NIEA Board Members Meet Senators Mondale and Kennedy while Developing Indian Education Act of 1972

Left to Right- Sen. Mondale, William Demmert Jr. NIEA Treasurer, Sen. Kennedy, Will Antell NIEA President, Dillon Platero NIEA First Vice President

The National Indian Education Association (NIEA) was created in 1970 following the first convocation of American Indian scholars at Princeton earlier in the year where the idea of a national organization focused on Indian education was discussed. William Demmert, Dillon Platero, and Rosemary Christensen, who incorporated the organization in Minnesota, were early organizers of NIEA had all attended the convocation. Will Antell's brother Lee had also attended the First Convocation of Indian scholars. In the fall of 1970 Will Antell was the resident Director of the American Indian graduate program in Education Administration at the University of Minnesota where his brother Lee and I were among the first group of students attending.

In the second year of the Minnesota Indian graduate program Lionel Bordeaux, Lowell Amiotte, Ken Chuck and Jim Ross, Joseph (Bud) and Herschel (Ace) Sahmaunt and Rosemary Christensen joined the Minnesota Indian graduate program. Ace Sahmaunt had been a congressional staffer during the time the Senate Subcommittee on Indian education held hearings in Washington DC in 1969 at which Rosemary Christensen and Will Antell had both testified. Ace also was a participant of the first convocation of Indian Scholars at Princeton in 1970.

Will Antell in 1970 was on loan to the graduate program as the resident Director from his position as the Director of Indian education for the State of Minnesota. The Indian graduate program at the University of Minnesota was one of four such programs supported by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) including also Harvard, Penn State, and Arizona State University in that first year. We are all very grateful to Dr. Jim Wilson, Oglala from Pine Ridge, who was the Director of the Indian OEO for establishing these graduate programs. He was also the first American Indian to accomplish a Doctorate degree from ASU graduating in 1965. Another student of the Minnesota Indian graduate program in 1970 was Chuck Robertson who had along with his wife then, Gay Kingman had been students of Dr. Jim Wilson at Chadron State University in Nebraska. Both went to Washington DC where Chuck remembered assisting with putting together the graduate programs prior to coming to Minneapolis to enroll that first year. Jerry Gipp, Sandra and Dennis Fox and John Tippeconnic were among those that attended the Indian graduate program at Penn State in those early years. Rick St.Germiane was among those who attended the ASU program.

Bill Demmert was the administrator of the Kolwock Public School, Alaska when he attended the Convocation of Indian Scholars in 1970 and was by fall that year attending Harvard in the Indian Graduate program there. Dillon Platero was the Director of Rough Rock Demonstration School on the Navajo Reservation.

Initially Will Antell was asked to work on the statute as he was a personal friend of Sen. Mondale. Will could only do this part time and agreed to do it only if they hired Bill Demmert. Bill indicated that the Senators told him that the statute may not include everything that Bill wanted but it would not include anything for which he was opposed. It was from Harvard while working on his doctorate that Bill Demmert began to work with Sen. Kennedy on the development of the Indian Education Act that was to become law in 1972. The effort of working on the legislation ultimately became his thesis when debating on whether or not he could work on the legislation for the Senator or his degree at the same time, an accommodation agreeable to all was made to merge the efforts into one project and Bill began to work on the statute full time.

Among the Harvard Indian students were included Rosemary Christiansen who had been at the Upper Midwest Educational Lab in the Twin Cities, Anita Pfeiffer, who had been Assistant Director for Educational Services at Rough Rock Demonstration School and Joe Abeyta the long time and now retired Superintendant of the Santa Fe Indian School. Prior to holding hearings on the Indian education, it was Bill that recognized that Senator Kennedy’s staff hadn’t sought or had received much tribal leader support and consequently organized over a weekend the Harvard students to man a phone campaign to generate letters of support for the legislation from their tribal leaders and others. As a result a significant tribal leader voice was heard in support of the statute and it received favorable hearings and passed.

After the passage of the Statute and Bill Demmert completed his doctorate at Harvard was called upon as a special assitant to the Deputy Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education lead the effort at putting what was necessary into place, hire staff and all that is required to acquaint Indian people, communities and schools with the statute. Lee Antell was hired and though I was invited to consider a position in the summer of 1972, I declined and instead went to Northern Minnesota close to the White Earth Reservation where I am a member to work at Moorhead State College. The Indian Education Act programs were implemented in the US Office of Education in the Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) Following President Nixon’s election in 1968 and President’s new Indian Self Determination Policy of 1970, the Indian Education Act of 1972 passed. In the fall of 1972 four days prior to the November 7 1972 Presidential election of Nixon and McGovern, the American Indian Movement took over the BIA building in Washington DC.

Appropriations were provided for the Indian Education Act but President Nixon impounded the appropriations not allowing them to be applied. Bill Demmert in place in the Office of Education in HEW had a statute but no funds despite their appropriation to implement the statute. Jerry Buckanaga, Director of the White Earth Pine Point Experimental School, Secretary Treasurer of the White Earth Tribal Council and Secretary Treasurer of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe led the effort which resulted in the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s suit in January 1973 against the President to force the President to implement the statute. On April 10 1973 the Coalition of Indian Controlled Schools also filed a suit to seek release of the appropriations. The suit was joined by other tribes and the federal court found against the President’s request to have the case dismissed on the grounds of separation of powers, ruling that even the President is not above following duly enacted laws of the United States. By May 1 HEW proposed rules for the implementation of the Act, on May 15th sent names forward for NACIE appointments, and committed on May 21 to have funds obligated by July 1 1973.

Will Antell had served as President for the first three years of NIEA essentially through the time period in which the Indian Education Act was being developed and then passed and then became the Chair of the National Advisory Committee on Indian Education (NACIE) and a member of the National Council on Indian Opportunity (NCIO) and Chair of its Indian Education Subcommittee. Dillon Platero became the second person to be President of NIEA

© 2009-2010 David Beaulieu All Rights Reserved to Big River Man News-American Indian Education

Leonard Beaulieu World War II South Pacific

This is a picture of my father Leonard Beaulieu (White Earth Chippewa) He fought in the South Pacific during World War II at Guadalcanal, the Invasion of Okinawa and the invasion and occupation of Tsingtao Northern China,

Tribal Education Departments National Assembly Statement on ESEA Reauthorization

U.S. Department of Education Tribal Consultations on The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization April, 2010 Oklahoma City
Quinton Roman Nose

Thank you to the Department of Education for hosting this tribal consultation. We're here today because a major federal law that applies to our tribal students – the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – is again up for Reauthorization by Congress. In this Reauthorization we have a chance to help many or all of the 700,000 tribal elementary and secondary students nationwide in some remarkable new ways.

But first, a bit of history. In one month, the ESEA turns 45. It was enacted April 11, 1965, to help close the reported achievement gap between poorer and more affluent students. The Johnson Administration succeeded in getting Congress to authorize federal funding to states and public school districts for remedial reading and math programs for economically disadvantaged students. These are known today as the Title I programs.

Originally, the federal government's role in Title I was limited to funding. Even this was controversial, and the federal government certainly wasn't supposed to get involved in public school curricula, programs, or teaching methods. But over time and especially in the 2 most recent ESEA Reauthorizations in the last 15 years, that has changed. Today, to get Title I funds, states and public school districts have to comply with many federal directives and requirements, especially in the area of education standards.

And the ESEA has grown beyond just Title I. There are now 10 Titles with multiple programs, some of which are specific to Native Americans, like Title VII, which includes the Indian Education Act of 1972's Formula and Demonstration Grants; Impact Aid, which is in Title VIII; and, Title X, which covers the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded schools. These and other ESEA and non-ESEA federal education programs like Johnson O'Malley are extremely important to tribal students, and I know that a great deal of attention to them will be paid in this Reauthorization.

Tribal Students, States, and Public Schools Need Tribal Governments in Title I

I'm going to focus on Title I and you may wonder why. It's because Title I is and always has been the biggest ESEA program. All states receive Title I funding, and well over half of the public school districts in this country receive Title I funds. Title I is administered through the U.S. Department of Education and in FY 2009, the appropriation for Title I grants was about $15 billion. This is compared to, for example, the FY 2009 appropriation for Title VII Indian Education Formula Grants – a supplemental program -- which was only $99.3 million. Because Title I funds go to improve basic core education programs, it's easy to forget that Title I is the largest federal education program serving tribal students in both the BIE-funded schools (through set-asides from the U.S. Department of Education to the U.S. Department of the Interior) and in the state public schools, which is where 92% of our tribal elementary and secondary students are.

With this level of funding, the ESEA Reauthorization will require accountability for Title I funding. So, Congress needs to know how well these massive amounts of Title I funds are serving tribal students, especially in the public schools. And the ones in the best position to make that assessment are the sovereign Tribal Governments. Over 200 tribes in 32 states have Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) or Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs). These TEDs and TEAs are available to help tribal students, and public schools, and states with the education of tribal students under the Title I standards. Right now the ESEA doesn't make those connections in Title I, but in the Reauthorization it can.

Let's talk about specifics. In the current version of Title I, states can get Title I funds if they have submitted proper plans that address academic standards, assessments, and accountability; teaching and learning support; parental involvement; and reporting. In the development of these state education plans, which are a prerequisite for Title I funds; there is no specified role for Tribes. The Tribal Education Departments National Assembly has 2 recommendations for the Reauthorization on this point:
1) Where a Tribe has a significant geographic territory and where that territory includes a high percentage of tribal students served by Title I, instead of being part of a state's Title I education plan, the TED or TEA should be allowed to develop a reservation-wide or a tribal-wide plan for Title I funds, which the Tribe should submit directly to the U.S. Department of Education. If the U.S. Education Department approves the Tribe's plan, the Tribe should get Title I funds. The Tribes should then be authorized to enter into compacts with the local education agency or public schools directly to administer the Title I funds in the local schools or administer the programs themselves.
2) In other instances where there are TEDs or TEAs located within states, the ESEA should, at a minimum, require those states to identify the TEDs and TEAs, meet with them on a quarterly basis, develop joint strategies for improving education in schools with tribal students served by Title I, and jointly report on the results of such meetings to the U.S. Education and the Interior Departments as a condition of receiving Title I funds.
These changes will connect Title I funds and programs with states and tribes. Additionally, where Tribes do get Title I funds under an approved reservation-wide or tribal-wide plan, Tribes should have the option of sub-granting the Title I funds to the public schools that serve tribal students, or, with the public school's agreement, of co-administering the Title I funds with the public schools, or even administering the Title I funds themselves. This last recommendation may sound radical, but the fact is that the BIE-funded schools have long been able to administer Title I grants directly. And the most recent ESEA Reauthorization – that's the No Child Left Behind Act – went even further to allow TEDs and TEAs to set standards in BIE-funded schools and even accredit BIE-funded schools. It's the public schools that now need these kinds of options.
Again, 92% of tribal elementary and secondary students attend state public schools, even on Indian reservations or in other tribal geographic territories. This is because historic federal laws and policies located these public schools on Indian lands. Modern federal laws like the ESEA need to reconnect these schools to tribal governments. Tribes can help with the most fundamental education improvement and accountability functions like data collection, reporting, and analysis. In particular, Tribes are in a unique position to coordinate data on tribal students that is generated by various and sometimes multiple sources, including supplemental federal education programs, public school systems, states, and BIE-funded schools. This would be something that has never happened before; right now we can only imagine accurate and current tribe-wide or state-wide or nationwide data-based reports on tribal students. But if we really had these reports, it would help agencies and Congress make data-driven decisions regarding tribal students consistent with Title I standards.
Tribes can help in other areas as well, from teacher training to research to specific local initiatives like truancy intervention, drop out prevention, and tutoring programs. There is a wide range of possibilities.

Conclusion
This Reauthorization undoubtedly will keep major roles for states and public schools in Title I. This Reauthorization also can ensure roles, or options for roles, for tribal governments in Title I. This would be a new approach that would help tribal students in this country. This isn't about Tribes taking Title I money away from the states and public schools. It's about Tribes helping to determine how Title I funds can best help tribal students meet whatever standards the reauthorized Title I sets for them. If the reports and statistics are correct, states and public schools need help from Tribes in this area. And significantly, a growing number of states are taking this direction on their own, without any federal mandate to do so, because it helps tribal students and it makes sense. Recent state education laws show that Tribes and states have found ways for Tribes as governments to have a role in public school education. They're working together on tribal language curricula and teacher certification. They're working together on public school curricula on tribal history, culture, and sovereignty. In the ESEA Reauthorization the U.S. Department of Education needs to support these efforts and facilitate more such efforts.

Wisconsin Governor Doyle considers Bill Outlawing Indian Mascots

Wisconsin Governor Doyle Considers Bill Outlawing Indian Mascots
The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill and Governor Doyle sign a bill that requires school districts to stop using Indian and "race-based" mascots, logos and nicknames found to promote discrimination or face monetary penalties.

There are currently more than 30 school districts with mascots or logos that could be directly affected. Some of the nicknames in question include the Redmen, Chieftans, and Warriors. Wisconsin would require the state superintendent to immediately review complaints from any school district resident. The superintendent may decide to schedule a hearing on the matter, but may decide its not necessary.
For example, a hearing would not be necessary - or could be postponed - if a school district could prove several factors, including the basis of a complaint is a depiction is of a specific, federally-recognized Indian tribe, and that tribe granted approval to the school board to use its name.

Assembly Expected To Vote On Wis. School Mascot Debate



Assembly cracks down on Indian mascots

Draft Concept Paper: A New Indian Education Act

We already have a great deal within the statute which speaks to what we want to happen with Indian education-a lot of fine words and pronouncements- but every mechanism available to implement them, which may mention American Indian involvement, relegates that involvement to an ‘advisory’ role. The advisory structure in Indian education is a problem to getting anything done. Parent advisory committees and tribal advisory input in most of ESEA is impotent and what is being asked in terms of advice is beyond the competence of these committees, even with knowledgeable staff. Assuming that what is requested could be done with perfection, the advice is none the less advisory carrying no impact or effect. This is the area for tribal government to step up to the plate in terms of authority and defining a work for a Tribal Department of Education connected to schools

The fact that these areas are a part of statute and however weak the advisory mechanisms are, it is important to remember Congress intends an Indian voice or input. It is not a great stretch to say, the current arrangement does not work indeed it’s rarely paid any attention and what Congress intends needs a different structure i.e. A tribal government voice for Indian education

Examples- Comprehensive Plan Development

Title VII Section 7114 (b) requires a description of a comprehensive program for meeting the needs of Indian children served by the local educational agency, including the language and cultural needs of the children That plan must first describe how the comprehensive program will offer programs and activities to meet the culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students (section 7114 (b) (1)

The statute doesn’t provide a definition of culturally related academic needs or language and cultural needs. Instead the statute provides a non exclusive list of possible activities but more importantly provides a vehicle for locally defining what the culturally related academic needs and the language and cultural needs are that requires the involvement of Indian parents. The statute requires a comprehensive local assessment and prioritization of the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of the American Indian and Alaska Native students, requires a description of how the best available talents and resources, including individuals from the Indian community will be used to meet the needs of Indian students and requires an assurance that the comprehensive program was developed in open consultation with the parents of Indian children and parents

There must also be within the comprehensive plan a description how the comprehensive plan is consistent with the State and local plans submitted under other provisions of this Act; and includes academic content and student academic achievement goals for such children, and benchmarks for attaining such goals, that are based on the challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards adopted under Title I for all children. It must explain how Federal, State, and local programs, especially programs carried out under Title I, will meet the needs of such students; the professional development opportunities that will be provided, as needed, to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children; and that all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted under this subpart have been properly trained to carry out such programs and describes how the local educational agency will periodically assess the progress of all Indian children enrolled in the schools of the local educational agency, including Indian children
who do not participate in programs assisted under this subpart, in meeting the goals described in paragraph. Lastly the plan must demonstrate how funds made available under the formula grant will be used.

Ideas for statute change
Provide that Tribal Departments of Education as a delegated authority of a tribal governing body are allowed to develop and submit the comprehensive plans required in this section of the Title for all schools, federal and tribal in their jurisdiction. Tribal departments would seek the input of Indian parents, decide what is meant by culturally related academic needs so that the provisions can be adequately addressed, be responsible to do a complete up to date comprehensive needs assessment of the actual children attending all the schools in the region. The statute requires that comprehensive plans be ‘consistent’ with state and local plans submitted (it does not say the same) that includes academic content and student academic achievement goals for (Indian) children that are “based upon” the challenging state academic content and student achievement standards adopted under Title I for all children. This is an important area as the basis for standards is the federal law which requires states to comply. Under another section, tribal governing bodies can waive the state AYP and Secretary’s version for Federal schools. It still must pass review and be accepted by a federal authority. Well worked out content and achievement standards that are “consistent” appears a possibility as well as comprehensive plans that are consistent with state and local plans. If done well the comprehensive plan could be what is called a tribal education plan of the same order as a state or local education Plan.

The next authority of a tribal department of education, dependent on the level of authority incorporated could be to either determine and/or negotiate with state school districts and the state broadly “ how Federal, State, and local programs, especially programs carried out under Title I, will meet the needs of such students; the professional development opportunities that will be provided, as needed, to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children; and that all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted under this subpart have been properly trained to carry out such programs and describes how the local educational agency will periodically assess the progress of all Indian children enrolled in the schools of the local educational agency, including Indian children
who do not participate in programs assisted under this subpart, in meeting the goals described in paragraph. Lastly the plan must demonstrate how funds made available under the formula grant will be used.”

The proposal that was discussed on the phone would allow tribal departments of education to determine for all kids white and Indian which there is no current statutory possibility. What is possible is elevating a tribal governing body through a tribal department of education to do what is required for Indian children in Title VII that engages what is intended for all of ESEA.. Because there are multiple schools and school districts within most tribal jurisdictions, the proposed idea of tribal state or school district agreement might have possibility for negotiation to agree to the alignment of all ESEA federal resources available for Indian children to meet their needs within a school as a distinct concern. The standards of negotiation and framework for Tribes would as well as level of federal oversight required for states and BIE schools can be described in statute. There is a basis for something real that allows a tribal government voice in the education of Indian children that is infinitely more rigorous than what the feds stand by and allow to occur under the current arrangements. The possibility to do this doesn’t require a tribe to do it but only if the tribe wishes to do so and has the capacity to accomplish the end objective then it should be allowed. Capacity essentially means have funds and positions to do so at least to the level that local school districts and/states must have capacity. This framework makes specific something real about what is meant by education being an aspect of the trustee relationship.

There are some other areas to consider that will help back up this idea. Write in statute the necessary changes that allow tribal governments to be recognized as a local government for purposes of FERPA.

Also though it is a small program these days JOM is extremely important to the case for providing for Tribal departments of education and for the statutory concept of Tribal State Agreement for education. The point here is to not mess with the current JOM law but use it to reinforce the idea that congress also intends and allows a negotiated agreement in this case contract between a tribe and school district under a federal education program. If the scope of this type of authority as exists in JOM encompasses directly or through an agreement what is intended for Indian children in ESEA gets the point across.

Consider Impact aid also, an ESEA title also in the scope of the comprehensive plan required and one that almost exclusively involves school districts educating Indian students though it also includes non Indian students living on trust status land. The requirements here for input are about as weak as you can get but Congress still intends parental input with tribe having a say so to complain to the Secretary if there are not policies in place to allow inputs. Include these input requirements the same as intended in developing the compressive plan and programs under title and negotiated agreements. This is among the most sensitive areas but can be allowed to be included within the proper framework for negotiation. Schools district typically see this as there operational support money which it is of course but it is also required to subject to be considered in ways which support the goals of ESEA.

Sections of NCLB that pertain to the authority of tribal governing bodies to establish standards and assessment systems are important to consider what the statute intend for tribal governing bodies with regard to establishing standards and for federal assistance when it comes to this area. This is important in a tribal governing body through functioning tribal department of education with the type of support intended could make this area truly viable. It again is also not a teach to imagine that what is developed for federal schools and approved by the same Education secretary could be applied for state as indicted in the section regarding compressive plans which I believe are also required of tribal and federal schools.

NCLB sections affecting Tribal Alternative AYP

“A) DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITION–
(i) DEFINITION– The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary (of Education) if the Secretary of Interior requests the consultation, using the process set out in section 1138(b) of the Education Amendments of 1978, shall define adequate yearly progress, consistent with section 1111(b), for the schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on a regional or tribal basis, as appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of such schools and the students served by such schools.
(ii) USE OF DEFINITION– The Secretary of the Interior, consistent with clause (i), may use the definition of adequate yearly progress that the State in which the school that is funded by the Bureau is located uses consistent with section 1111(b), or in the case of schools that are located in more than one State, the Secretary of the Interior may use whichever State definition of adequate yearly progress that best meets the unique circumstances and needs of such school or schools and the students the schools serve.
(B) WAIVER– The tribal governing body or school board of a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs may waive, in part or in whole, the definition of adequate yearly progress established pursuant to paragraph (A) where such definition is determined by such body or school board to be inappropriate. If such definition is waived, the tribal governing body or school board shall, within 60 days thereafter, submit to the Secretary of Interior a proposal for an alternative definition of adequate yearly progress, consistent with section 1111(b), that takes into account the unique circumstances and needs of such school or schools and the students served. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary if the Secretary of Interior requests the consultation, shall approve such alternative definition unless the Secretary determines that the definition does not meet the requirements of section 1111(b), taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of such school or schools and the students served.
(C) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE– The Secretary of Interior shall, in consultation with the Secretary (of education) if the Secretary of Interior requests the consultation, either directly or through a contract, provide technical assistance, upon request, to a tribal governing body or school board of a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that seeks to develop an alternative definition of adequate yearly progress.”

A New Indian Education Act

If you can pull together all these areas together by scope of authority and what is intended in existing statute into a permissive section of the statute for tribal departments of education that allows Tribal governments through tribal departments of education to have the authority instead of the advisory input and provide for tribal state education agreements under a federal framework requiring negotiation with certain standards and federal review which is currently required any way, you then have a new Indian education Act. It is not necessary to change the location of these sections for schools within tribal jurisdictions for those tribes which do not want to do this unless in fact we should generally change locations of certain sections of Title VII such as elevating the language about the trustee status and goals for Indian education and requirements for comprehensive plans and alignment of all federal programs to meet the needs of Indians student into the operating principals of ESEA including a statement of purposes unique to Indian education which state governments must follow. This can be done as simply by directly stating and referencing the specific sections of the Indian education Act in this section of Title I. There also needs to be an appropriation a piece of the huge Title I pie for tribes to actually do what is intended..

If we also consider and tribal departments of education apply for the possibility of utilizing schools as service centers for Indian student and families enrolled in the school which is a program possibility in I believe Title I, It is possible and practical to better coordinate the health, social and other services available for students attending the school and the possibility of developing a local Native children’s agenda becomes a real on the ground possibility. All these areas as we know impact the well being of children and impact the capacity of children to learn.
© 2009-2010 David Beaulieu All Rights Reserved to Big River Man News-American Indian Education

National Tribal Priorities for Indian Education (NIEA-NCAI)

Let’s put our minds together and see what we can build for our children.
– Sitting Bull, Chief, Lakota Nation

Children are our future. This simple statement is the central premise for the recommendations that we offer to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The health, well-being and success of Native children are central to tribal sovereignty. Tribal communities, supported by strong tribal governments, are responsible for raising, teaching and caring for children, and Native children in turn form the backbone of future tribal success.
Indian nations have the largest stake in improving the education of their citizens. We must prepare them for active and equal participation in the global market. We must prepare them to be citizens in the 21st century. We must prepare them to be positive, involved members of our communities. And, most importantly, we must prepare them to be the future leaders of our governments. There is no more vital resource to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.

Education policies over the last few decades have supported tribes exercising sovereignty over education programs serving American Indian and Alaska Native children. These policies include tribal administration over Indian education programs, Indian school boards, and tribal contract and grant schools.i While these reforms have been fruitful, improvements in Indian education remain dwarfed and the discrepancy between Indian and non-Indian student achievement is growing.
In comparison to their peers, American Indian and Alaska Native children continue to fall behind in the educational and learning achievements of their peers. The 2007 National Indian Education Studyii indicated that in reading and math, American Indian and Alaska Native students scored significantly lower than their peers in both fourth and eighth grades. In fact, Native students were the only students to show no significant progress in either subject since 2005. Our students also face some of the highest high school dropout rates in the country.iii These discouraging trends need to be reversed.

We must be clear: specifically addressing the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives within the reauthorization of the ESEA is not akin to providing requirements for reducing education disparities or considering the needs of ethnically diverse populations. While we may fall into those target populations as well, the significant difference is that providing education to American Indians and Alaska Natives is a federal obligation because of the unique legal status of Indian people. When Indian tribes ceded certain lands – lands which now constitute the United States – agreements were made between tribes and the United States government that established a "trust" responsibility for the safety and well-being of Indian peoples in perpetuity. In addition, a number of treatiesiv specifically outlined the provision of education, nutrition, and health care. Therefore, the federal trust responsibility for American Indian and Alaska Native education must be recognized in all education policies.

At the same time, as United States citizens, American Indians and Alaska Natives should have opportunities equal to those of other citizens to participate in the benefits of all programs and services offered within the reauthorization. To that end, we offer the following recommendations.

STRENGTHEN TRIBAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION
The Congress hereby recognizes the obligation of the United States to respond to the strong expression of the Indian people for self-determination by assuring maximum Indian participation in the direction of educational as well as other Federal services to Indian communities so as to render such services more responsive to the needs and desires of those communities. - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975)

Tribal governments are well-positioned to address the educational needs of their students. Unfortunately, tribes face many challenges in providing the best educational opportunities for their children. Tribes must be equipped with resources to improve their tribal education agencies and the education of their students.
Authorize Tribal Education Agencies to perform State Education Agency functions. Tribes are overwhelmingly supportive of local control over education. For Indian Country, this means fully recognizing the status of tribal education agencies (TEAs) as formal components of tribal governments and affording them the same status as State Education Agencies. This would, for example, enable TEAs to develop a tribal wide plan for the distribution of their Title I funds.

Require States to enter into collaborative agreements with tribes. In order for tribes and their TEAs to build capacity and better serve their citizens, States must recognize tribal authority over the education of their students. Upon request, States should negotiate with tribal governments to transfer education programs, funding, services, and administrative responsibilities to the tribes. The Department of Education (DoEd) would both facilitate and foster the cooperation of the State and the tribes in these agreements through financial penalties of Title 1 funding. For example, TEAs should be empowered to implement their own school improvement plan via the accreditation process.

Improve data collection and sharing of data with tribes. Data for Indian students is often incomplete. There are a number of reasons for this – including our incredible diversity which necessitates oversampling to achieve generalizability, our remote locations, and language barriers. An investment in the development of a data collection system will ensure that the programs and services being provided to Indian students are effective and successful. Additional data

collection concerns might also focus on the migratory nature of our students, students with disabilities, and assist with the need for proper enrollment and placement of Indian students.

Authorize tribal technical assistance centers. Funding is needed to develop tribal assistance centers to foster local, tribal control over our educational system. Centers will provide support to tribes and TEAs in the development of best practices, student assessment, data collection, professional development, and the promotion of language and cultural curricula. Preference for funding and support should be given to tribal colleges and universities and the Native Hawaiian colleges.

Cultivate parental, family, and tribal community involvement. Resources should be specifically designated to tribal communities to support parent and family involvement in schools, including evening activities, funding for transportation, and support groups for parents of children with disabilities.

Restore Director of Indian Education to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Education. The current position for the Director is underutilized and functions almost exclusively as a grant manager. This position and office must be elevated so that there is authority to engage in all titles of the ESEA that impact Indian student education. The Deputy Assistant Secretary should also be authorized to facilitate interagency collaboration and to implement the role of the TEAs in various titles.

INVEST IN CULTURAL AND LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION
It is the purpose of this order 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. – Executive Order No. 13336
The survival of Native language and culture is critical to the success of our communities and ways of life. Existing Native language programs and schools have demonstrated that our students are more engaged and successful when offered the opportunity to study their traditional ways. To that end, tribes believe that the ESEA reauthorization should support an investment in Native cultural and language revitalization.

Use of Culturally-Based Education as a promising practice in public schools. By definition, Culturally-Based Education (CBE) is a teaching model that encourages quality instructional practices rooted in cultural and linguistically relevant context. For Native communities, this includes teaching our Native language, but it also means incorporating traditional cultural characteristics and teaching strategies that are harmonious with Native cultural and contemporary ways of knowing. Part of this study includes Indigenous Science, well recognized by the National Science Foundation as a culturally relevant way of classifying scientific knowledge. We recognize, however, that there is little quantitative data to point to, so tribes are calling for CBE to be identified as a promising practice in Indian education and for programs to be funded longitudinally so we can effectively build an evidence base that conclusively distinguishes what works for which populations and under what circumstances.

Tribal authority and funding to conduct cultural training for teachers and administrators in public schools with high Native student population. It is critical that learning occurs in an environment that fosters an awareness and knowledge of the students’ home culture. Tribes are the best resource to provide the training necessary to protect and promote this learning atmosphere for their students.

Authorize a new formula grant program for immersion schools and culturally based charter schools, including early childhood centers. It is largely recognized that the best way to learn a language is to fully immerse oneself.v While we have limited statistical data showing that Native language instruction directly improves academic success, there is a large body of qualitative data that shows correlation of Native language instruction to factors that do improve academic success. Therefore it is critically important to have sustainable funding for research that will demonstrate this statistical correlation.

Tribal authority to certify Native language teachers. Tribes and TEAs should have the authority to credential and certify instructors of their Native languages as highly qualified.

Provide support for limited Native language proficient students. Students in Native language schools, who have limited proficiency in the language of instruction, should receive support similar to current provisions provided under the Limited English Proficient accommodations.

FOCUS ON NATIVE TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND LEADERS
I don't think anybody anywhere can talk about the future of their people without talking about education. Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future. – Wilma Mankiller, former Principle Chief, Cherokee Nation
There is no greater influence on student learning than the quality of the teacher. Indian schools are significantly disadvantaged in their effort to recruit skilled Native teachers. Uncompetitive salaries, remote locations, and lack of housing are but some of the challenges our tribal governments are facing. Tribal leaders are calling for an increased focus on recruiting and retaining Native educators, as well as providing professional development and support for teachers in schools with significant Native populations.

Invest in “grow your own” Native teacher opportunities and pre-service programs. Through scholarship programs, pay incentives, and utilization of existing programs at tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), a pipeline of skilled and qualified Indian educators could be created to fill the significant number of open positions. For example, the development of a collaboration model to credential classroom aids could be developed between schools and TCUs or four-year institutions through distance-learning.

Authorize a Native teacher preparation initiative. Specifically designate funding towards the preparation, training, and ongoing professional training for teachers (including special education teachers) currently working or interested in working at tribal schools or schools with greater than 50% enrollment of Indian students

PROMOTE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Formal Indian education in America stretches all the way from reservation preschools to prestigious urban universities far away from Indian cultural centers. This educational journey spans two distinct value systems and worldviews. At their meeting is the opportunity for the two cultures to both teach and learn from one another.– Vine Deloria, Jr., Professor of Indian Law
Indian education must be viewed as an integrated system, with our students moving in and out of public, tribally-run, and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. As such, there must be a coordinated effort between the agencies that are responsible for providing Indian education.
Collaboration between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Education. Increased collaboration should include training and technical assistance for BIE staff, use of alternative assessments for tribal schools, assistance in curriculum selection, and instructional practices.

Include express statutory language to make funding available for the BIE schools (either overarching the Act or within each ESEA program). Without express statutory language, our BIE school system will be unable to participate or receive much-needed funding. The most recent example of this lies in the ineligibility of BIE for “Race to the Top" grants.

Increase on-the-ground resources and provisions from the BIE for the schools. Schools in the BIE system struggle on a daily basis to provide a quality education to Indian students with insufficient funding to accomplish their mission. Specific direction should be given to the Secretary of the Interior to fund BIE schools on the amount of need, as regulated at 25 CFR Part 39, Subpart H.

CONSULTATION
Consultation with the tribes must be meaningful, in good faith, and entered into on a government-to-government basis. – Jefferson Keel, President, NCAI
A unique government-to-government relationship exists between federally-recognized Indian tribes and the Federal Government. This relationship is grounded in numerous treaties, statutes, and executive orders as well as political, legal, moral, and ethical principles. This relationship is not based upon race, but rather is derived from the legal status of tribal governments. The Federal Government has enacted various regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes. An integral element of this government-to-government relationship is that consultation occurs with Indian tribes. President Obama recently re-affirmed this relationship with an Executive Memorandum, which requires each federal agency to develop a plan to implement consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments as required by Executive Order 13175.
Often times consultation occurs on the back-end, when policy and legislative language has already been written. Tribes are only asked for input in the development of regulations and specific statutory language that the Administration or affected Department believes will directly impact them. Consultations should occur however from the beginning, during the drafting stages, when the visions for the new plan of action are being developed. To that end, the reauthorization of the ESEA must:
Include specific language requiring the Department of Education to consult with tribal governments. Whenever the DoED consults with States or local education agencies, when it is appropriate, tribes should also be specifically included.

Establish a tribal advisory committee to advise the Secretary of the Interior on policy issues and budget development for the BIE school system. There has never been a formal, established mechanism for tribally-operated schools to raise issues and provide substantive advice to the Secretary on an on-going basis – especially on development of the budget request for programs serving BIE schools. Since the schools in the BIE system are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government, the Secretary of the Interior should be consulting closely and regularly with representatives selected by the tribes and the tribal school boards who operate those schools to learn directly from them about their needs and hear ideas about how to fill those needs

i Native American Rights Fund (2005). The Evolution of Tribal Sovereignty over Education in Federal Law since 1965.
ii Freeman, C. and Fox, M. (2005). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (NCES 2005-108).
iii Id.
iv For example: 1858 Treaty entered into with the Yankton Sioux Tribe, 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty entered into with the Sioux Nation, 1858 Treaty with the Ponca Nation.
v Lapkin and Swain (1984), Genesee (1983), Wesche (1986), Edwards (1981) in French Immersion Research Relevant to Decisions in Ontario (1987)

Dr. David Gipp Testimony House Education and Labor Committee

Dr. David M. Gipp, President of the United Tribes Technical College (UTTC), testifies at a hearing about Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization: Addressing the Needs of Diverse Students on March 18, 2010.

Indian Baseball Players

The reason I went into baseball as a profession was that when I left school, baseball offered me the best opportunity both for money and achievement. I adopted it because I played baseball better than I could do anything else, because the life and the game appealed to me and because there was so little of racial prejudice in the game. There has been scarcely a trace of sentiment against me on account of birth. I have been treated the same as other men." - Bender
Charles Albert Bender (Chippewa),
Charles Albert Bender (Chippewa), John Tortes Meyers (Cahuilla band of Mission Indians)

A New Indian Education Act- Tribal Self Determination and Control in the Public Education of American Indians. Part I

During the Bush administration it became apparent that the innovations of our efforts in statute from the 1970’s to NCLB that provided for language and culture in the education American Indian students as well as that which recognized Indian education as an aspect of the federal trustee relationship with American Indian tribes and the provision that enabled the possibility of greater tribal control in education of Indian students in tribal schools through tribal standards and assessment systems were applied in a limited fashion and were all very vulnerable. These provisions appeared by 2004 to be primarily statutory lip service or appendages that could be easily eliminated without any visible educational impact upon schools.

The Bush administration began through the Department of Education to eliminate the possibility of language and culture in efforts funded by the Indian Education Act despite the clear intentions of the Act and the President’s own Executive order on American Indian education. The ability to develop tribal education standards and assessment systems were ended by administrative action on the part of BIA through returning Department of Education funds to facilitate the process of developing tribal assessment systems and then negotiated MOAs with state education authorities for the use of state standards and assessment systems for all federally funded schools.

Tribal schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education are now all offering educational programs that utilize the standards and assessment systems of the state governments in whose jurisdiction they are located. The expression that “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks, it must be a duck” certainly should apply to describing tribal schools. If a school is located on a reservation has significant amounts of federal funding and follows state standards and assessment systems it must be a state public school district receiving federal Impact Aid. The only problem here is that though it looks and walks like a duck, it doesn’t quack, at least not just yet.

The same is true for Indian Education Act programs and though the Bush administration relaxed its policy of aggressively seeking to eliminate language and culture programs in the formula grant programs because of the efforts of NIEA in 2005-2006, Indian Education efforts then as now often seek to add time to the basic instructional program through tutorial, homework assistance and before and after school efforts to beef up failing approaches in the main instruction program.. These programs with very limited revenue at approximately $300 per Indian student have been increasingly utilized for efforts that could just as easily be accomplished by Title I in ESEA and consequently not allowing for efforts that add language and culture to a program among other possibilities. The Indian Education Act “duck” looks and walks very much like Title I but it also doesn’t quack… not yet.

Added to this reality was the recognition that the entire of structure of Indian and tribal input into schools and education programs for American Indians was and is advisory in character. It appeared that school officials known to rarely if ever heed advisory notions about what should be the goals, objectives and approaches for the education programs provided for American Indians also lost significant authority due to the mandates of NCLB.

And now the US Department of Education has proposed placing the Indian Education Act programs in a new Title proposed for ESEA Reauthorization, Title II Diverse Learners. This proposed new Title of ESEA would lump together a motley collection of ESEA titles, including Impact Aid, Rural, N & D, Homeless, Migrant, English Learners, Alaska, Hawaiian and American Indian. The Indian Education Act, Alaska Native Education Act and Native Hawaiian Education Act currently lumped together in Title VII of NCLB has already sufficiently buried the unique recognition that education of American Indians and Alaska Natives is an aspect of the federal governments trustee relationship with American Indian tribal governments as well as the unique purposes of the Indian Education Act within NCLB that these purposes have little or no influence on school programs for American Indians and remain vulnerable to elimination.

If the recognition that American Indian Tribes are governments and that education is an aspect of the trustee relationship of federal government with American Indian tribal governments and that inclusion of language and culture within education programs for American Indians were buried before within NCLB, we will never find them among the new American diversity title proposed within ESEA

The real issue is to have a viable structure for tribal control of education within tribal jurisdictions and for tribal governments to significantly influence the nature of the federal interest in the education of American Indians in school settings outside of tribal jurisdictions typically aligned with the intentions and purposes of federal funds for American Indians.

How do we give a real voice to the intention that language and culture is not only important in its own right to be included in the education programs for American Indians but to recognize that education for all people is social and linguistic in character, that cultural and language is the way through which everyone is educated. To deny the American Indians an educational environment and process which connects them socially and linguistically with who they are denies them the very means to accomplish the academic goals provided for them

How do we give a real voice to the educational needs of tribes and American Indian communities as tribal societies and communities as being important for schools and educational institutions to serve and not define for American Indian students? How do we enable tribes to determine the purposes of education for their own tribes and communities which connects to their children and youth

The trustee relationship of the federal government to American Indian tribes is not solely the federal governments to define. The trustee relationship is after all a relationship between two governments that emanates from treaties between the United States government and American Indian tribes It was the changes to Title VII accomplished through NCLB that finally stated that education was an aspect of the federal trustee relationship. The specifics of the statute are detailed in a letter I wrote to Representative Betty McCollum of the 4th Congressional District MN at the time Bush Secretary of Education Spellings threatened language and culture in education programs for American Indians. (See articles in this blog for August 7-8-9 2006 for description of controversy and complete copy of letter) The broad purpose of Title VII (section 7101) is stated as follows “It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children. The Federal Government will continue to work with local educational agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities toward the goal of ensuring that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these children.

In reliance of section 7101 there are two educational purposes “ensuring that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these children.”

The Indian Education Act not only seeks to assist schools to improve achievement of Indian students in academic subjects and in ways that uniquely involve culturally based approaches and the expansion of educational opportunities but it also seeks to ensure that schools with Indian students reflect the cultural heritage of those students. Though the goal of improving the academic achievement of American Indian students is not the sole responsibility of Title VII and is shared by the other titles of NCLB, meeting the unique language and cultural needs of American Indian students is the sole responsibility of Title VII.

Within NCLB are sections that pertain to schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) now Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) “The Secretary of the Interior shall define adequate yearly progress for the schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on a regional or tribal basis, as appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of such schools and the students served by such schools,…may use the definition of adequate yearly progress that the State in which the school that is funded by the Bureau is located uses. “ The tribal governing body or school board of a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs may waive, in part or in whole, the definition of adequate yearly progress established ( by the Secretary of Interior) where such definition is determined by such body or school board to be inappropriate. And shall submit to the Secretary of Interior a proposal for an alternative definition of adequate yearly progress …… that takes into account the unique circumstances and needs of such school or schools and the students served and shall provide technical assistance, upon request, to a tribal governing body or school board of a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that seeks to develop an alternative definition of adequate yearly progress.

Considering what is all ready stated in statute how to we give voice to these essential aspects for the development of education programs for American Indians in school settings.. Certainly we must unbury these provisions from within the current and proposed ESEA titles that gives short shrift to them in every school and programmatic effort for Indian students. How can the trustee relationship of the Federal government with American Indian Tribes become a viable federal tribal government relationship that works for American Indian tribes, communities and students?

Despite good statutory language that relationship not only doesn’t work to accomplish the basic intentions of the statutes but fails to produce results. A danger exists that because the statutes are worded as they are that some policy makers may be led to believe that the lack of results are because of them not because they have never been truly contained within viable vehicles to accomplish the objectives at hand. We don’t need new purposes or objects but to utilize the trustee relationship and tribal government authority to accomplish them within an enduring framework that provides the time to develop effective schools for American Indians

We need a new Indian Education Act which brings to life the role of tribal government and the trustee relationship for education. We can no longer bury Indian education in the lack of real accomplishment or within other titles of ESEA to have little or no real effective vehicle to accomplish it purposes. We need a new federal tribal vehicle for Indian education that produces results in the interest of children and youth and the tribes and communities in which they live. The results of existing efforts in terms of achievement levels, dropout rates, the general level of failure and generally poor wellbeing of Indian children and youth beg attention to find a better way.

Part II Tribal/State government compacts for education
© 2009-2010 David Beaulieu All Rights Reserved to Big River Man News-American Indian Education