Journal of American Indian EducationVolume 16 Number 3
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Findings and Recommendations THE nationally important, 18th annual Indian Education Conference was held April 13-15 at Arizona State University, Tempe, with approximately 500 attending the event. Highlight of the conclave was presentation by the American Indian Policy Review Commission of its findings and recommendations in the area of Indian education. The major purpose of the conference this year was to provide tribes, Indian organizations and agencies an opportunity to react to the commission’s findings. The conference began at noon on Wednesday with several workshops related to education held during the afternoon. Among these were the National Indian Education Association Project Media workshop with Ms. Rebecca Murray, Project Media director, and the Bilingual Education workshop, with Ms. Gay Lawrence, Arizona State Department of Education, as moderators. Ernest Stevens, past director of AIPRC, gave the keynote address on Thursday, providing conference participants with a history of the commission and presenting an overview of its functions and activities. Ray Goetting and Charles Peone, AIPRC consultants, orally presented the educational findings. A list of ten findings was developed for reaction by participants of the Thursday afternoon workshop sessions. Specific findings in higher education, Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal control, state role in Indian education, and the U.S. Office of Education were also developed; and individuals and groups were encouraged to react outside the workshop format. On Friday, the final general session reconvened for the presentation of conference workshop reaction position papers and recommendations to be submitted to the American Indian Policy Review Commission, Washington, D.C., for inclusion in the final report. The Center for Indian Education is proud of the success of the conference and recognizes the sincere effort on the part of those responding to be heard. The Reaction Report, which was compiled from the responses of the conference participants, has been submitted to the AIPRC and will be part of the final report. Finding One. Shift all Federal education programs from Office of Education and Bureau of Indian Affairs to one administrative agency. Reactions 1. The transfer of programs to a new agency should be accomplished if Indian people and their tribal governing bodies approve and design transfer process. 2. (a) Agree to one agency since there would be consistency in the program. Would like to see an educational movement with more emphasis placed on the education of children. (b) What guarantee is made, if a new agency is established, that the agency will see more input from parents in their concepts of goals and direction of education. 3. It needs to be defined who will be eligible for services and how the agency will be implemented. If properly managed, it would be a good idea. 4. Shift some Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative agency. 5. Shift all Federal education programs and funds to one administrative agency. 6. Shift all Federal education programs and funds allocations from OE and BIA to one administrative agency. Finding Two. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local governments to tribal governments. Reactions 1. Tribal governments may desire to participate in the shift of control on an optional-ability basis. Some tribes may not have the skilled manpower to assume total control and therefore the transition will be affected by this.
Urban Indians may have to group themselves into PAC-type groups; and since an accurate count is not available, reservation tribes may have to assist in the identification and even the servicing of those whom they recognize as tribal members. 2. What about Indians who are not under tribal government? (a) How will this recommendation affect those Indians living in the urban area educational system? (b) How would urban Indians apply for education funding? (c) Is the recommendation only for tribal governments/organizations ? Finding Three. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors and tribal advisors on education. Reactions 1. Establish long-range training programs for Indian education personnel in areas of: (1) teaching, (2) school administration, counseling, (3) tribal advising. Also training programs should be developed in areas of: tribal accounting, economics, financing, management and other technical areas needed for tribal control. 2. Personnel involved in the education and training of Indian children should be specially trained. Particularly in viewing their personal concepts of Indian children, learning of the people to whom they are to serve, their customs, traditions and religion. Be more aware and respectful of their way of life. 3. Establish training programs for Indian tribes, administrators, counselors and tribal advisors. Programs that lead toward a degree or certification. Finding Four. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in conjunction with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond to the needs of Indian people. Reactions 1. The Indian people in conjunction with a consolidated Indian agency will design education programs to respond to the needs of the people. 2. Agree; but need to involve many educational designs would greatly depend on the tribal structure and needs. (a) Some felt the sentence should state, "and consult" rather than the wording "in conjunction." Finding Five. This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes. Reactions 1. The Indian people, the agency, and the programs will require more efficient administration and accurate funding mechanisms to assure that target monies reach the tribes and the students. 2. They must have other targets as well. 3. This agency and programs would require more efficient administrative distribution and an accurate funding mechanism to assume that target monies reached the tribe. Finding Six. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with their desires. Reactions 1. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with the desires of tribal governments. In off-reservation areas with no tribal jurisdiction, federal funds must be administered by an Indian parent committee with full policy and program control. 2. Meaning is unclear--if emphasis is on aid, will agree. 3. Question is not clear, no explanation given. 4. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with needs. Finding Seven. Amendments to Public Law 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring system, then to the school, (2) a set-aside provision is made to cover costs of tribal administration. Reactions 1. Amend by addition the following: "We recommend that both laws be fully funded to meet the urgent needs." 2. The laws do not pertain just to Indians (set-asides?) Finding Eight. Amendments to Public Law 638 such that: (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for and administer postsecondary schools with a multi-tribal population; (2) in case of multitribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly elected Board of Regents including at least one representative from each tribe, be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for and administer those schools. Reaction 1. Amend by addition of: "There must be assurance that all tribes involved are duly ratified and involved in all transactions." Finding Nine. Amendments to Public Law 638 and Johnson-O’Malley such that: (1) any dollars contracted for the education of Indian children through Public /Law 638 and Johnson-O’Malley would pass through tribal monitoring system, (2) in utilizing this contract or monitoring powering with Public Law 638 or Johnson-O’Malley a tribe may decide the extent to which it wishes to control the educational system affecting its children. This decision runs the gamut from total tribal ownership and control to utilization of the tribal government only as a monitoring system, (3) if the tribes’ option is to set up an organizational unit to monitor funds, a set-aside provision should be made available to cover costs of tribal administration. Reaction 1. That’s the way it is now--why is an amendment necessary? Finding Ten. Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state or local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for Indian education can be sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a state court of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff a temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or other order including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing any further payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation. Reaction 1. It’s already that way--why the amendment? Additional Findings in Three Divisions 1. The Delivery System - BIA Findings 1. Congress will initiate legislation for the funding and administration under a consolidated Indian agency for programs: (a) To study and establish standards for Indian educationand develop an accreditation system for Indian schools. (b) To train non-Indians who teach and work with Indian children as an interim measure until there are enough Indian educators. (c) To educate and prepare the tribes to organize and operate their own educational systems. (d) To subsidize a long-range effort to train and certify Indian educators for Indian schools. (e) To certify Indian programs for curriculum development and library development. (f) To provide for a professional clearinghouse to keep education information, i.e., teacher availability, new curricula, and special information flowing from school to school and tribe to tribe. (g) To give professional Indian educators the opportunity to give regular input on new educational methods and resources to the tribes, the tribes in turn can utilize these suggestions if they choose.
11. Congress shall provide, under the umbrella of the consolidated Indian agency, appropriate legislation for the administration and funding of improved off-reservation boarding schools (ORBS). 12. Funding would be used to define the goals and objectives for each ORBS. Create an academic emphasis that fits the particular goals of each school. a. A vocational/technical school. b. A school for the gifted with emphasis on academic training. c. A school for special learning difficulties (basic skills emphasized). 13. Juvenile corrections should be the responsibility of the tribe(s) and not the ORBS. 14. Hire sufficient diagnostic staff, a program and development specialist, and curriculum development that is responsive to student needs both psychologically and academically for each ORBS. 15. Choose teaching and guidance personnel on the basis of ability to do the job rather than rank in civil service. 16. Give parents and community the opportunity to contribute ideas and participate in school procedure. 17. Give the school advisory boards real decision power. 18. Set up funding structures to separate ORBS from other BIA-funded schools. 19. Standardize accounting procedures and fiscal reports of all ORBS. 20. Remove post-secondary schools run by the BIA from ORBS states so they have the option to control: Staff, budget, programs, enrollment, and student body. 21. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all BIA schools (Haskell, SIPI, IAIA). Reaction Participants strongly agreed with all the findings with the following comments: (a) Number 14. The question arose, "Would it be practical to hire all of the mentioned personnel, and would they be all Indians?" (b) Number 17. What training would the advisory board receive to prepare them to exercise wise authoritative power? Additional Comments 1. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all BIA schools, including post-secondary schools. 2. Funding structures and accountability procedures should be standardized for fast and efficient accounting and for educational research purposes. Schools should follow the same elective process for advisory boards, and board of regents. Schools should work together on meaningful research, for example, student dropouts, new curriculum, and follow-up studies on students who attend institutions of higher learning. 3. Many times people in the educational field lose sight of their original objectives and begin to conceptualize, "What can I get out of the system for self-gain?" Too many times the person tends to look for personal gains rather than to view what is the best way to reach the Indian youth. II. Higher Education 11. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all BIA schools (Haskell, IAIA, SIPI). 12. Congress, through specific legislation, will provide funding for scholarships in three academic areas: (1) Vocational, (2) Liberal arts, (3) Graduate level. 13. Graduate level scholarship should take into account extra expenses such as books, lab fees and the greater possibility graduate students will be married. 14. Scholarship funding is directed through both Indian organizations and tribes which would distribute the money to eligible Indian students. 15. Each student who meets the requirements of Section 411 (A) (1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 shall be entitled to a grant in an amount computed under subsection (a) of subsection (1). 16. Congress must enact legislation which would, under the consolidated Indian agency, carry out a program for funding and administration of Indian post-secondary schools. 17. Legislation such to include funds for more Indian owned and operated colleges such that higher education is available to all Indians who desire it. 18. Legislation such to include funds to establish a number of institutions of higher learning for interpreting and sustaining the culture, languages and traditions of Indian people. 19. Legislation such to include funds provided by the Federal government to any institution of higher learning that is educating Indian students (similar to JOM). 20. Accreditation for Indian post-secondary institutions should be provided by an Indian designed and organized board. (Note: There were no further findings for III or IV.) V. Tribal Control 11. Tribal control at minimum could entail utilizing the tribal government as a monitoring system for federal funds targeted for Indian education. Dollars targeted specifically for Indian children, for example, JOM, would not only pass through the tribe but the tribe could also direct how those dollars were to be spent. 12. Where a local school system rejects tribally determined educational priorities for JOM and other target funds, those funds should be available to the tribe for use in a program of its own. 13. In recognition that one year’s funding may be an insufficient base to establish an independent program, there should be provision to allow for carryover of previous year’s funding. 14. To facilitate the move toward Indian control of Indian education, trained specialists will be needed. Programs for Indian people to direct Indian control should be established. 15. Monies should be provided for programs to educate and prepare tribes to organize and operate their own education (to the extent they wish). 16. Monies should be provided to subsidize a long-range effort to train and certify Indian educators for Indian schools. 17. Monies should be provided to establish training programs for teachers of Indian students. 18. Monies should be provided to subsidize programs for curriculum development and library development for Indian schools. 19. Monies should be provided to study and establish an accreditation system for Indian schools. 20. Monies should be provided to study and establish standards for Indian schools. The following are reactions by groups and individuals: Tribal Control Additional Comments 1. Money should be provided for basic school operations. 2. Accounting systems should be set up for the tribes to account for the monies they receive. 3. Congress pass a law that the Federal government pass in legislation that Congress will continue to fund programs for Indian tribes if they contract under Public Law 93-638. Ms. Ida L. Jose, Chairperson, Papago Education Committee, Sells, Arizona Ms. Jose represented the Papago Education Committee, and the following comments represent the opinion of her committee after their participation in Workshop #5, Tribal Control. The issue of tribal control is of main concern on the Papago Reservation. The problem is as follows: The Papago Education Committee is authorized by a tribal resolution to be responsible and accountable for Tribal Education contracts. There are two (2) main reasons why this is impossible to do: 1. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Procurement Branch) has their own unwritten rules that cannot be abided by anyone, which also conflict with tribal contract statements. 2. The state does not recognize tribal sovereignty. Our recommendations are: 1. That Public Law 93-638 be amended to insure tribal control of all contracted programs. 2. That tribes be given full authority and responsibility to determine their own direction and policy, without interference of the state and Federal bureaucracies. 3. That Congress assure the tribes of adequate funding for their determined needs. Ms. Lena Begay, Central Curriculum Coordinator, Navajo Economic Opportunity Childhood Development Program, Ft. Defiance, Arizona The main questions which should be asked regarding the establishment of the AIPRC are: Who appoints the Commission? Why can’t we be involved right from the first instead of at the conclusion? What impact will our recommendations have on the Commission’s Report to Congress? The general findings were very vague, and they need to be clarified. Pertaining to General Finding #1, Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative agency; what one administrative agency are these programs to be shifted under? Who will be involved in the shifting of these programs and who will have the control? Pertaining to Finding #2, Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local governments to tribal governments; is this to be done with approval of tribal people or individual groups? As to Finding #3, Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors and tribal advisors on education; who would establish these training programs and where will the monies come from? We must have assurances that the training programs are not funded for one or two years and then discontinued. What we need instead of what we have gotten in the past are long-range training programs to insure that the benefits of the programs will be given the Indian peoples. On Finding #4, The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in conjunction with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond to the needs of Indian people; what is meant by "consolidated" Indian agency? Is this in reference to the superagency in General Finding #1? As to Finding #5, This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reach the tribes; this funding mechanism needs to be controlled according to the needs of the tribes or the individual groups of people who are requesting the funds. Findings 6-10 are already in existence it appears, but what we need is a reaffirmation of these findings. Finding #10, such a law is already in existence, but we need to work with the law now, and we need to have it enforced. Of definite concern is the need to define "Indian." We are making our recommendations, but we need the support of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and of all the Indian people. Mr. Virgil Free, Higher Education Director, Johnson O’Malley, Winnebago, Nebraska The area which the Task Force of the Commission did not seem to get into was funding accountability. We must be kept informed of the amount of money that is going out, and we need to be kept informed of where it is going. We must abide by regulations and guidelines, but OE and BIA do no accounting to us. We must demand that OE and BIA report nationally to the tribes at the national and the regional levels. We ask AIPRC to demand that accounting also be done at the area and agency levels. Mr. Albert Sinquah, Director, Education, Hopi Tribe, Oraibi, Arizona My main concern is that there is no existing organization or group of people responsible for seeing to it that the government is meeting the requirements and guidelines of the programs. There needs to be an office or a Concerns Bureau that we can contact for interpretation of the existing laws. The interpretation of the policies vary at the local, area, regional, and national levels. It is difficult to know or see what we are doing because of this. The AIPRC should recommend the establishing of an organization strictly for the interpretation of the laws. Ms. Cynthia Cardona, Workshop #3, "United States Office of Education," Osborn School District, Phoenix, Arizona My main concerns center around the amount of confusion, misunderstanding, and leaming process involved with the various programs. It seems that information is not received with sufficient time to study the literature. Procedures are sometimes somewhat intimidating.—In many instances one is unclear as to how to utilize funding in the proper "legal" way. The Public Laws and Acts are unclear to the majority of the participants here at this session and to the participants within the different programs. How is this and other legislation to affect the urban Indian? There is too much confusion in this area as it appears the urban Indian is not being recognized. We need to see statistics concerning the operations of the programs. How is the money appropriated and how is it being utilized? How much of that money actually trickles down to students? Ms. Carol Kirk, Arizona State University Student The following comments were made by Ms. Kirk after her participation in Workshop #4, "State Role in Indian Education." Concerning General Finding #1, Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative agency, the members of the workshop may have been indecisive or negative because of two main concerns. 1. There was not enough information as to how OE and BIA were to be unified. Perhaps the intention of the members was to either agree or disagree and then make comments as to how either decision would be implemented. 2. As pertaining to nearly all the items the participants tended to disagree with the printed statements as the participants all recognized tribal authority but did not specifically recognize urban Indian groups. The main concern with Items 7-10 was that these or at least some of these General Findings were identified by participants to already existing policy. Negative or indecisive comments were made because it was noted that the policies were already in effect. My concern: Was the purpose of the questionnaire a reaffirmation or a negation of general policies facing tribal sovereignty or was it intended to address for specific changes in existing policy? The confusion arose because it was unclear as whether we were disagreeing with the conditions of the existing policy or recommending something new. Summary The reaction presented above represents that of individuals and groups compiled in the procedure described. It does not necessarily represent a consensus of the conference. No effort was made to interpret any of the data or change any of the comments. It is raw data compiled within limitations of a three-day conference. However, the reaction does represent a sincere effort on the part of those responding to be heard. We trust that the input will be valuable to the American Indian Policy Review Commission and that it will be a part of the final report submitted to Congress.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ home | volumes | editor | submit | subscribe | search ] |
