US Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings has responded to the inquiry of four members of the Native American Caucus of the House of Representatives regarding the implementation of the Title VII Indian Education formula grants by the US Department of Education and the Office of Indian Education. A number of Indian education programs particularly in Minnesota have formally complained that the Office of Indian Education has sent letters to their school district and have initiated conference calls from Washington DC requiring a shift from language and culture to math and reading in Indian education programs despite the language in the statute.
Representatives George Miller, Betty McCollum, Dale Killdee and Stephanie Herseth sent the letter to the Secretary April 21, 2006 forwarding resolutions that had been sent to them from Indian education projects along with the resolutions of tribes and organizations supporting the position of Indian education programs. The letter asked for “written clarification of the Department policy regarding the use of Title VII funds to support Title I activities, the percentage of Title VII projects that include and culture and Native language in their activities and programming and the Department’s efforts to consult with the National Advisory Council on Indian Education in the implementation of the President’s Executive order.”
The Representatives went on to state that “We share in many of the concerns recently expressed by leaders in the Native American community regarding Title VI. The elimination of parental involvement and student incentives in Title VII has weakened the abilities of educators to engage students and their families in critical aspects of the students’ education. Native education leaders have also expressed concern that Title VII grants are being advised to not include culture in the activities of the grant. Furthermore, there is a great concern the combining of the grant process for Titles I and VII has eroded the critical role Title VII plays in the education of Native children. This “efficiency” has resulted in the administration of the Title VII grants to more often fall within the preview of a Title I program administrator, rather than a Title VII administrator who often has strong ties to the Native American community. All of these factors have lead to the gradual weakening of Title VII.”
Secretary Spelling’s response did not respond to a number of these points but focused on the use of formula grant funds for language and culture. Her response reiterates an interpretation that continues to be misadvised.
The central points of Secretary Spellings letter is summarized by the following points where the Secretary quotes Section 7111 which states the purpose for the formula grant program. (Section 701, Part A, Subpart 1) “It is the purpose of this subpart to support local educational agencies in their efforts to reform elementary school and secondary school programs that serve Indian students in order to ensure that such programs — (1) are based on challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards that are used for all students; and (2) are designed to assist Indian students in meeting those standards” This is an accurate statement of purpose for the Formula Grant program in that it is a verbatim quote.
She then states “In other words, although some groups have and program grantees have interpreted the statute as making language and culture the primary focus of the program, it is clear that the legislation requires LEAs to design and implement projects intended to raise the academic achievement of Indian students, while being sensitive to and incorporating native language and culture.” And finally “The primary mechanism for measuring effectiveness of the Title VII program are academic assessments that states have developed (and are administering to all students) under the No Child Left Behind Act. Although projects may also measure student’s achievement in culture and Native language against state standards, few assessment tools are available for tracking that type of progress.
The Secretary’s rather narrow and limited interpretation does not consider the preceding separate overall policy and purpose sections for the entire Indian Education Act – Sections 7101 (Policy) and 7102 (Purpose) and has focused too narrowly on the program purpose section to the erroneous exclusion of the statute's overall policy and purpose sections. Also the rest of subpart 1 which pertains to the formula grant and states what is allowed and required in a formula grant provides significant information for interpreting the specific intention of Section 7111 which states the purpose of the formula grant. It is particularly unclear where in the statute the Secretary finds support for the statements that “The primary mechanism for measuring effectiveness of the Title VII program are academic assessments that states have developed”, and “Although projects may also measure student’s achievement in culture and Native language against state standards, few assessment tools are available for tracking that type of progress.”
End Part I- a detailed analysis of the purposes of the Title VII formula grant provision in light of Secretary Spelling’s response will appear in tomorrows Big River Man News-American Indian Education
© 2006-2007 David Beaulieu All Rights Reserved to Big River Man News-American Indian Education
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment