Volume 20 Number 1
October 1980

John W Tippeconnic III

IN THE November issue of Phi Delta Kappan, George Neill (see Note 1) presented salient educational issues as expressed by five of the top Washington-based education leaders. They identified the most important issues facing American education in the 1980-81 school year as:

• lack of money,
• the need for commitment to high quality education, or
• "big brotherism" by the fledgling federal Education Department (ED).

During late November and early December, 1980, five of the top Indian education leaders were asked a similar question: "What is the most important issue(s) facing Indian education in the 1980-81 school year?" Their answers are summarized below. The constant theme in the responses is the issue of reduced funding to support quality Indian education programs. Thus, there appear to be some common issues between the Washington-based and Indian education leaders.

Earl Barlow, Director, Office of Indian Education Programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, stated that "Broadly speaking, the main issue is working toward implementing the policy of Indian control in education." It represents a real "challenge for school boards" because they are "given authority" and they need to be "properly and adequately prepared to handle this responsibility." He continued, "We are determined to give a lot of training and technical assistance." A second issue identified by Dr. Barlow is the "establishment and adoption of minimum academic standards for BIA operated schools." This is "critical because up to now, the BIA never had a basis to justify its budget request. OMB and Congress are looking with a critical eye." He added that this will be "the first time the BIA will have standards tied to the budget request."

Gerald E. Gipp, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Education, Department of Education, said in response to the question that he is concerned about the relationship between the "fiscal restraints in the coming decade and quality education." He asked, "How are we going to talk about quality education with limited resources?" He further stated, "We have to be innovative without diminishing services during limited budget periods." He identified "accountability" in the use of funds as a related issue. "Audits, tight regulations, and changes in laws" he feels, will have a significant impact on Indian tribes. A third issue expressed by Dr. Gipp, "How do parents play a role in the educational system so they impact the school in a positive way? Even with mechanisms for parent involvement, Title IV, BIA boards, and actual contracting, we still have limited participation. How can we improve that?"

Michael P. Doss, Executive Director, National Advisory Council on Indian Education, said the key issue concerned the "cutbacks by the federal government in social service programs and-its meaning for Indian education." He mentioned that the "tightening of money may lead to consolidating Indian education programs." As an example of consolidation, he cited the attempts by "high ranking government officials to consolidate BIA and Department of Education Indian education programs." The "defunding of the tribal community colleges" by Title III and the current practice of "putting money into non-Indian institutions" is another issue according to Dr. Doss. He said this was "against the policy of Indian self-determination."

Ron Andrade, Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians, said the main issue is "the future of supplementary programs and the concern that we may lose them." He used bilingual education as an example and that the Lau vs. Nichols U.S. Supreme Court decision is not being respected by the states. Andrade said a second issue is "maintaining good educational standards" during fiscal "cutback" periods. He cited that funding cuts lead to the "problem of getting low quality teachers" and the "closing of BIA schools." Another issue expressed by the NCAI official is that bilingual education is "weak on tribal control." He wanted "all bilingual education activities to go through tribes." A final issue is that the "new revenue sharing bill gives authority to the President to move categorical programs to the states." This means that Indian tribes who "may have to deal with states as tribes are not eligible for categorical funds." He concluded, it means "more state control."

Lowell Amiotte, President, National Indian Education Association, said "lack of funding" is the major issue. "BIA schools are under staffed" and "there is never enough money to hire" permanent staff. So they "get people on temporary status, which leads to staff turnover and an ‘inconsistency among teachers for students.’ He added that there is a need for funding in "curriculum development, in-service training, and library books. In-service training is very important for board members, administrators, teachers, and parents." He asserted that the need for in-service training is especially acute for "board members with no administrative experience."

He identified "curriculum, personnel, budget, and decision-making" as areas for training, and added that teachers need in-service training because they "don’t know about Indians or how to put ‘Indianness’ into the curriculum." Another issue, Amiotte said, "is to determine what bilingual education means" to Indian people. This is important to meet the opposition "against bilingual education." As a final issue, he questioned the "eligibility criteria used by Title IV." "Specifically," he asked, "who should and who shouldn’t get funding?" from the Indian Education Act program.

An analysis of the issues identified by the Indian education leaders show there is general concern for funding levels of Indian education programs. Specifically, factors that influence high quality education, i.e., academic standards, staffing, in-service and pre-service training, and the possible consolidation or elimination of supplemental programs, are related to the foreseen budget cuts in Indian education. The task before Indian educators is to maintain or improve educational quality with less money.

An additional theme reflected in the comments is to promote and practice the concept of Indian control through real decision-making by school boards. This is especially critical for BIA operated schools given the legislative mandates in P.L. 95 - 561, the Education Amendments of 1978. It is clear the long history of limited or non-involvement by parents and other Indian community members has had its effect on actual decision-making experience by school boards. A major effort is needed to prepare school board members to recognize and practice their rights and responsibilities.

Both of the leaders representing Indian organizations mentioned the concept of bilingual education as an issue. Thus, both organizations continue to promote American Indian bilingual education and would like to see the concept clearly defined based on input from the tribes.

Finally, a comparison of the issues identified by the top Washington based leaders, as expressed in Phi Delta Kappan, and the Indian education leaders show great similarities. Both groups recognize that budget cuts are forthcoming and both see the need for high quality education. This forms the paradox that represents the major challenge facing American education, including American Indian education, as we enter 1981.