placed back in my position as the
chief of the division.
And we will continue to do so. Our ultimate goal--and I
have expressed this to Mr. Hamilton--is to get an assessment on
the ground, to be able to move forward with this. We are
concerned, though, that we are developing a prototype where we
are venturing into unknown territory. So we want to make sure,
to the best of our ability, that we are following the statute,
that we are doing things in the best interest of Indian
students. That is why we are partnering with the Department of
Education to provide this technical assistance.
And we will continue to do so in the future.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you.
Ms. Dudro?
Ms. Dudro. The only thing I would add is that, certainly,
our agency recognizes the authority and the right of the tribes
to ask for an additional alternative AYP definition. But we
acknowledge that development of a standards and assessments
system is not an easy process.
And we still have states, very large states such as
California, that are still struggling with developing their own
system.
We have provided, and will continue to provide, TA with our
staff and our consultants, but we do look to our colleagues at
BIE to work with the tribes to help expedite this process.
As noted in the GAO report, this process can be rather
lengthy, taking anywhere from 1 to 3 years. And we want to do
everything in our ability to follow what is in the statute and
provide BIE schools with the technical assistance they need in
order to develop their own definition of AYP.
Chairman Kildee. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Kildee, I was--of the personal beliefs
and spirits I think you were channeling some people from our
meetings in your discussion prior to this because a lot of the
things you said about sovereignty are the things that we talk
about on a daily basis where we live.
And when you asked the question, what struck me was the
relationship between the Bureau of Indian Education and the
tribal education departments and the tribal schools.
And what we are seeing increasingly is the tail wagging the
dog. In Indian education, we fund our schools through ISEP
money, primarily. And No Child Left Behind is kind of 18 to 20
percent of our budget. And yet it is taking up the bulk of our
time.
And what is happening is we are seeing that the Bureau of
Indian Education is using it to increase its growing
infrastructure, growing its bureaucracy and growing an
oversight that is pretty much unnecessary.
And it is because of that idea, the issue is what is that
level of respect? Are we respecting the government-to
government relationship between the tribal schools, the tribal
counsels, and the federal government?
We have taken to court and won in court issues around the
MOUs. When the Bureau came to us and said we are restructuring,
they put into a consultation--what they called a consultation--
a package that said you are going to restructure the Bureau,
and you are going to have this MOU. And we took it to court and
the judge said ``you didn't even do proper consultation.''
And yet the Bureau moves forward, referring to themselves.
And it is in the written testimony here about being the 51st
state.
And one of the things that is deeply concerning to me is
this concept that we can treat Native Americans as the 51st
state, as we have heard in the past, this concept of Pan-
Indians, that all Native American tribes are the same. As you
said, each tribe and each treaty defines sovereignty.
The challenge to me is that we have hundreds of
sovereignties out there. And that the sovereignty that my son
and my wife have through their relationship with the Oglala
Sioux Tribe is different than the sovereignty that one of my
nephews has because he is a member of the Navajo Tribe.
And those are two completely different sovereignties. It is
not that he is Native American. It is that Arlo is a Navajo.
And when he talks, he talks about growing up in a hogan with
his grandparents and that they eat sheep there.
We don't in South Dakota. We eat beef. And that is a plug
for the beef industry.
But there are differences. And I think this--as you say is
a simple issue, but it is a critical issue as defining the
starting point.
Where do we start with educating our children and
maintaining a culture and maintaining a community and
maintaining a way of life? And if everybody is treated the
same, then we have lost the battle to begin with. There is
nothing so unequal as treating unequals equally. And each of
the tribes is its own sovereign nation.
And when we look at what has gone on here, what we are
seeing is a homogenization of Native American peoples, and this
issue that we have is just the tip of the iceberg. We can talk
about meeting this requirement or meeting that requirement. But
at the core of it is how have you assured not only this
subcommittee but the government itself--assured that each tribe
has a way of saying this is what is important for us, for our
children to learn.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
I now yield generous time to the ranking member of the
committee, the Governor Castle.
Mr. Castle. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
don't believe that I have the knowledge of the chairman in
terms of all these issues. So some of my questions are more
informational in developing what is the issue and the problem
as opposed to answers at this point.
And let me start with you, Mr. Holder, and perhaps, Dr.
Gilbert could help with this and others.
You stated in your written testimony that less than 10
percent of all American Indian children in the United States
attend BIE-funded schools. And I think it is about 44,000
total.
My question is why is that. And I think I know the answer
to these things. I am not sure. I would like to hear from you.
Why is that? I assume it is disbursement of the population,
people not living in areas where the schools are available. But
perhaps there is a matter of choosing which schools one wants
to go to, too.
And I was just curious as to what the explanation for that
percentage is.
Mr. Holder. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools were put
in place historically on reservations, and I believe that off-
reservation boarding programs were also established in the
early part of the century, some dating back to the 1870s.
As time evolved and communities began to grow in these
particular areas, the Bureau schools continued to provide
educational services to those populations. However, public
schools have also been established on the reservations. And it
is a matter of choice for the students as to what school that
they choose to attend, the Bureau-operated school or the public
school.
We operate and maintain as close communication as we can
with the public schools, also, because we have mobility of
students between those schools. But the answer to your question
actually lies in the history of the development of Bureau
schools and educational systems on reservations and adjacent
Indian communities.
Mr. Castle. What might be the reason--and this is just
conjecture, I understand that--but what might be the reason
that a child might choose a public school versus a BIE school?
Might the parents be interested in the cultural development
they might get at the BIE school, or is it just a question of
proximity for the most part? What is the motivating force to
keep these going as they are?
Mr. Holder. I believe there is always a diversity of
reasons for students to choose to attend a particular school or
for parents to choose to send their child to that particular
school.
In some cases, it is proximity, such as on Pine Ridge, you
have the Pine Ridge School that is operated by the Bureau of
Indian education. That is a K through 12 program.
Most of the schools--and correct me if I am wrong, Ted, I
can't pull it off the top of my head--out in the districts are
K-8 schools or K-6 schools. So when the students complete at
those schools, they have very limited choices--either Little
Wound School in Kyle or Pine Ridge, which are about 60 miles
apart.
In some cases, they are bussed off reservation to a small
community called Oreck. So it depends on proximity to the
school, the availability of space and other factors involved in
that. I believe that more and more, parents and students are
choosing to attend schools that provide a substantial cultural
program and that integrate culture and language into the
curriculum.
Mr. Castle. Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. If I may add something, I have raised nine
kids on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. My wife and I have
nine. So we have had children go to Bureau-operated schools,
Bureau-funded schools, state schools, and parochial schools,
which are our choices on that reservation.
The state schools--my wife teaches at one of them--spends
about $4,000 more per child per year than the Bureau-funded
schools do. So there is an issue of resources.
I walk into my wife's classroom, every child has a
computer. Every child has a music program accessible to them.
There is a nice gymnasium. There is quite a nice set-up there,
they are brand new buildings.
This is not the way it is at the Bureau-funded schools.
My oldest children have moved to Rapid City, and their
children attend a public school because of the unemployment
realities of Pine Ridge. They moved off reservation, and when
we talk about the large number of children who go to public
schools, many of them are there for economic reasons.
Mom and dad have to have a job, and they have to support
their families. And like any family, they go where the jobs
are.
It is--I don't know--we don't know if they have the right
people here, but I know from the work that we do with the South
Dakota GEAR UP Grant, because that is one of the projects that
we run, that over 60 percent of the native children in the
public school systems drop out; that the success rate with
native children in South Dakota in the public schools is just
marginally better than in the BIE-funded and operated schools.
There is not much difference statistically.
We can play a little bit with numbers, but what it comes
down to is that native kids are not doing well in the public
schools. Lots of times they are there because that is where we
can find work, and that is where our families can find work.
I spent a lot of time in Rapid City, South Dakota, with my
grandchildren, and I met with the superintendent of schools
there. And I said I am concerned because my grandson has a 5
percent chance of graduating from high school in Rapid City
Schools right now because, in Rapid City, there is a 95 percent
drop-out rate amongst native boys.
Mr. Castle. I am looking for a brief answer on this. I was
trying to ask the question of Ms. Ashby, if I can get to it.
But just as a follow up, you know, we have Nanticoke Indians in
Delaware, and they all speak English as well or better than I
do--all of you do as well. And my question is: Is English as a
second language an issue in any of the tribal circumstances we
have in this country today?
Mr. Holder. I would like to respond to that simply because
we have carried out a reading-first program that deals
primarily with the development of language vocabulary and,
ultimately, reading skills. What we have experienced is that
the tribal students that speak the tribal language as a first
language have a much easier time gaining the skills to read in
English.
That something that confounds the process is the third
language that often develops in tribal communities or ethnic
communities where the tribal or ethnic language isn't spoken as
a pure language.
So there is that interference with the progression of the
process associated with reading simply because decoding
phonemic awareness and phonics are pretty much distorted by
that spoken language. So the--establishing the tribal
language--we have one school, Lukachukai, in Arizona, that
initiated an early childhood immersion project back in 2002.
The first cohort of students were assessed by the Arizona
State Assessment last year, and the school made adequate yearly
progress.
So we see the benefits of establishing a pure tribal
dialect and in building English upon that dialect.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Dr. Gilbert?
Dr. Gilbert. If I may, immersion programs on Indian
reservations have become very successful. And one of the issues
that we are concerned about is not only language but also
culture as well.
So we believe that if we can start a child at a very young
age in an immersion program where they are speaking and
learning about their language and their culture from K grade to
fourth grade, for example, and they are immersed in their
culture and so forth, then by the time they graduate from high
school, not only will they be bilingual but they were also--in
some cases, may be trilingual--but also they will achieve
academic performance from K to twelfth grade because based upon
Mr. Holder's comments, it is correct in saying that results of
exams of children who are in immersion programs performed
better than children who are not in immersion programs.
So we know that for a fact.
And the other issue I would like to just briefly mention is
that if a child learns their first language at a very young
age, then that transition into learning a second language comes
much easier for them because the skills that they use in
learning their first language, they will pick up the English
language very quickly or another language, whatever language
that may be.
So thank you.
Mr. Castle. Just briefly. I know my time is up. I wanted to
ask Ms. Ashby sort of a complicated question. I will try to
simplify.
And you stated in your testimony that only a third of the
BIE schools actually make AYP. In your--did that study or in
your studies, have you identified what schools that have made
AYP, BIE schools that made AYP, have done differently or what
specific efforts they have made to reach the AYP?
In other words, is there some way we can help by defining
that?
Ms. Ashby. No, I am sorry. We have not done that. That
certainly would be an interesting study and a useful one, I
think. But that is not something that is in the scope of the
work we did.
Mr. Castle. I mean, just as a final comment, I know, in
Delaware, it is very interesting for me to go from school to
school. And I find that some schools are really focused on what
it is that they can do. And their neighbor school, maybe five
miles away has not, and they haven't done anywhere near as
well.
And the schools that have, have done remarkably well. It is
a worthwhile subject matter, I think.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. You asked a very good question. We used to
have what is called the National Diffusion Network where you
could find out why certain schools were succeeding.
It would be very interesting if we looked at that one-third
who were reaching AYP and see what we can learn from them that
might be transferrable to the other schools. So, perhaps, that
is something we can all explore.
Now, it is my pleasure to call upon the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
interesting hearing and interesting witnesses.
Education is the future of our country. It is the future of
every single child, every student. And certainly, it is the
future of sovereign Indian nations.
And, you know, Indian education was here before AYP and No
Child Left Behind. So I am wondering--and I feel certain that
you have some statistics or at least you have a general sense
of the difference between graduation rates between BIE schools
and public schools or parochial schools that you know what
percentage of BIE-educated kids go to community colleges or 4-
year colleges.
And what are their careers when they are through with the
school system? And how does it compare to the public education
system because it is all about what is best for those students.
So would anybody be willing to talk to me about that? And
it is before AYP. It is bigger than that, I think.
So, Ms. Ashby, do you have any statistics on this?
Ms. Ashby. I don't have any statistics on the top of my
head. I do know that, in general, students in BIE-funded
schools do poorly. Most things you would like at in terms of
graduation rates, attendance rates, test scores. So there is
definitely a problem.
But I will say that in doing work for the report we issued
in June, as well as work on other reports we have issued
involving Indian students and work that is currently ongoing, I
am making site visits across the country. I have met well-
educated Indian adults in all professions that are highly
capable and they are like people anywhere else.
They go to school. Some go to college at the tribal
colleges. And going back into the 1990s, I did some work on
tribal colleges.
But many go to the same schools that everyone else goes to.
They don't all going to tribal schools by any means. And they
are accomplished as anybody else.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, and isn't the goal to be able to be an
adult and raise their children in--so that their children have
a future also? How are we doing there?
Ms. Ashby. But--excuse me. Having said that, I don't want
to leave the impression that there aren't issues. There are
lots of issues.
And as with every ethnicity, there are people who do well
and lots of people who don't do well. And our responsibility of
the nation is to help those who need a helping hand. And with
regard to Native Americans, Indians, that certainly is the
case.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. If I can get your e-mail address or your
aide's, I can send you a study we are just finishing up that
looks at test scores over the last 3 years between the tribal
schools in South Dakota. It will only give you South Dakota. It
won't give you the nation.
But what we found is that, in general, in the public
schools, public schools that are adjacent or on reservations,
do just about the same as--in terms of test scores--as the BIE-
funded schools. BIE-operated schools don't do quite as well. It
is kind of harder to find their data. But we have been able to
pull it up lately.
The Bureau has started to add--to put stuff on their Web
site so we can start looking at this stuff finally.
We are seeing a growth in native students going to college.
The Tribally-Controlled-College Act has had a huge impact on
the number of native people on the reservations going to
college. We are not seeing that in the public sector.
If you go to South Dakota, we have, across our entire
state, about 12 to 14 percent of our population are natives.
And that holds true for the student population. Actually, the
student population is slightly larger because we have more
native kids than non-native kids in the state.
Well, that is not quite true. We have about 18 percent in
percentages.
We only had 125 incoming freshman in the board of regents
last year, which is about 1 percent of the population.
The bulk of native students go to tribal colleges out of
high school. So there is a--we have been using the South Dakota
GEAR UP Grants, monies--we run a program, actually, or a
consortium in partnership with our state where we--this year,
we have 380 students. And we have, of the kids coming in, after
4 years in that program, we have a 92 percent placement rate
into college.
It has been a very successful program, but it is very
difficult to maintain the funding for it because we have to
continually go and ask funding agents how do we keep this thing
going.
And I know we have approached the Bureau to see if we can
create a stable funding for this every year because it is a
really good program.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can Ms. Dudro----
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Dudro. Good morning. Certainly, the one thing that I
would add on behalf of the Department, I cannot give you
statistics off the top of my head as well, but I could
certainly supply you with the National Indian Education Studies
Parts 1 and 2 that our department just funded over the last 2
years which provides a tremendous amount of data.
And similar to what my other panelists have told you, we do
know that Indian students are not performing at the same rates
as their counterparts. And certainly, it is worse if you attend
a BIE school.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP,
has not historically sampled Indian education, Indian students
at the same level.
And so we have actually supported--our agency has supported
an oversampling of Native American students. So in the last 2
years, in 2005 and 2007, we have more data on the performance
of Native American students than we have ever had before.
And as I mentioned, it is still not as good as their
counterparts, but we have seen some progress in the last 2
years.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Ms. Woolsey.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of the
questions I had were answered, at least, for South Dakota.
Ms. Ashby, did you ascertain whether teacher salaries at
the Indian schools were better or worse than the surrounding
schools in the area?
Ms. Ashby. We did not.
Mr. Scott. Did anybody--Mr. Hamilton, you said the funding
was higher, actually, in South Dakota.
Mr. Hamilton. Bureau-operated schools use the--we believe
it is called the Department of Defense pay scale. I am not
really sure where that pay scale comes from.
Their teachers are paid significantly higher. Bureau-funded
schools, the tribal grant schools run about $8,000 to $10,000,
give or take, a little bit less than the public schools.
So there are discrepancies in how resources are given out
for teacher pay.
Mr. Scott. Is that the same in other states, Dr. Gilbert?
Dr. Gilbert. In hearing our testimonies, on the Navajo
Reservation, what it concerns is that--the issue of pay for
teachers on reservation schools is much lower than the public
schools. The other issue having to do not only with pay but
also with maintaining our teachers on the reservation schools,
I have heard stories where teachers come to our reservations,
teach for 1 year and then leave half a year and then move 1
month and 1 day and leave before they even go into a classroom.
So this is a major concern for us because we have a major--
--
Mr. Scott. Why is that?
Dr. Gilbert. I am sorry?
Mr. Scott. Why?
Dr. Gilbert. Well, because high turnover rates that we have
not only in teachers but also administration as well, when you
come to our reservations, for example, the closest Sears
Roebuck store can be about 200 miles away. So we don't have the
facilities and so forth that Flagstaff or Phoenix or other big
cities may have.
Mr. Scott. Who pays for school construction and equipment
like computers and science labs and whatnot? Is that the
federal, state, and local? Who pays? Who foots the bill for
that?
Mr. Holder. The Office of Facilities, Construction, and
Management in the Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for
school construction and school renovation projects.
Mr. Scott. It is on the federal level?
Mr. Holder. Right.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Hamilton talked about drop-outs in South Dakota. What
is the graduation rate in other states in the Bureau schools
and in the public schools?
One of the challenges we have in No Child Left Behind is
that we are sitting up calculating those who take the test and
are actually there and ignoring the fact that half of them
didn't show up because they have dropped out. And the school
cannot possibly be given--should not be given credit for
adequate yearly progress if half the students have dropped out.
In South Dakota, apparently, a lot of people--a lot of them
are dropping out, not graduating. We need to get a hold of what
the drop-out rate is in the--if we don't know, a strong attempt
will be made to get a better drop-out provision in No Child
Left Behind when it is reauthorized.
Dr. Gilbert?
Dr. Gilbert. Yes. For public and BIE schools, 49--the drop-
out rate is 49 percent males and 51 percent females. That is
the current percentages that we have in regard to public and
BIE school drop-outs.
Mr. Scott. Well, obviously, some work needs to be done on
that. I think it was Mr. Holder indicated that some of the
students feel isolated in the public schools.
What is done for after school programs to make sure people
are--their children are engaged in their education?
Mr. Holder. Could you repeat the question, please?
Mr. Scott. Did you indicate that the students seem, in the
public school, seem isolated? Not much engaged in the education
process?
Mr. Holder. Well, I believe that public schools--not all
public schools. I believe that New Mexico has a very strong
Native American support program in their schools where they
have a high density of Indian students.
However, I believe that some Indian students do choose to
go to Bureau-operated schools or tribally-operated Bureau-
funded schools to be in more close contact with their language
and culture for the program that they provide there at the
schools.
Mr. Scott. Is anything being done in after school programs,
mentoring, or other college-access programs--you mentioned GEAR
UP, Upward Bound, to keep people in school and headed toward
college rather than dropping out?
Mr. Holder. We have two programs that are available in the
Bureau. One is Title IV, Part B, which is 21st Century
Community Learning Centers. That provides an appropriation for
before, after, and extended-year programs to provide academic
and behavioral support to students.
In addition to that, we procured departmental funding
through the Department of Interior to provide tutoring and
mentoring grants to schools to support students, also.
Mr. Scott. And how many people have taken advantage of it?
Ms. Dudro, do you want to comment?
Ms. Dudro. Yes. I was just going to mention that the
Department of Education, through Title VII, has also
approximately $9.1 million for special programs for Indian
education, including after-school programming and secondary--
post-secondary educational training.
Mr. Scott. And how many students--what portion of the
students have access to those programs? Are you funding enough
so that most of them can participate?
Ms. Dudro. I couldn't give you the percentage off the top
of my head.
Mr. Scott. All right.
Dr. Gilbert. If I may----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Hamilton and then Dr. Gilbert.
Dr. Gilbert. Just very, very quickly--another after-school
program that can be very successful, but unfortunately, it
always seems to be low on the totem pole in regard to funding
is the Johnson-O'Malley programs.
JOM programs have become very successful in providing those
opportunities for our students, in particular, after-school
programs. And what we have learned and what we have found in
these programs is their students become very successful not
only academically but also socially as well.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. We started to see attempts at creating
relationships between boys clubs and girls clubs, which are
kind of non-education programs formally and the Bureau systems.
We need more funding for that.
One of the issues, at least where I live, is a
transportation issue. You know, we all know about the price of
gas. That is exacerbated when your child has a 50-to 60-mile,
100-mile--in this case, the Navajo, a 200-mile drive--from
where the boys club is or the girls club to home. And a lot of
those programs don't have transportation programs associated
with them.
And so our schools are facing issues saying we would like
you to stay after school. We don't have enough resources to pay
for you to drive back and forth. And, in my community, with an
average household income of about $6,200 a year, maybe $6,300 a
year, it gets pretty expensive pretty quick to drive your pick-
up truck 50 miles to pick up your child and 50 miles back home
at 14 miles per gallon.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
calling for this important hearing and your interest for many,
many years in this area.
I wonder, Ms. Ashby, in your testimony, you described some
actions that BIE has taken in response to your recommendations.
Can you discuss those?
And also what more needs to be done to ensure the tribal
groups are aware of their options regarding accountability
systems and those that are interested in pursuing them are able
to pursue them?
Ms. Ashby. BIE has begun to address our recommendations. As
I said earlier, since last fall, in particular, there have been
meetings with the three tribal groups that are interested in
seeking alternatives to the AYP definition. Those meetings have
been, apparently, somewhat fruitful.
There is a consultant that is working--and this may be the
consultant financed by the Department of Education, I am not
sure. Maybe it is working with both BIE and Education.
But there is now a consultant working with the tribal
groups. There are plans to provide information on how to seek
alternatives. There is a conference coming up this fall.
So there are things in the works. But certainly, as we
often say at GAO, more needs to be done. For example, MOUs
still have not been negotiated with the other 12 states.
California still is not allowing access. And there is no
alternative being developed for the two tribes that are in, the
two tribal groups in California--the two schools, rather, in
California that need access to an assessment or need an
assessment that is valid and reliable so that it can be
accountable under No Child Left Behind.
So that needs to be done quickly because, as I said
earlier, the schools are at risk of having at least the
conditions upon which they have access changed.
So there have been actions taken, but we hope to see
continued action and, ultimately, the MOUs negotiated and
structures set up to provide timely responses to any tribal
group that is interested in seeking an alternative.
Mr. Payne. What agency in the Department of Education is
responsible for, perhaps, seeing that your recommendations are
being moved forward more rapidly?
Ms. Ashby. I believe this comes under the Title I office.
At least a good deal of the money is Title I money for low-
income schools. And I am not sure if there are other agencies
as well.
Mr. Payne. Well, maybe since we have someone from the
Department of Education, maybe we will make you the bad fellow.
What are you all--what is happening in your enforcement or
your encouragement of this moving forward?
Ms. Dudro. Sure. As stated, GAO is correct. The Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education oversees Title I as the
primary office that is responsible for working with the BIE to
ensure that tribes have the opportunity to apply for an
alternative AYP definition.
The Department sponsors BIE at a little over $210 million
annually. Primarily $129 million, approximately, comes out of
the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the
remaining funds come from our Office of Special Education.
As I mentioned in my testimony, written and oral, we have a
memorandum of agreement with the Bureau of Indian Education and
set up a process for helping BIE process through requests that
they receive from the tribe. And as stated in the GAO report,
we try to answer those requests in the most timely manner.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton, you know, you testified that many federal
grants for assisting Indian students and teachers go to
organizations that have little specific experience with Indian
issues. Can you expand on that?
And also, you mentioned can you discuss the difficulties
created when the AYP determinations are not made until well
after the start of the school year and where that situation has
improved recently?
Mr. Hamilton. Related to contracts grants going to
organizations that don't have a history--or maybe they don't
have a history with us. I can think of two specific examples.
When----
Mr. Payne. Does Halliburton do this kind of stuff?
Mr. Hamilton. Close. [Laughter.]
We won't go into that. We have been involved with some of
those kind of things, too, unfortunately.
But we did have--at one point, when I was working with the
restructuring at Wounded Knee District School, we were told by
the Bureau that we would have a consultant come in, and they
took a $10 million chunk of money and paid for the University
of Utah to provide support in South Dakota.
A Nan Gutshaw who came up one day--a very nice lady--and
was gone. We didn't see her again. We did a lot of work, but we
didn't see her. And as a matter of fact, that was the only help
that that school got directly from the Bureau in their
restructuring process. Our organization has helped them the
rest of the time.
And recently, the Department of Education has a grant
process to train Native American principals. And my wife, who
keeps coming up in my life, is actually in part of that
master's program.
And even though the tribal colleges put in for this
program, one of the grants ended up at Montana State
University, which my wife is part of that cohort group. And she
is becoming a principal. And she has yet to have a native
instructor even though we have a large number of Native
Americans with PhDs who could be teaching. She has not been
instructed on what it is to finance or run a Bureau-operated or
a Bureau-funded school.
It is been very much a public school preparation. And we
have had a lot of talks about that where there is--there needs
to be some oversight of saying how--when we take large amounts
of resource and we are going to help out the tribes, making
sure that the tribes have some sort of voice in what goes on.
And those are just two of many examples. I could give you a
list.
The other part of your question. I have got to help refresh
my mind here. My ADD-ADHD kicked in. So what was the other half
of your question there?
Mr. Payne. Well, I had asked one about the consultants and,
secondly, about when the AYP starts late in the system, the
disability that it has to the kid.
Mr. Hamilton. In law, the Bureau is not obligated to
provide school choice for parents. In reality, where I live
there are five different elementary schools vying for children
and parents move their children from place to place depending
on their perception of the health of the school.
We were talking earlier about why kids go to specific
schools. And parents do pay attention.
NCLB is designed to inform parents, and we haven't informed
parents. This year, Pine Ridge won't find out until probably
mid-October what their AYP determination is.
Last year, we didn't find out last fall's data until April.
I am not even sure when the letters went out the year before,
but I know that we have a consistent problem with informing
parents.
And we are expected, in the restructuring and the
corrective action planning process, to include parents in how
we improve our schools. And I know as the leader in the
restructuring process for Wounded Knee District School, we have
parent meetings on a quarterly basis. So every 3 months, we sit
down with parents, not only our parent committee, but we have
general meetings across the whole community asking people to
come in and talk about the school.
We have to inform them. And if we don't get data back
quickly or in a timely fashion, then we have problems.
Mr. Payne. Well, let me thank you all for your testimony.
And let me just say that it is deplorable that, as you
indicated, 95 percent of Native American boys will not finish
high school. I mean, that is totally unacceptable. It is
genocide in--educational genocide. And if you are not prepared,
you are dead.
And so I would hope, Mr. Chairman, we could follow up and
see if there can be some change, a quantum leap, in what is
going on.
Once again, let me thank you for calling this very
important hearing.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. And thank
you for your continued interest and involvement in Indian
education.
I am going to thank the witnesses. Hopefully this can be
one of those turning points. We brought some very, very
important people together here this morning at the same table.
And I hope this can be a turning point.
I have been here 32 years, and I think things are somewhat
better. But I am frustrated. I am impatient, you know, with our
efforts to try to improve Indian education. We need dollars. We
need sense and cooperation working with you. You have levels of
expertise that are extremely important.
I think all of us up here and you out there have a moral
obligation, really, because you have all been given a
responsibility in one way or another to help develop Indian
education in this country. And we should take that as a moral
obligation.
So thank you for your testimony this morning. It has been a
very informative meeting. I hope that everyone leaves here
today with renewed commitment to working together on this--
state, federal, and tribal level--to work as equals. And it is
so important as you walk into that room to recognize that you
are walking and talking to equals.
They are real sovereignties. It is not the Knights of
Columbus, as much as I like the Knights of Columbus. It is not
the VFW. It is a sovereign group.
So we want to make sure that we make use of the great
benefits of Indian culture and Indian language to overcome the
great challenges that we are facing in Indian education. And
you are the people, and we up here, let us work together. Let
us really take that as an obligation.
And we are told that we are to be seekers after justice.
And I am convinced that all of you are that. That you really
want justice. The question is how we best achieve that justice.
Several years ago, I introduced three bills to recognize--
to reaffirm the recognition of three tribes in Michigan: Little
Traverse, Little River, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi.
Thank God they had saved great records. They had great
genealogical studies. But we did it through the congressional
process and passed three laws.
And I asked President Clinton at that time if he would have
a bill-signing ceremony in the Oval Office. And he agreed to do
so. So the three chiefs from Michigan came down with many of
their citizens. And, by the way, the always use the word
``citizen'' rather than ``member'' because I think citizen
really illustrates sovereignty.
You know, the Knights of Columbus has members, but Indian
tribes have citizens. Right?
But we filled the Oval Office. And the president used
probably 30 different pens, you know, W and pass the pen
around, I, L--for three different bills.
And when he finished--the president is very gregarious. He
got up and walked around shaking hands and hugging everybody.
And the three chief executives, the three chiefs of these
tribes were still standing there with me behind the desk.
So I turned to them. I said, ``Why don't you sit down in
the president's chair?'' One of the U.S. Senators said, ``Dale,
I don't think we can do that.'' I said no. We can't because we
are not chief executives of sovereign nation. These three are.
So they took turns sitting down in the president's chair
which was a great thing, I thought. And they had their pictures
there sitting in the Oval Office in the president's chair.
I did tell one of them on the way out that the only thing I
ever had on that chair was my eye. But they actually occupied
it. And it--I think illustrations of sovereignty are important,
but the real recognition, the day-by-day things that touch
people's life of sovereignty is more important than the
symbolism.
And this area of education--I started out my life being a
teacher, and I taught school for 10 years. From there, I moved
into this arena. But education is so important.
So as you meet with one another, as you meet with--in your
respective capacities, recognize that that sovereignty is a
real thing and that you are going in there dealing with people,
not one with a higher degree of authority than the other, but
people who have the obligation to protect the sovereignty of
their respective governments.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, yield for a second?
Chairman Kildee. Mr. Payne, yes.
Mr. Payne. Let me just mention that about 18 years ago, I
guess it was, that Congressman Major Owens, who chaired the,
then, Select Committee on Education, had hearings. We went to
Santa Fe. We went to several of the Native American nations and
actually met with tribal leaders even in traditional programs.
And it was very, very exciting and very interesting. And,
perhaps, sometime in the future, next year or the following
year, we can revisit some of the areas where we can really get
first-hand knowledge of what is happening there.
And so I remember it as if it were just yesterday, but like
I said, it was almost 20 years ago. So I just wanted to mention
that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. If I can take just another 2 minutes.
About 31 years ago, I started to visit Indian schools out West.
Carl Perkins was chairman. And I kept adding amendments to
education bills saying that--SEA, State Education Agencies,
LEAs, Local Education Agencies, were eligible recipients.
And I always added an amendment saying ``and Indian
tribes'' for all the education bills. And he would accept all
these amendments.
So finally, he said that we don't have an Indian education
subcommittee, but could you head up a task force. Well, I used
to travel to Indian schools, and I will tell you, that was 31
years ago. I visited some Indian schools that a federal judge
would have not allowed prisoners to be in.
I know because we had a jail in Genesee County, my district
back home--that the federal judge ordered torn down. We blew it
up. We blew it up because it was not fit for human habitation.
Actually, some in the public school system would have been
happy to get that building.
But it was better than some--much better than some of the
Indian schools I was visiting. And I determined then that we
really, really had to move fast. And that was 31 years ago, and
that has not been fast. We have so much to do. We have such an
obligation.
And when we can spend trillions of dollars and billions of
dollars on other things, we certainly can spend some money to
invest in the education of those people from whom we took much
land, took many other things.
As a matter of fact, let me just finish by saying this. I
introduced, I mentioned, the Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver
Act. When the Michigan Indians go to college, the state pays
the tuition. That is still a law in Michigan.
But I introduced that because I went down and read the
Treaty of Detroit. And the treaty promised education. And while
it was a treaty with the federal government, the beneficiary
really turned out to be the state of Michigan getting all that
land. And I felt that they should carry out their obligation.
So 31 years is a long time. I hope I have made some
progress. But I still feel guilty we have not made enough
progress.
But, again, we have to work hard.
Do you have anything--any closing remarks before I----
Again, I want to thank Governor Castle for his continued
presence. He is always present at these hearings. And that is
extremely important. I appreciate that.
As previously ordered, members will have 7 calendar days to
submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member
who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the
witnesses should coordinate with majority staff within the
requisite time.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]