U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–818 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–510 

S. 1948 AND S. 2299 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RHONDA HARJO, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 18, 2014 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 19 

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 15 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 3 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 17 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Brockie, Clarena, Dean of Student Affairs, Aaniiih Nakoda College .................. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Delgado, Hon. Ed, Chairman, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin ................. 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Mendoza, William, Executive Director, White House Initiative on American 

Indian and Alaska Native Education, U.S. Department of Education ............ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Rawlins, Namaka, Director of Strategic Partnerships and Collaboration, Aha 

Punana Leo, Inc. .................................................................................................. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Roach, Sonta Hamilton, Elementary School Teacher, Innoko River School; 

Board Member, Doyon Limited ........................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Robinson, Hon. Lillian Sparks, Commissioner, Administration for Native 

Americans, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ......................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Shortbull, Thomas, President, Oglala Lakota College .......................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

APPENDIX

Ammann, Brooke Mosay, Director, Waadookodaading Ojibwe Language Immersion School, prepared statement .................................................................. 79 

Bundy, J. Michael, Ph.D., Superintendent, Two Eagle River Alternative 

School for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 65 

Harper, Leslie, Director, Niigaane Ojibwemowin Immersion, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 77 

National Indian Education Association (NIEA), prepared statement ................. 69 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to: 

Hon. Ed Delgado ............................................................................................... 94 

Clarena Brockie ................................................................................................ 93 

William Mendoza .............................................................................................. 117 

Namaka Rawlins .............................................................................................. 96 

Hon. Lillian Sparks Robinson .......................................................................... 112 

Thomas Shortbull ............................................................................................. 90 

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to William 

Mendoza ................................................................................................................ 114 

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to Hon. Lillian 

Sparks Robinson ................................................................................................... 111 

Roman Nose, Quinton, Executive Director, Tribal Education Departments 

National Assembly (TEDNA), prepared statement ........................................... 81 

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ................. 65 

Sullivan Sr., Michael D., Professor, The College of St. Scholastica, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 80 

Page

IV 

Support letters submitted by: 

Pam Agoyo ........................................................................................................ 86 

Kamana‘opono M. Crabbe ................................................................................ 89 

Jennifer Hall ..................................................................................................... 87 

Nokomis Paiz .................................................................................................... 88 

Elizabeth Sahkahtay Strong ............................................................................ 87 

United Tribes Technical College (UTTC), prepared statement ........................... 85 

Wilson, Ryan, President, National Alliance to Save Native Languages, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 73 

(1) 

S. 1948 AND S. 2299 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

The CHAIRMAN. I call this meeting of the Committee on Indian 

Affairs to order. 

Today the Committee will discuss two bills that address an issue 

that is very important to me and to many of my colleagues on this 

Committee: Native student achievement. The first bill is S. 1948, 

the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act. The 

second is S. 2299, a Bill to Reauthorize the Native American Language Program of the 1974 Native American Programs Act. Both 

of these measures share a similar goal of increasing Native academic achievement through supporting Native language instruction 

and ensuring Native students are college and career-ready. 

Language matters. It is how we as human beings convey our 

ideas, our feelings and our hopes. I think about the power of language and words and the impact they have to effect change. Just 

think about Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Martin Luther King’s 

I Have A Dream speech. Words comfort and uplift us. That is why 

we sing lullabies to our children and Christmas carols during the 

holidays. 

I am struck by what Chairman Delgado said in his testimony. He 

said that language is medicine. And when Oneida teaches their 

children of this medicine, the children in the community begin to 

heal. This is why these bills we are talking about today matter. 

The history of Native languages in this Country is one of great 

tragedy and also great triumph. In the early years of this Nation, 

the Federal policy toward American Indians was forced assimilation designed to eradicate tribal cultures. Children were forced into 

boarding schools, and among other things, forbidden to speak their 

Native languages. Years later, however, during both world wars, 

the contribution of Native American code talkers speaking in their 

native language was instrumental in helping the Allied forces preserve freedom and democracy. To honor these American heroes, 

2 

their people and their long histories, we must preserve and maintain these languages. 

Later this week, hundreds of Native language experts will convene in Arlington, Virginia, for the 2014 Native American Languages Summit, which is being held by the Departments of Interior 

and Education and Health and Human Services. This collaborative 

summit the interagency roles and responsibilities in support of Native language and Native language learning as a pathway to social 

and academic success for tribal communities. I applaud the efforts 

these agencies have made in moving toward an understanding of 

just how vital Native languages are, and for working on strategies 

to support language acquisition and revitalization. 

We will hear from several tribal witnesses today who are on the 

ground and doing the hard work of saving tribal languages, which, 

as many of you know, is often a daunting task. Through decades 

of failed Federal policy, Native languages have been pushed to the 

brink of extinction. Some of the folks we have here with us today 

are working to change that. I would like to especially welcome 

Clarena Brockie, who comes from the Aaniiih Nakoda College at 

Fort Belknap Reservation in my home State of Montana. Clarena 

not only serves as dean of students at the college but she is also 

a State representative in the Montana legislature and represents 

her tribal community to the entire State. I want to thank you for 

coming and sharing your experiences on Native languages with us 

today, Clarena. 

The two pieces of legislation that we will focus on represent a 

commitment to the language, culture and education of Native students and investment in Native communities. Language is at the 

very heart of culture. There is power in a child speaking the same 

language that her ancestors spoke. And any child’s sense of self 

and where she comes from is enhanced by speaking her language. 

At a time when there are too many words that tear communities 

down, it is important to have a language that helps to build up not 

only Native children, but all children. This is what these bills do 

and why they have widespread support of tribes. I look forward to 

hearing from the Administration and tribal leaders today about 

how those two bills will impact their respective agencies and communities. 

Before I turn it over to Senator Barrasso, I just want to say 

thank you all for being here. Lillian, not to put you on the spot, 

but the testimony from your agency came in at 11:30 this morning. 

That is unacceptable. If you would take that back to them and tell 

them it is unacceptable. 

I sit on Appropriations. If we can’t get this stuff in time to fully 

analyze, we will deal with it through the Appropriations process 

and give them a reason not to get the stuff in on time. So please 

pass that along. It is unfair to the people on this Committee and 

totally unfair to the staff. 

Ms. Sparks. I apologize. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. Senator Barrasso? 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree 

with your comments completely. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, we are going to examine two bills that are 

intended to support and promote Native American languages. Native American languages are an important component of Indian 

communities and of American history. Native Code talkers were 

used in World War I and World War II to transmit coded messages 

in their native language. Over time, the fluent use of these languages has diminished, in some cases almost to the point, as you 

said, Mr. Chairman, of extinction. Fortunately, tribes have worked 

diligently to preserve these languages in schools and in their communities. 

I look forward to hearing today how our Native languages are 

contributing to students’ academic success and recommendations 

for improving the programs. I welcome the witnesses and look forward to the testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman 

Barrasso, for holding this important hearing on two pieces of legislation that aim to revitalize Native American languages. 

I would like to give a very warm welcome to our witnesses who 

have strong ties to my State of South Dakota: Bill Mendoza, Lillian 

Sparks, and my good friend, Thomas Shortbull. All of our witnesses 

today have a deep understanding of the importance of education 

and the preservation of Native languages. The Native American 

Languages Reauthorization Act, which my fellow colleague, Senator 

Murkowski, and I introduced this year, will reauthorize the Native 

Languages grant program that is administered by the HHS Administrations for Native Americans. 

The Native American Languages Act was established in 1992 

and was recently reauthorized by the Esther Martinez Native 

American Languages Preservation Act of 2006. This grant program 

is vital to tribal communities struggling to maintain their Native 

languages. Across Indian Country, tribal organizations, tribal colleges and universities and Native American organizations access 

these important funds to create and implement programs that are 

saving Native languages from the brink of extinction. ANA has also 

demonstrated the significant impact this native language grants 

program has in Indian Country. In their 2012 Impact Report, ANA 

evaluated one-third of its grantees and found that nearly 5,000 

youth and adults increased their ability to speak a Native language 

or achieved fluency. One-third of the total grantees also trained 

178 Native language instructors. 

The Native Languages Act has helped to save Native languages 

and encourages both young children and adults to develop fluency 

in their Native language. Across South Dakota and Indian Country, this vital grant funding gives the opportunity for our cherished 

Native elders to sit down with the younger generation to pass on 

4 

Native languages. We must continue our efforts to promote Native 

language revitalization programs to ensure the preservation of Native American cultures, histories and traditions. 

The continuity of Native languages is a link to previous generations and should be preserved for future generations. I look forward 

to the testimony today. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I want to now welcome our first panel to the Committee hearing 

today. First we have Mr. William Mendoza, who is the Executive 

Director for the White House Initiative on American Indian and 

Alaska Native Education at the Department of Education. Welcome. Next we are going to hear from Ms. Lillian Sparks, who is 

the Commissioner for the Administration for Native Americans, at 

the Department of Health and Human Services. Welcome, Lillian. 

I would ask you to keep your verbal comments to five minutes 

or as close to that as you can. Your entire testimony will be part 

of the record, and your full written statement will be entered in. 

With that, Mr. Mendoza, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MENDOZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON AMERICAN INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION 

Mr. MENDOZA. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Senator 

Barrasso and distinguished members of the Committee. I greet you 

all in the Lakota language, I greet you all as relatives, both with 

my Lakota name, His Shield is Lightning, as well as my non-Indian name. I extend my heartfelt handshakes to all of you. I am 

learning the Lakota language, and please forgive me if I offend 

anybody by expressing the desire to learn my language. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 1948, the 

Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act. Although 

the Administration has not taken a formal position on this bill, we 

welcome the opportunity to voice our support for its goals; namely, 

working to meet the unique educational and cultural needs of 

American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian populations. 

Today, there are only 375,000 American Indian language speakers remaining in the United States. As Secretary Duncan in his 

commencement address last year to the College of Menominee Nation in Keshena, Wisconsin, the loss of Native languages has alienated many American Indians from their own history and culture. 

It has taken away the path to knowing their own heritage. Revitalizing Native languages is the first step toward preserving and 

strengthening the culture, societal unity and self-sufficiency of tribal nations. 

Research shows that being bilingual increases a child’s mental 

flexibility and improves performance on academic assessments. Bilingual students tend to have better creativity and problem-solving 

skills and other research supports well-implemented language immersion approaches. In light of this important information, the Department has engaged in many activities designed to stem the decline of Native languages. As you mentioned, Senator Tester, the 

Native Language Working Group will bring together over 300 culVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
5 

turally-diverse participants from all over the Country during our 

Native Languages Summit. These participants will share the challenges of teaching and preserving Native languages as well as the 

paths to success. 

Additionally, the Department of Education administers a number 

of Federal grant programs designed to support this work. For example, Title VII of the ESEA provides funding to over 1,300 school 

districts and BIA-funded schools serving approximately 477,000 

American Indian and Alaska Native students. Grant funds are 

used as a part of a comprehensive program for the linguistic and 

cultural academic needs of Indian students. Through ESEA’s Title 

III, the Office of English Language Acquisition, we also administer 

programs that support schools in the pursuit of this goal. Title 3 

formula grants permit schools to support efforts to increase the 

proficiency of American Indian and Alaska Native students in both 

English and Native languages. 

The Office of English Language Acquisition’s Native American 

and Alaska Native Children in School program provides $5 million 

in discretionary grants to support the teaching and studying of Native languages. The program supports teacher training, curriculum 

development and evaluation and assessment. Funding for this program is contingent on participating students’ simultaneous increase in English language proficiency. Additionally, under the 

Tribally-Controlled Colleges and Universities program funded 

under the Higher Education Act, many tribal colleges and universities have implemented Native language programs, including 

Chief Dull Knife College on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in 

Montana. They offer Cheyenne language courses and a summer 

language immersion program, and the Fort Berthold Community 

College in Newtown, North Dakota, is working to prevent the loss 

of the Mandan language. 

Title III also provides funding support to Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions in this area. Moreover, the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education have a number of programs that promote Native 

languages from cradle to career. These programs also provide funding to public schools, teaching American Indian and Alaska Natives 

through Johnson-O’Malley Assistance education grants. It is critically important that we work to preserve and maintain the unique 

education and culture of every American Indian, Alaska Native and 

Native Hawaiian. We look forward to working with the Committee 

on how best to meet the goals of S. 1948. After my analysts, whom 

I also want to thank for having the privilege to present, I will be 

happy to answer any of your questions, Senator Tester and other 

members. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mendoza follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MENDOZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE

INITIATIVE ON AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 

1948, legislation introduced by Senator Tester and cosponsored by many members 

of the committee. The Administration has not taken a formal position on the bill 

but welcomes the opportunity to work with you and your staff to help meet the goals 

6 

of this proposal—to improve educational outcomes for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Native Hawaiian populations by helping to revitalize Native languages. 

S. 1948, ‘‘Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act’’ 

S. 1948 would amend Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to establish a grant program to support schools using Native language ‘‘immersion’’ education programs for preschool, primary, secondary, and postsecondary 

education. Such schools use Native languages as the primary language of instruction for all curriculum taught. S. 1948 would authorize $5 million for fiscal year 

2015 for such grants. 

Today, only 375,000 American Indian language speakers remain in the United 

States. Recently we learned that the last remaining Navajo ‘‘code talker,’’ instrumental in affecting the outcome of World War II, passed on. As Secretary Duncan 

stated in his commencement address last year to the College of the Menominee Nation in Keshena, Wisconsin, the loss of Native languages has alienated many American Indians from their own history, culture, and ways of knowing their heritage. 

Revitalizing Native languages and ensuring their continuity are the first steps in 

preserving and strengthening a tribal nation’s culture and encouraging social unity 

and self-sufficiency. 

In addition, research shows that being bilingual increases a child’s mental flexibility and improves performance on academic assessments, and that bilingual students tend to have better creativity and problem-solving skills. Other studies support well implemented language immersion approaches. 

The Department of Education (ED) is engaged in a variety of activities to promote 

the preservation and revitalization of Native languages, including the following: 

• Native American Languages Memorandum of Agreement: We are partnering 

with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Interior to encourage 

programs and projects that include instruction in, and preservation of, native 

languages, as a part of the goal of the Native American Languages Memorandum of Agreement, signed in November 2012, which established the Native 

Language Workgroup. This Workgroup is planning a Native American Languages Summit this month that will bring together grantees of federal Native 

language programs across agencies to share challenges and paths to success. We 

expect over 300 participants to attend, representing Native languages from 

across the country. ED will also provide technical assistance to school districts 

to address the unique educational and cultural needs of Native students, and 

examine current and future funding programs to identify additional support and 

resources. 

• Title VII Formula Grants: The Office of Indian Education has made important 

changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title VII formula grant applications for FY 2014 in order to emphasize the statutory requirement that grant funds be used as a part of a comprehensive program for 

meeting the linguistic and cultural academic needs of Indian students. Title VII 

grants provide funding to over approximately 1,300 districts and BIE-supported 

schools that educate approximately 477,000 AI/AN students. 

• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Grant: The Office of 

Postsecondary Education included an Invitational Priority to support activities 

that strengthen Native language preservation and revitalization in institutions 

of higher education in the Higher Education Act’s Title III Alaska Native and 

Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions grant competition in fiscal year 2014. 

• Alaska Native Education Program: The Alaska Native Education program 

(ANEP) under the ESEA supports efforts to help meet the unique educational 

and cultural academic needs of Alaska Natives and to support the development 

of supplemental educational programs to benefit Alaska Natives. In the fiscal 

year 2014 competition, ANEP included an Invitational Priority for preservation 

of Native languages. The goal of this priority was to stem the decline of Alaska 

Native languages by providing teachers with the skills they need to incorporate 

Native languages into formal instruction. 

• Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program: Authorized 

under Title III of the ESEA, ED’s Office of English Language Acquisition 

(OELA) administers a $5 million discretionary grant program, the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School program. The program provides 

grants to eligible entities to support the teaching and studying of Native languages, contingent on a simultaneous increase in English language proficiency 

for participating students. Schools use these grant funds for teacher training 

and curriculum development, evaluation, and assessment to support student inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
7 

struction and parent and community participation. There are currently 25 

grantees under the program. The program does not prescribe any particular 

method for teaching Native languages, but some projects use dual language approaches. 

• English Language Acquisition State Grants: The English Language Acquisition 

State grants, also under Title III of the ESEA, permit school districts to use 

the federal funds to teach Native languages to AI/AN students who are English 

Language Learners, as long as the outcome of the program is to increase those 

students’ English proficiency. 

• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program: Many tribal colleges that 

receive funding under Title III of the Higher Education Act have implemented 

Native language programs. For example, the Chief Dull Knife College on the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Southwest Montana offers Cheyenne language courses, in addition to a summer Cheyenne language immersion program 

for youth. And the Fort Berthold Community College in New Town, North Dakota, is working on a project that will provide linguistic training to tribal members aimed at preventing the loss of the endangered Mandan language. 

In addition to the Department of Education activities, Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), have a number of programs that support Native languages: 

• The majority of American Indian and Alaska Native students attend public 

schools and the Johnson-O’Malley Assistance Grants provide funds to public 

schools to promote Native languages. 

• In school year 2013–2014, the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) provided $23.3 million for language development in BIE-funded schools. 

• The BIE’s Early Childhood Development integrates Native language, culture 

and history in the preschool programming. 

Again, we look forward to working with the Committee on how best to meet the 

goals of this proposal to preserve and revitalize Native languages. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Bill. 

You may proceed, Lillian. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LILLIAN SPARKS ROBINSON, 

COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION FOR NATIVE 

AMERICANS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES 

Ms. SPARKS. Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Senator 

Johnson, Senator Heitkamp, my name is Lillian Sparks Robinson 

and my Lakota name is Flower Woman. It is my honor to testify 

before this Committee on behalf of the Department of Health and 

Human Services on the Native American Languages Revitalization 

Act. 

We apologize for the late submission of the testimony. This topic 

is incredibly important, not only to our agency, but to myself. We 

will prioritize finalizing testimony at a much earlier pace to make 

sure that you and your staff receive it in a timely manner. 

ANA’s mission is to support Native communities, including 

American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Native 

Pacific Islanders to be self-determining, healthy, culturally and linguistically vibrant and economically self-sufficient. We support 

three programs, Native American languages, environmental and 

regulatory enhancement as well as social and economic development strategies. We are pleased that this Committee is considering 

reauthorizing the Native Language provisions of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, which is the statute that authorizes 

8 

and governs ANA programs. ANA believes language revitalization 

is essential to continuing Native American culture and strengthening a sense of community. ANA funding provides opportunities 

to assess, plan, develop, implement, projects to ensure the survival 

and vitality of Native languages. 

We have funded many successful projects that resulted in increased usage and fluency of Native American languages and are 

happy to see that the second panel includes many of our former 

grantees. For example, the Lower Brule Community College in 

South Dakota received an ANA grant to certify the Lakota language instructors for the Lower Brule education system, create a 

K through 12 Lakota language curriculum meeting State and national standards for language certification instruction, and promote 

Lakota language and culture in the Lower Brule community. Before the project, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe had no language curriculum for K through 12 students. At the project’s end, there were 

four trained, certified, experienced, motivated and skilled instructors, all capable of making Lakota language classes meaningful and 

accessible to youth on the reservation. 

Similarly, the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe of Alaska used its ANA language grant to integrate Lingit classes into the Yakutat public 

school system, build the capacity of the tribe’s Lingit language 

teachers, and develop electronic resources to be used by students 

and teachers. This project has resulted in 102 youth and 40 adults 

increasing their ability to speak Lingit. 

Finally, an ANA grant helped the Fort Belknap College in Montana, who I am happy to see will be presenting on the second 

panel, produce young White Clay language speakers, building on 

the initial success of the White Clay Immersion School. At the end 

of the three-year project, the College held 185 language classes, 

trained two language teachers, and developed a language curriculum. As a result, nine people achieved fluency in the language. 

Since 2010, ANA has held two separate annual competitions for 

language projects, those being the Native American Language 

Preservation and Maintenance Program and the Esther Martinez 

Initiative. Between 2006 and 2013, ANA has received 853 applications for all of our Native American language projects. Of those, 80 

applications were for Esther Martinez Initiative projects. 

Although Congress has not made additional appropriations to expand ANA’s discretionary program, ANA has doubled the funds for 

Native language programs by shifting funds from Environment and 

Regulatory Enhancement and Social and Economic Development 

Strategy competitions. 

Listening sessions and tribal consultation indicate that the extra 

investment in Native American languages is critical to our communities. However, the Social and Economic Development Strategies 

program continues to be the grant program for which we receive 

the most applications. In fiscal year 2013, we reviewed a total of 

298 applications, of which 192 were for Social and Economic Development Strategies. Of those 192 applications, we were able to provide funding for 39 new awards. 

In fiscal year 2014, we expect to fund approximately 20 percent 

of our Esther Martinez applications and 60 percent of our Preservation and Maintenance grants. The unmet demand in both catVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
9 

egories does remain high. In addition, based on grantee interviews, 

we believe the authority to fund Esther Martinez and Preservation 

and Maintenance projects for longer periods, up to five years, rather than the current three years, would result in increased sustainability of the gains made. Grantees would have more time to build 

a community of speakers, to strengthen partnerships and secure 

additional funding as projects move beyond planning and initial 

stages of implementation. 

Additional feedback from our grantees also indicates that lowering the required number of participating students from 10 to 5 

for language nests and from 15 to 10 for language survival schools 

would allow more communities to apply. 

We are thankful for the continued support of this Committee in 

achieving the ANA mission. We look forward to working with Congress to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act, which 

does continue to receive appropriations. From a program administration perspective, reauthorizing NAPA as a whole would also provide an opportunity to update program regulations which track our 

current statute, which is necessary for improved program oversight 

and accountability. 

We look forward to the day when all Native communities are 

thriving, and we look forward to working with you to make that 

happen. I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sparks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LILLIAN SPARKS ROBINSON, COMMISSIONER, 

ADMINISTRATION FOR NATIVE AMERICANS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the Committee, it is 

my honor to testify before this Committee on behalf of the Department of Health 

and Human Services on S. 2299. I am a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, which 

is located in South Dakota. I serve as the Commissioner for the Administration for 

Native Americans (ANA), which is part of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). 

ANA’s mission is to support Native American communities to be self-determining, 

healthy, economically self-sufficient, and culturally and linguistically vibrant. We 

achieve our mission by providing discretionary grants, training, and technical assistance to tribes and Native American communities, including American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Pacific Islanders. ANA supports three 

program areas: Native American Languages, Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (ERE), and Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS). We are 

pleased that this Committee is considering reauthorizing the Native American language provisions of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), the statute 

that authorizes and governs ANA programs. 

For fiscal year (FY) 2013, Congress appropriated approximately $45.5 million to 

ANA, which distributed nearly $40 million to Native American communities competitively. Funding for FY 2014 is $46.5 million, which is an increase from FY 2013. 

In addition to providing competitive grants, ANA uses its funding to provide training and technical assistance to Native American communities, as required by Section 804 of NAPA. As a result of this training and technical assistance, 80 percent 

of applications for FY 2013 were considered of sufficient quality to be funded had 

additional funds been available. 

ANA believes that language revitalization is essential to continuing Native American culture and strengthening a sense of community. Use of Native American languages builds identity and assists communities in moving toward social cohesion 

and self-sufficiency. ANA encourages applicants to involve elders and other community members in determining proposed language project goals and implementing 

project activities. ANA funding provides opportunities to assess, plan, develop, and 

implement projects to ensure the survival and vitality of Native American languages. 

10 

1The Esther Martinez Initiative was enacted in 2006, but it was not its own funding category 

in ANA until FY 2008. 

For over a decade, ANA awarded Native American language preservation and 

maintenance funds to eligible entities under the Native American Languages Act of 

1992, but utilization of Native American languages continued to decline for a variety 

of reasons. In response to this dramatic and continued decline, Congress passed the 

Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006. The law 

amended NAPA to provide grants for language immersion and restoration programs, 

two methods that have proven to be highly successful in creating fluent speakers. 

ANA has funded many successful projects that have resulted in increased usage 

and fluency of Native American languages. For example, the Lower Brule Community College in South Dakota received an ANA grant to certify Lakota language instructors for the Lower Brule education system, create a K–12 Lakota language curriculum meeting state and national standards for language instruction, and promote 

Lakota language and culture in the Lower Brule community. Before the project, the 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe had no language curriculum for K–12 students. At the 

project’s end, the Tribe had four trained, certified, experienced, motivated, and 

skilled educators, all capable of making Lakota language classes meaningful and accessible to youth on the reservation. 

Similarly, the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe of Alaska used its ANA grant to integrate 

Lingit classes into the Yakutat Public school system, build the capacity of Lingit 

language teachers, and develop electronic teaching and learning resources. As a result of the project, 102 youth and 40 adults have increased their ability to speak 

Lingit. 

Finally, an ANA grant helped the Fort Belknap College in Montana produce 

young White Clay language speakers, building on the initial success of the White 

Clay Immersion School. An objective of the project was to hire and train two language teachers, develop curriculum and training materials, and develop an advisory 

council to provide guidance on the curriculum. At the end of the three year project, 

the College held 185 language classes, trained two language teachers, and developed 

a language curriculum. As a result of these efforts, nine people achieved fluency in 

the language. 

Since 2010, ANA has held two separate annual competitions for language projects, 

the Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance Program and the Esther Martinez Initiative (EMI). Between 2006 and 2013, ANA received 853 applications for all Native American language projects. Of those, 80 applications (received 

between 2008 and 2013) 1 were for EMI projects. In 2014, we saw an over 100 percent increase in EMI applications, from 14 applications in 2013 to 30 applications 

reviewed this year. The total number of language applications received is close to 

the same as previous years, at 94 applications. 

Although Congress has not made additional appropriations to expand ANA’s discretionary program, the ANA has doubled the funds available for Native language 

programs by shifting funds from ERE and SEDS. In FY 2014, we provided nearly 

$13 million ($12,820,867) to roughly 60 communities, up from approximately $6 million in FY 2010. 

In FY 2014, we expect to fund approximately 20 percent of EMI applications and 

16 percent of Preservation and Maintenance projects. The unmet demand in both 

categories remains high. In addition, based on grantee interviews, we believe that 

the authority to fund EMI and Preservation and Maintenance projects for longer periods (up to five years, rather than the current three years) would result in increased sustainability of the gains made. Grantees would have more time to build 

a community of speakers, strengthen partnerships, and secure additional funding as 

projects move beyond the initial planning and implementation stages. Additional 

feedback from ANA grantees also indicates that lowering the required number of 

participating students from ten to five for language nests, and from fifteen to ten 

for survival schools, would allow more communities to apply. ANA’s total investment 

in Native American language projects for FY 2010 to 2014 will be approximately $60 

million. 

Listening sessions and tribal consultation indicate that the extra investment in 

Native American language programs is critical to our communities. The Social and 

Economic Development Strategies program continues to be the grant program for 

which we receive the most applications. In FY 2013, ANA reviewed a total of 298 

applications, 192 of which were for SEDS. Of these 192 applications, ANA was able 

to provide funding for 39 new awards at approximately $10 million. This provided 

funding for one in five applications. This total included special initiatives like the 

Native Asset Building Initiative and the Sustainable Employment and Economic DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
11 

velopment Strategies grants that target ANA investment towards economic empowerment, but still within the framework of community-driven projects. 

We are thankful for the continued support of this Committee in achieving the 

ANA mission. We look forward to working with Congress to reauthorize the Native 

American Programs Act including the Esther Martinez Native Languages Act, 

which continues to receive appropriations. From a program administration perspective, reauthorizing NAPA as a whole would also provide an opportunity to update 

outdated program regulations which track the current statute, which is necessary 

for improved program oversight and accountability. 

ANA looks forward to the day when all ‘‘Native Communities are Thriving,’’ and 

we look forward to working with you to make that happen. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Lillian. 

I am going to start with you, Mr. Mendoza. Your testimony was 

supportive of the language bills. Yet you led off your testimony by 

saying that you had no position on either of the bills. Could you 

tell me why wouldn’t your testimony reflect that support? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I think, Senator Tester, we have not yet had an 

opportunity to review these bills formally, between Congress and 

the Department. So we welcome that opportunity. We certainly 

wholeheartedly agree with the importance and the need to preserve 

and revitalize Native languages. I think the goals of this bill, both 

bills, are consistent with what we are hearing from both tribal 

leaders and tribal educators across the Country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, so at what point in time would be a reasonable amount of time to give you to come back with either a yea 

or nay recommending on these bills from the Department? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I can assure you, Senator Tester, we will make it 

a top priority, given the importance of this issue, the current momentum. So I couldn’t venture to give you a timeline right now, 

without coordination with some other program offices that I can’t 

speak for right now. We will make sure we give you both an estimated timeline and ensure that it is a priority for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Here is what I would like to see. We are going 

to be in next week, and then we are going to be off a week for the 

4th of July. If you could give us your recommendation, could you 

give us the recommendation that the Department has when we 

come back the first week we are back in July? That gives you two 

or three weeks to get it done. Thank you. 

ESEA, I am sure you are aware, many folks are watching the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as 

to whether it is going to be supporting or not supporting Native 

American students. How is your Department, or is your Department working with the Health Committee to ensure that Native 

students and Native languages are supported through ESEA? 

Mr. MENDOZA. Certainly through the ESEA Blueprint, we have 

already committed to the importance of looking at Title VII, looking 

at strengthening Title VII and the levers that immediately can affect the needs to address the unique cultural language-related 

needs of students. And one of the key areas for us from the standpoint of the White House Initiative is the work that is happening 

under numerous working groups, the culmination of some early activity on our Memorandum of Agreement is the Summit itself. 

So some of these activities we point to in our testimony, and 

those are areas that we are building on. We have already invested 

tremendously in terms of technical assistance through regional 

12 

comprehensive centers. Over five years, that will be a $5 million 

investment. We are seeing activities in the South Central Comprehensive Center where they have already looked at the languages being spoken in the State of Oklahoma and developed an 

alternative certification process for those teachers. 

These regional comprehensive centers are also looking at data assets and how we can strengthen the information around these 

issues, including the definition of the English learners, the Office 

of English Language Acquisition has also made this a priority for 

them. And we have looked at every lever early on here as grant cycles are coming up, and looking at prioritizing the significance and 

importance of Native languages. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. There are those in the Native academic 

community who contend that reauthorization of the ESEA has complicated efforts to support Native languages because of conflicts between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Native American Languages Act. Has your department received any 

of those concerns? And if you have, how are you dealing with them? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I am not aware of specific comparisons in that regard. I could be wrong. There is an abundance of consultation and 

testimony related to the importance that tribal leaders and educators place on Native languages. The Native Languages Act, and 

its importance, was certainly a big part of our response to what we 

heard in consultations, and was therefore a critical component of 

our Memorandum of Agreement with our partners at HHS as well 

as Interior. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you have not heard about the conflicts between ESEA and NALA? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I have not, to the best of my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing with 

you, Mr. Mendoza, your written testimony noted that school districts may use certain Federal funds to teach Native languages. 

And the outcome, however, of the program, must increase the students’ English proficiency. Can you elaborate a little bit on what 

outcomes you are seeing from these programs? 

Mr. MENDOZA. Certainly. One of the things that we remain very 

committed to is how we can utilize these programs to achieve the 

goals of not only strengthening Native languages but also ensuring 

that our students are college and career-ready. We know that there 

are concerns in this area, whether we are talking about graduation 

rates, enrolment rates or retention rates. We certainly have concerns that although we are talking about achievement measures, 

we know they will look at the National Indian Education study 

that that area of the achievement gap, in some ways, has done better, in others is still stagnant. 

So the performance of these programs related to that and how 

they relate to the measures for each individual program vary. I 

would feel more comfortable sharing with you follow-up information on each of these programs’ performance relative to those Government Accountability measures. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would appreciate that, as well as where you 

see it working, where you see it not working, what the best pracVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
13 

tices are and how you can share that with others, so you can get 

the desired outcomes in all locations. That would be helpful. 

Ms. Sparks, the written testimony from Mr. Mendoza, he notes 

that the research shows being bilingual has multiple benefits. I 

think you referred to that as well. It increases a child’s mental 

flexibility, it improves performance on academic assessments. Can 

you talk a little bit about what type of academic achievements you 

are seeing from students who are served by the Esther Martinez 

Native Language program that you administer? 

Ms. SPARKS. Sure. So, the ANA Native Language programs are 

community-driven and community designed. So we don’t have the 

same types of benchmarks that a program funded by Title VII at 

Department of Ed may have. And there aren’t the same types of 

standards or assessments that are required. But what we do is support the community, developing what their baseline language fluency may be and then helping them to achieve. That is one of the 

things we have incorporated, with regard to the three objectives, 

there also have to be some impacts they are hoping to be able to 

achieve. 

We would like to see, for all of our immersion projects, whether 

they are funded under Esther Martinez or Native Language, that 

they indicate what their level of fluency will be after the end of the 

three-year project. And we provide training and technical assistance. 

I can’t give you any solid data with regards to the gains that we 

have seen. But I can tell you that we have seen an increased number of teachers trained. Our impact repots have indicated an increased number of students actually being able to use their Native 

language. 

And I can tell you, outside of ANA, what the research has shown 

is that students definitely, by the time they reach third grade and 

they have been instructed in their Native language, that they are 

almost on par with their counterparts who are not receiving instruction in Native language. By the time they reach the eighth 

grade, they have certainly met and many times surpassed their 

counterparts. And by the time they graduate high school, they have 

just taken off and really are exceeding all expectations. 

So we support the research. And one of the things that we are 

trying to achieve under that memorandum of agreement that we 

have with the Department of Ed and with Interior is actually being 

able to take a deeper dive into the research to support Native language immersion activities. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think Senator Heitkamp mentioned this in 

a previous hearing, of that younger age group, the students are 

running to school, and then a little later on they are walking to 

school, and then a little later they are running away from school. 

It would seem that if we could continue with what you are proposing here, in a way that makes that student, increases mental 

flexibility, interest, interaction, engagement, that that may help in 

a lot of different ways, not just in this one specific language component of it, so that student would continue with that eagerness to 

go to learn. 

Ms. SPARKS. Absolutely. That is something we want to be able 

to continue to support. We also want to be able to find a way that 

14 

the communities aren’t having to piecemeal some of their language 

programming. That is one of the goals under our Memorandum of 

Agreement, is to find a way where a community or a school that 

is receiving Title VII funding or receiving BIA school funding, 

whether it is Johnson O’Malley or contract or compact or direct 

funding from the BIE, that they are able to apply their Native language grants to those settings as well. 

And also with Head Start, we are finding that a lot of our best 

partnerships start in the Head Start classrooms, using Native Language funding from ANA. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson? 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Sparks, in your testimony and in Mr. 

Shortbull’s testimony, it is stated that the projects should be authorized up to five-year periods versus the current three-year periods. How would this impact the total grants awarded by ANA if 

changes were made to the program? Please elaborate. 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you for that question. So ANA strives to 

meet the required appropriations and the repot language every 

year with regard to providing at least $12 million to Native language activities, which at least $4 million of that will go to immersion activities. We are happy to say that we have surpassed those 

levels every year since 2010 when we first started the Esther Martinez initiative. 

What we have found, talking with our grantees, is that three 

years really allows them to be able to start and implement a 

project and really begin to see the gains, but five years would allow 

for the sustainability for the program to be even more sustainable, 

and for them to be able to really think about their planning after 

the five years. We did do some preliminary analysis on what it 

would look like three years to five years. We are anticipating that 

the level of funding would remain the same, but we would probably 

be able to fund about two to three less Esther Martinez Initiative 

projects a year. I think it is about five to six, and I can get you 

the exact number, for Preservation and Maintenance. 

So new awards would be lower each year, because our continuations would be higher each year. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Mendoza, teacher preparation, recruitment and retention for tribal immersion programs is difficult at 

best. Aside from Title III discretionary grants, what efforts has the 

Department made to award tribal immersion programs in their efforts to hire and retain qualified teachers? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I appreciate the question, Senator Johnson. 

As you all know, all too well, it is tremendously difficult to recruit and retain highly-qualified teachers in general to some of the 

areas of the Country where these languages are thriving, in an effort to preserve and revitalize them. Especially in some of the areas 

such as up in Senator Murkowski’s State, where the extreme conditions make it tremendously difficult. 

As we look at the challenges around, regardless of the models of 

approaching preservation and revitalization of Native languages, 

those mechanisms, that capacity for that teacher preparation is 

just not there. One of the key areas for us, in addition to Title III, 

to focus on the dual goals of English and Native languages, is Title 

15 

VII professional development grants. Those are designed specifically to bring teachers, prepare teachers and bring those teachers 

in-service to tribal communities. 

So we remain committed on working to try to address this issue 

in a new and different way. We are looking at it through our broader teacher preparation programs. Certainly this is a big part of this 

work that we are doing with regional technical assistance centers, 

as well as our State and Tribal Education partnership grants, to 

make sure that we are working with those critical networks, establishing that national network for individuals, being purposeful 

about that work. That is embodied, certainly, in some of the recommendations that have addressed BIE, they are a critical partner 

in that. Those teachers who are in those school systems as well as 

these tribally-connected school districts that are on or near reservations, we need to have greater definition around that area. 

So Title VII professional development, as well as the Title III 

professional development program, as you just named, are the primary levers for this work. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Sparks, you mentioned that in order to increase the number of Esther Martinez Initiative grant applicants, 

we must consider lowering the required number of participants in 

language nests and survival schools. Can you expand on the reasoning behind this suggestion? 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you for that question. In my role as Commissioner, I have had an opportunity to visit numerous communities 

that are on the verge of doing Native language immersion or have 

been doing Native language immersion activities. But they just 

cannot meet the student threshold of a minimum of 10 students in 

a language nest or a minimum of 15 students in their survival 

school. Just like my colleague, Mr. Mendoza, said, I think the 

greatest examples are probably in the State of Alaska, where there 

are numerous remote and rural villages, where the school in itself 

might be 15 students, all of which may not be in immersion classroom settings. 

I can give you an example of one community where they have applied several times and they are just on the verge of maybe being 

able to meet 15 students or 5 students for the language nest. They 

are doing some really remarkable things in that community and 

with their language. They have a dedicated administration, a dedicated tribal council, dedicated classroom teachers and dedicated 

parents. It is a shame for them to not be able to be eligible to apply 

just because they don’t meet the student threshold. Certainly we 

want this to have the most impact and increase as many speakers 

as possible. But we also don’t want to rule out communities that 

could still benefit from this Esther Martinez Initiative. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heitkamp? 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of questions, but before I start, I do want to remark 

that I had a meeting with a couple of elders on one of the reservations who was concerned about the quality of the education, the 

16 

quality of whether in fact these Native American languages that 

were being taught and spoken in immersion school was in fact traditional enough. So I want to raise that concern because I think it 

is really critically important that Native speakers, traditional 

speakers actually are involved in the creation of these programs, 

monitoring the quality. That is what you don’t want to lose, it is 

such a critical part of the culture itself. 

Mr. Mendoza, your written testimony details how the Department of Education is working, obviously, to support Native languages through ten separate programs in conjunction with three 

separate agencies. I think the tribes that I talk to would like to see 

more consistent funding streams to support these Native American 

immersion programs. Have you explored ways to consolidate these 

funding streams and programs to create flexibility in them so 

tribes can better utilize them? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I appreciate the question, Senator. The short answer to that is no, we have not. It has been clear to us that in looking at the comprehensive needs of these learners and the complex 

issues related to not just teaching in a linguistically sound manner, 

but also the rich diversity that is across the Country, 566 different 

tribes, and the diversity even within that, which you pointed out, 

which I wholeheartedly agree with, that we need more information 

before we even talk about trying to collapse, consolidate, move. 

That is a big part of why we have invested in this collaboration 

with our partners, to bring together, and the 300 participants who 

will be joining us here in D.C., that represents our grantees, the 

people who have been navigating those funding sources that you 

mentioned. 

So it is a critical first step for us to hear from them, to assess 

from what we are learning from them, to try to piece with what 

we have learned through consultation and then to look within to 

try to address those areas. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And I can understand what you are saying. 

But I think all of us would agree that we would like to see as much 

efficiency in these programs, because those limited dollars will go 

a lot further. 

Also in your testimony you highlight how the loss of Native languages can separate many Native Americans from their culture 

and their history. I have seen that directly. I think many languages 

have lost their last Native speaker, which creates challenges in 

finding classroom instruction. What efforts are you doing to identify and preserve the most vulnerable of languages? Do you 

prioritize the vulnerable languages? And how are you supporting 

instruction for Native languages, which, in my previous example, 

where you have somebody who can judge whether in fact that is 

the right program, whether that language actually reflects the language that is the traditional language? Here you don’t even have 

that kind of ability to audit or to hold accountable those programs. 

How do you fix that issue? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I appreciate that, it is such an expansive question 

there and one that I have to kind of err on the same side as your 

previous question. I apologize, there is just a lot more work here 

that we need to do than answers at this juncture. One of the statistics I cited is the 375,000 language speakers. If we take those numVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
17 

bers and apply that to the Native population as a whole, we come 

up with approximately 7.2 percent, and the percentage goes up 

even incrementally as we look at constraining the definition of who 

is an Indian based off of that. 

So the important work about identifying these languages is 

something that the Initiative has really been trying to grapple with 

and that we are talking about with our partners in the Memorandum of Agreement, particularly around the idea of less commonly taught languages that we currently look at for world languages. Where do Native languages fit in a conversation such as 

less commonly taught, where we have as many as 200 living languages right now that at various stages are in a state of crisis, if 

not extinction, where we have as well as areas of strength, where 

we are talking about the Anishinabe language, the Blackfeet language or else the Dine language as well, which Dine language constantly makes it onto the list of, when we look at State and the 

languages they speak. 

So it is an issue that we are looking at really closely. It is only 

a matter of conception at this point in how we are grappling with 

that issue across Federal agencies. 

Senator HEITKAMP. If I could just make one last comment. I 

think all of us who have spent time in Indian Country understand 

the significance of understanding the language to understanding 

the culture, the nuances and the variances. So if we are going to 

hopefully build our hope as a result of reestablishing or working toward building out community, the preservation of these languages 

is absolutely an essential building block to doing that. We are very 

interested in how we can participate, and I share Senator Tester’s 

urgency that we get a response very quickly to the Administration’s 

position. 

Mr. MENDOZA. If I may, Senator Heitkamp, when we visited with 

the President to your State, we also were able, had the fortunate 

opportunity to visit the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s partnership 

with Sitting Bull College as well as the Lakota Language Consortium. What is happening there is for all intents and purposes happening in touch and go ways with our programs, either in ANA 

grantee at a certain point, in the Office of Indian Education grantee at some point, but clearly the tribes are investing in this area. 

That is what really keeps me up at night around these issues, is 

that we are going to miss the analysis of just the Federal impact 

of this, where there is such rich innovation and opportunity that 

is happening among tribes across the Country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that you have both of these bills before the Committee. I am a 

proud co-sponsor, the lead Republican on these and share certainly 

the comments that so many have made here today about the significance, the real urgency as we work to ensure that our Native 

languages, our cultural heritage languages are not only preserved 

but that they are living. We are not locking them up, we are allowing our children to be immersed in the language of their culture, 

18 

the language of their heritage, develop pride in that and pride in 

who they are. So as we work to help foster these initiatives, know 

that I am committed to making it happen. 

Commissioner Sparks, you mentioned the Esther Martinez 

grants. It is my understanding from data from HHS that we don’t 

have any Esther Martinez grants in our State. Yet as you know, 

we have agreement of language preservation and education work 

that is going on within our regions. I am going to be asking our 

Native educators, our school districts, our tribal organizations, 

what barriers they are experiencing in trying to access these very 

important grants. You have mentioned the issue just of the small 

numbers that we have in some of our villages. That is true. But 

we have many other areas where we have, of course have significant numbers of students within our schools, whether it is in the 

immersion school in Bethel. So the number ought not be the barrier. 

So I am going to try to drill down with this. I would ask that 

you as well work with us to see where we are putting these barriers up. 

Mr. Mendoza, I didn’t hear your oral testimony here today. I did 

read your statement. I have perhaps more of a statement than a 

question today. Your testimony really provides the whole array of 

Federal efforts on Native education. But I think there is a big picture that is missing from at least your written testimony. If I may 

be so bold as to offer some guidance here, I think that the White 

House Initiative on Indian and Alaska Native Education has to aggressively demonstrate the nexus between Native language revitalization from within our schools and increased academic achievement and the well-being among our Native youth. What I would 

have liked to have seen from your testimony is the strong reference 

to the very tremendous body of research that exists, whether it is 

drawing from the experience of the Maori in New Zealand to our 

own language revitalization efforts that we have in Alaska to what 

we will hear from our Native Hawaiian witness. In my mind, language immersion, culturally-relevant curriculum and place-based 

education are among the most important solutions to addressing 

low achievement and poor educational outcomes to many of our Native youth. Those responsible for improving the educational outcomes of our Native students I think have to understand and really 

take action, knowing the moral gravity of inaction is another generation that we would fail. 

So I think we have clear opportunity here. I really would encourage the White House, through this initiative, to look to help States, 

educate States, educate school boards and those within the Administration regarding this very, very relevant and important link between our Native language revitalization, culturally-relevant curriculum and increased academic achievement. Hopefully what you 

are gaining from this hearing this afternoon is that urgency that 

Senator Heitkamp has mentioned. I certainly share in that. 

Comment if you are inclined, but I would hope that you would 

take that back with you. 

Mr. MENDOZA. Thank you, Senator. And you missed it, my oral 

statement was tremendously inspiring. 

[Laughter.] 

19 

Mr. MENDOZA. But on a serious note, I just want to thank you 

for your conviction and that call for action around this. That is certainly felt and understood and at the forefront of the initiative’s 

work. We are trying to approach this issue in as systemic of a way 

as we can, knowing that there are lots of moving parts to this 

work, lots of areas of the Country that are just not having the opportunity to leverage what opportunities we do have in front of us. 

So we know there is a shared responsibility in this work, because 

it has an added value to the Nation as a whole to have this rich 

diversity within us and who we are as a Country. This really comes 

back to a statement made in my recent visit to North Dakota, 

where this is not an issue of knowing a language to get into college 

or knowing a language to expand your world view or enhance your 

skill set as an individual. It is about life and death. That is exactly 

how it was expressed to us. Our elders are dying and our children 

are killing themselves. We have to have this as a foundation to addressing these other critical issues in regard to who we are. 

So I just heed that call to action from you and hope that we can 

continue to work together. That is the commitment that we are 

here to express, to continue to look at these issues with you all and 

to act on them for the future of our youth. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Begich? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just 

have a couple of questions. Ms. Sparks, here is the question. We 

have a few schools that are kind of struggling financially. One of 

the issue is with Preservation and Maintenance grants at ANA. My 

question is, and we are trying to figure out some flexibility in this 

legislation that would allow us to go to potentially five years, more 

stability, more sustainability. Three years seems long to some, but 

for this kind of programming, it is somewhat short. 

Do you think there is flexibility within the legislation or do you 

think we need to tweak it to create some different language in 

there to create that ability to go to five years? 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you for the question. We certainly have 

heard this, during the ACF tribal grantee meeting, that stability is 

very difficult to achieve in three years. So this message is coming 

across loud and clear to us at ANA. 

With regard to the Preservation and Maintenance Grants, which 

you asked about specifically, we do have some flexibility for those 

grants. They can be one year to five years for Preservation and 

Maintenance. The Esther Martinez, we are tied to three years, because when it was drafted, by way of background, I worked extensively on Esther Martinez. 

Senator BEGICH. So you drafted it for the three years. 

Ms. SPARKS. I worked on it. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SPARKS. And I helped work with a lot of other people that 

are sitting behind all of you today. But we didn’t realize that we 

were tying our hands to three years with Esther Martinez. 

Senator BEGICH. You are in support of seeing it moved to five? 

20 

Ms. SPARKS. We are supportive of seeing it move to five. And 

down to one as well, because we are hearing from some communities that three years is too long to do some of the activities they 

would like to do under Esther Martinez, and for some, three years 

it not enough. So if we could have the same flexibility for Esther 

Martinez as we do for the Preservation and Maintenance Grants, 

I think that would make our grantees very happy. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me ask you, Mr. Mendoza, and 

you may have answered this, I got in late because I was coming 

in from another event. Can you just give me a sense of how and 

what your engagement is with working with our Alaska tribes as 

well as, and I say tribes, as well as our village corporations and 

so forth? Because have a different set up. But our tribes specifically, can you give me kind of a sense on that? 

Mr. MENDOZA. I appreciate the question, Senator. Our primary 

mechanism is of course through a number of programs that spend 

certainly Title VII as well as Title III HEA aid for strengthening 

institutional programs. And an overarching initiative as a whole, 

transition from building upon the success of the Tribal Colleges 

and Universities Initiative to looking at the comprehensive challenge and successes of American Indian and Alaska Native students nationwide. So in each step of our looking at what does that 

work look like, whether it is through the DOI Ed Memorandum 

looking at our Native Language Working Group, the other working 

groups that we are a part of, and certainly outreach and engagement primarily our responsibility to consult with Indian tribes 

around the Country. That work is threaded throughout there and 

in Alaska. 

We have made trips to Alaska, my office has. I was just there 

for National Congress of American Indians to talk to both corporations and those villages that were able to make it. Through the 

Alaska Native Education Program, as well as the Alaska NativeNative Hawaiian Program in HEA Title III, we make sure we keep 

those conversations close in looking at how we can strengthen 

those programs to be consistent with what is happening and 

unique where it needs to be in regard to the work of the Initiative. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think as you are having those discussions or participating in those groups that will have Alaska Natives 

on them, do you feel there is some uniqueness to the way Alaska 

has to deliver some of its programs, from the way you handle others? Is that coming out or is it pretty much what you see is pretty 

consistent across Indian Country in the Lower 48 and Alaska Native communities? 

Mr. MENDOZA. Tremendous uniqueness, not only geographic but 

diversity as well. The challenges facing Alaska Natives are very 

different, certainly, when you are talking about urban and rural. 

The notion of rural becomes to the extreme when you are talking 

about Alaska Natives. Urban, not necessarily on the same lens as 

a Seattle or Denver. So there are nuances in that regard as well. 

We see activity for the corporations in some of the urban areas, 

whereas we are really interested in looking at the partnerships and 

the strength of collaboration between the villages and some of the 

normal ways of looking at Lower 48 interests, local education agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
21 

cies, what do private and philanthropic collaboratives look like 

there. 

And the one that always stands out the most with Alaska are 

certainly costs related to that. Certain geographical difference related to infrastructure realities. Accessibility around the same kind 

of assumptions that even our rural instances here in the Lower 48 

enjoy, such as access to internet, libraries. So those challenges are 

very real, and those are some of the uniquenesses that I have been 

exposed to in my work. That guides the work of the Initiative. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I just appreciate especially 

your summary there of the recognition that there is some uniqueness, which means maybe there will be initiatives or policies or 

laws or regulations, we have to keep that all in mind when we are 

dealing with the Alaska perspective. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

I want to thank the two witnesses. I will be presenting some 

written questions for the record and there may be others up here 

too. Thank you both for your testimony. I appreciate it very, very 

much. If you can stick around for the tribal witnesses, it may be 

beneficial, but that is your call. 

We will go to our second panel now. There are some logistical 

problems, so we are going to run this a little bit differently than 

what I had originally thought. We are going to hear from Sonta 

Hamilton Roach. Sonta is an elementary school teacher at the 

Innoko River School in Shageluk, Alaska, and a board member of 

Doyon Limited. What we are going to do, unless there is objection 

from the panel, Sonta is going to give her testimony first. Because 

of logistical problems, we will ask questions. I will start with Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich and the rest of us. Then she 

will be excused to be able to catch her flight. 

Then we are going to hear from Ms. Clarena Brockie, who is the 

Dean of Students at Aaniih Nakoda College, in Harlem, Montana. 

Then we are going to hear from Thomas Shortbull, President of Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, South Dakota. We will also hear from 

the Honorable Ed Delgado, Chairman of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin in Oneida, Wisconsin. Finally, we are going to 

hear testimony from Namaka Rawlins, who serves as Director of 

Strategic Partnerships and Collaboration, with ‘Aha Punana Leo, 

in Hilo, Hawaii. 

I want to welcome all the witnesses. I would ask that your verbal 

testimony be five minutes, and we are going to enter your entire 

written testimony for the record. Sonta, you can start. 

STATEMENT OF SONTA HAMILTON ROACH, ELEMENTARY 

SCHOOL TEACHER, INNOKO RIVER SCHOOL; BOARD 

MEMBER, DOYON LIMITED 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Thank you very much. The logistical challenge is I have a nine and a half month old waiting back home in 

Alaska. 

Hello, everyone, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. 

My name is Sonta Hamilton Roach, and I live in Shageluk. I am 

Deg Hit’an Athabascan. In my community of Shageluk there are 

22 

approximately 80 people, who are primarily Athabascan. It is very 

isolated, as was talked about earlier, and is only accessible by air 

or by boat. I am happy to say that I returned home and am currently working as an elementary classroom teacher. 

It is truly an honor to be here today, to carry the Alaskan torch, 

and to testify in support of Senate Bill 1948 and Senate Bill 2299, 

fostering the revitalization efforts of Native American language 

programs. At this point in time, and in the history of indigenous 

languages, these two bills will strongly and positively impact revitalization efforts. I would say that the timing is perfect, but in the 

same breath, I’d say that it is unfortunate that our languages were 

ever so endangered and that this time had to come at all. 

Today across Alaska, the seeds have been planted and there are 

several successful language models and programs that have been 

developed, but only at a small scale. These seeds need water. To 

be successful in revitalization, we need systemic change from systems of power that includes schools, tribes, Native corporations and 

non-profits to work together in partnership with State agencies and 

the Federal Government. 

In Alaska, we have made significant headway in adopting 20 indigenous languages as official languages of Alaska. This bill will 

also allow for that to happen. 

Our indigenous languages have been endangered for generations. 

Our languages were especially impacted when that young girl or 

boy was first punished for speaking their language in BIA and mission-run schools. Language, being the closest thing to our identity 

and knowledge base we have, was stripped from us, for talking Deg 

Xinag, my people’s language. This wasn’t eons ago, this was my 

grandpa, this was my grandma. These were our grandparents. As 

children, they were not allowed to speak our languages all because 

they went to school. 

This is the legacy I am living with as a teacher today. And today, 

we are a new generation, those of us in this room, we share a new 

and exciting view of ourselves, of our communities, and of our Nation and the potential that exists in all of us to speak and celebrate 

our languages. It is the view that we as Native people have to impact language learning from our cultural lens. It is the hook to 

keep students in school. 

Schools in the Yupi’k region have very successfully developed and 

implemented early childhood education immersion models in early 

childhood education, and it is directly linked to higher student 

achievement and success rates. I had the privilege to visit Ayaprun 

Elitnaurvik Immersion School in Bethel, Alaska, and I have never 

felt so privileged to step into anyone’s classroom before. The environment encouraged and nurtured cultural values, self-identity, 

and language. The sense of place was sacred, holistically nurturing 

students in their learning. It has helped to keep the language in 

the community alive. The proposed legislation can grow this experience, fostering success in our students. 

Language is just like looking through the lens of someone’s culture, the depth of who they are and their experiences, their relationship to the land and animals. Place-based and cultural-based 

education keeps students engaged. It is the hook that increases 

student achievement. This is known. 

23 

In rural Alaska our communities are plagued with high suicide 

rates, high dropout rates, which correlate directly with a loss in 

culture and loss of language. The key to changing this is support 

for relevant curriculum, support for programs like those in Bethel. 

If this Committee can encourage these efforts, we will have 

strengthened Native American languages across the Country. 

Like our national parks, our indigenous languages and cultures 

are our national treasures. The ecological knowledge and understanding of living off the land and using resources is a treasure. 

The oral and traditional stories, told through the language, is precious and valuable. These bills will ensure that our precious treasures will not be lost, but used daily in the lives of many. 

Michael Krauss, a linguist and expert in Alaska Native and indigenous languages, said that out of 300 North American languages, only 200 or 210 languages are spoken today, and in Alaska, 

there are 18 without any children speakers at all, including my 

own. In conclusion, this legislation is a positive turning point in 

our Nation that acknowledges the grassroots efforts that are being 

made to continue keeping languages alive today. It brings light to 

those elders who were beaten for speaking, and it empowers the 

young people to take the lead in solidifying our languages as national treasures. 

It is my hope that this legislation is passed quickly and my belief 

that Native Americans will take this opportunity to truly revitalize 

indigenous languages to the fullest extent possible, that systemic 

change will occur, and elders will hear their grandchildren and 

great-grandchildren speaking their language once again. Our children will go to school not having to change thinking caps, or 

change the lens in which they view the world every single day. But 

rather, the systems are put into place to promote and foster educational and economic advancement that truly benefits the next 

generation. 

I would say thank you, but historically in our language there is 

no word for it. Our relationship is based on reciprocity. I know that 

our relationship will continue to grow. [Word in native tongue.] 

That is good enough. 

Goodbye. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton Roach follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SONTA HAMILTON ROACH, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER, 

INNOKO RIVER SCHOOL; BOARD MEMBER, DOYON LIMITED

Ade’ (hello) Chairman and members of this Committee. My name is Sonta Hamilton Roach, and I am Deg Hit’an Athabascan from Shageluk. Shageluk is my hometown, with roughly 80 people, and where I currently work as a teacher. Add 

Shageluk info, more picture. Add words and language in Athabascan. 

It is truly an honor to be here today, to carry the Alaskan torch, and to testify 

in support of Senate Bill 1958, and Senate Bill 2299, fostering the revitalization efforts of Native American language programs. At this point in time, and in the history of indigenous languages, these two bills will strongly and positively impact revitalization efforts. I would say that the timing is perfect, but in the same breath, 

I’d say that its unfortunate that our languages were ever so endangered and that 

this time had to come at all. 

Today across Alaska, the seeds have been planted and there are several successful 

language models and programs that have been developed. But only at a small scale. 

These seeds need water. To be successful in revitalization, we need systemic change 

from systems of power that includes schools, Tribes, Native corporations and nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
24 

for profits to work together in partnership with state agencies and the federal government. These bills allow for that to happen! 

Our Indigenous languages have been endangered for generations. Our languages 

were especially impacted when that young girl or boy was first punished for speaking their language in BIA and mission run schools. Language, being the closest 

thing to our identity and knowledge base we have, was stripped from us—for talking Deg Xinag, my people’s language. This wasn’t eons ago, this was my grandpa, 

this was my grandma. These are ‘‘our’’ grandparents. These children cannot speak 

our languages all because they went to school. This is the legacy I am living with 

as a teacher. 

And today, we are a new generation, those of us in this room. We share a new 

and exciting view of ourselves, of our communities, and of our nation and the potential that exists in all of us to speak and celebrate our languages. It’s the view that 

we as Native people have to impact language learning from our cultural lens. 

So what does language learning include? Language learning includes immersion 

camps, language nests, distance delivered language learning, and more! For example, schools in the Yupi’k region have very successful immersion models for early 

childhood education, and its directly linked to higher student achievement and success rate. Add citation for written record. I’ve had the privilege to visit Ayaprun 

Elitnaurvik immersion school in Bethel, Alaska, and I’ve never felt so privileged to 

step into anyone’s classroom before! The environment encouraged and nurtured cultural values, self-identity, and language. The sense of place was sacred, holistically 

nurturing students in their learning. The proposed legislation can grow this experience, creating success in our students. 

Language learning also includes the Koyukuk Athabascan language program 

through the Yukon Koyukuk School District that is taught via video conferencing 

to several isolated sites across the district, and very successfully. The Gwich’in have 

also recently taken significant strides in their language efforts, and have new programs underway. And in the North Slope Borough School District, students learn 

their Inupiaq language dialects online! And finally, just this spring the Alaska state 

legislature passed House Bill 216 adopting Native languages as official languages 

of the State of Alaska. Representative Johnathan Kriess-Tomkins stated for the 

record that the bill was, ‘‘An important step in recognizing the living, breathing 

Alaska Native languages of the state of Alaska, which continues to grow into daily 

use by many speakers around the state who both practice and teach and has been 

done for millennia prior to statehood.’’ 

How will this legislation change, impact, or improve language learning? First, it 

will be that hook that teachers use in the classroom to engage students in their lesson. It will keep students coming into school each and every day, that motivates 

them and maybe even gives them something to live for, literally. It’s more than just 

cultural pride, or just learning a language, it’s learning a knowledge base, a skillbase, and learning who they are! 

Language is just like looking through the lens of someone’s culture, the depth of 

who they are and their experiences, their relationship to land and animals. Placebased and cultural-based education keeps students engaged and increases student 

achievement. In Rural Alaska our communities are plagued with high suicide rates, 

and high drop out rates, which correlate directly with a loss in culture and language. The key to changing this, is support for relevant curriculum, support for programs like those in Bethel at Ayaprun. If this committee can encourage these efforts, we will have strengthened Native Americans across the country. 

Like our national parks, our indigenous languages and cultures are our national 

treasures. The ecological knowledge and understanding of living off the land and 

using resources is a treasure. The oral and traditional stories, told through the language, is a treasure. These bills will ensure that our precious treasures will not be 

lost, but used daily in the lives of many. 

Michael Krauss, a linguist and expert in Alaska Native and Indigenous languages 

said that out of 300 North American languages, only 200 or 210 languages are spoken today, and in Alaska, there are 18 without any children speakers at all. 

In conclusion, this legislation is a positive turning point in our nation that acknowledges the grassroots efforts that are being made to continue keeping languages alive today, it brings light to those Elders who were beaten for speaking, 

and it empowers the young people to take the lead in solidifying our languages as 

national treasures. 

It is my hope that this legislation is passed quickly and my belief that Native 

Americans will take this opportunity to truly revitalize indigenous languages to the 

fullest extent possible, that systemic change will occur, and Elders will hear their 

grandchildren and great-grandchildren speaking their language once again. Our 

children will go to school not having to change thinking caps, or change the lens 

25 

in which they view the world every single day. But rather, the systems are put into 

place to promote and foster educational and economic advancement and truly benefit the next generation. 

I would say thank you. But historically, in our language there is no word for it. 

Our relationship is based on reciprocity, and I know our relationship will continue 

to grow. I appreciate your time. Language addition. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Sonta. Before we go to the other 

panel members, we are going to ask you questions, then we will release you to make your flight. Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Sonta, first of all, thank you for making the 

long trip back here. I can’t imagine how stressful it is leaving a 10- 

month old behind, and certainly understand your urgency on getting on that Alaska Airlines flight here very shortly. So we will 

keep our comments brief. 

I appreciate what you have said about the significance of this 

systemic change and also how you have outlined what we have 

seen as a State with repression of Native language historically. Not 

only were children discouraged, they were punished for speaking 

their Native languages. And then how you come back out of that 

hurt and repression is very difficult. It is generational. 

But I do think we are beginning to see that change, and it feels 

so good. I too have been out in the Yupi’k school district and been 

to the immersion programs there. It is phenomenal what you see. 

But you also appreciate that what they are doing is they are building their own curriculum. They are working with elders, they are 

designing the flash cards. They are building it on their own. 

I wonder, when you talk about support for relevant curriculum, 

we are making headway. But I also know that we do not have a 

number of Native, Alaska Native teachers within our schools. We 

don’t see as many back in our villages as we would like. And I 

know that so many of our administrators, whether they are superintendents, our administrators, our principals, they are coming to 

Alaska from outside. They might not have that connection about 

how significant and how important it is to really make these languages come alive to these children. 

Do you feel that you are getting the support to build these relevant curriculums, the support within the Administration to do the 

change that we need to see so that translates down to each student? Where are our barriers now? 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Thank you so much for that insight. Absolutely, you bring such an important point and question forward. 

There does need to be, we are on the cusp of so much more, I feel 

like the potential is really huge. We have a lot of young people who 

are leading and spearheading these new programs. There are kinds 

of these language nests or different models that are looked at. 

There is not one model that applies, and we can understand that 

today, to everybody, to these remote sites where I have 10 students. There are models where they are teaching students via distance delivery, video conferencing, Yukon Koyukuk School District. 

Languages and dialects are accessible online, students can click on 

their dialect and learn actively. 

In terms of teacher preparation and maybe we have so many 

teachers that are not from the area. I am, it is a privilege to be 

teaching in my own community. So there is that need of teaching 

26 

teachers about the culture. Just recently, with the teacher evaluation for the State of Alaska, they now have to be evaluated on cultural standards and how they are acknowledging and celebrating 

culture in the classroom. So with this effort in language, I really 

see that blossoming and becoming more. 

The potential is out there. I don’t think we are where we want 

to be yet. There are barriers. I think getting the elders involved, 

the partnerships will be huge. I also want to stress the flexibility 

with these funds. I do like the idea of the five-year, the granting 

cycle. But the flexibility to have changes made I think would be 

critical for our communities and those elders that they work with. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate what you do as a teacher and 

again, the opportunity to be back in your village is so important. 

I wish that we could encourage more, I think we are making that 

change. 

I asked about the support from superintendents and principals, 

because my children went to an immersion school in Anchorage. It 

was a time when immersion schools were not yet that highly 

thought of. It was very difficult in those initial years to get basically the respect from the district as to what it is that we were trying to do. And they wanted to take those very preliminary test results wherein the early years, when you have a child in an immersion program perhaps they are not performing at the same level 

that a child in an English-speaking program is. We had to demonstrate it. 

But when you have resistance from the top, it makes it difficult. 

Know that we want to work with you to encourage our administrators to make the commitment to our immersion programs that will 

allow for, again, the successes that I think we will see within our 

particularly remote villages. 

So thank you for what you are doing. I know, I think this is pretty neat that there is no work for thank you, it is based on reciprocity. What you are giving to your students is the most beautiful 

example of giving and thanks. So thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Begich? 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

I know you have to catch your plane, you are probably a little 

nervous about getting there. It is 15 minutes from here, that is the 

good news. 

First, thank you very much for being a teacher. My parents were 

teachers, my two sisters are teachers, my sister-in-law just retired 

after 27 years of teaching in Anchorage. So we have very broadbased education in our household. And of course again, thank you 

very much. 

Second, I have a question and you kind of hit on it, I just want 

to make sure there is enough of it. You mentioned some of the new 

technologies being utilized to explore and learn cultures, but also 

reminding us no matter where we live, we can access this information. It is a struggle in rural Alaska to have the right kind of technology, even the speed, the fiber and all the other pieces that get 

it to your classroom. Do you think we are making the right movements here, making sure we have enough technology, so when you 

want to access some of this for our students that it is there, not 

27 

having to struggle waiting to get connected? And there is not 

enough space on the line, tell me your thoughts there. 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Thank you for that. Definitely technology 

in our school district, we have several different villages. And small 

in scale, like Shageluk, with 15 students. I know that some districts have already successfully adopted the curricula that is tied 

to technology and learning online and also via distance delivery. 

There are gaps that exist that need to be addressed with certain 

districts. I think it is all uniquely there; in partnerships, those can 

be resolved. But the successful models are there for us to use. High 

speed internet connection is always an issue. That is something 

that is being looked at something that can be improved. 

Senator BEGICH. And I am assuming, I think I know the answer, 

but for the young people that are getting connected, that is not an 

issue? 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. When they get the moment, they are beyond us. 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. They are very connected, and they are totally, they love to have access. I just want to also stress that that 

technology piece, for them it is the social part of their day. Because 

they are surrounded by their cousins and family or maybe younger 

grade levels. So that opportunity to connect via distance bridges 

their social interactions and allows for more of that to happen. 

Senator BEGICH. I have a question, I am curious about your response. I agree with you, what the legislature did this year in Alaska was an incredible thing, we hope the Governor signs the bill. 

I think he will. But the grass roots effort was really unbelievable. 

And knowing that there is a continuing grassroots effort within the 

Alaska Native community to recognize the culture, the language, 

that it is not just about some people, everyone should understand 

it, know it and be part of it. One of the things I did when I was 

mayor, we built a convention center. It was another building, but 

we did something different. We named it after the Dina’ina people. 

But we also made sure every room had the native language for the 

description of that room. And people have told me, I know in Hawaii their convention center there is very similar. People say, well, 

people will never learn to pronounce these names. So that is part 

of the process of learning the culture, of understanding where the 

generation of the names comes from and so forth. 

Do you think there is enough, and that was to me an experiment, 

to be honest with you. Because sure, we did have some conflict, to 

be frank with you. We tried to create, you have seen the facility 

has the rugs, to the colors, everything is about what the environment is about and what the culture is about. Do you think there 

is enough within Alaska and others that are not only educating 

Alaska Native people on regaining the culture, but non-Native people to understanding the culture? I was born and raised in Alaska, 

so I believe I understand it. But there are so many that may not 

understand it because they are not connected to it. Do you think 

there is enough of that, or are there some strides we need to be 

thinking about? It is critical that the Alaska Native people understand and know their own culture. There is no question about it. 

Yet there are so many that live in Alaska who have no clue. 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Absolutely. 

28 

Senator BEGICH. Do you get my question? 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Yes, I completely do, and the short answer is no, we need more. I can say that because the part about 

language or culture, recognizing it, the first thing you do is acknowledge that they exist and give it a voice. The second thing is 

using it and celebrating it, like I do in the classroom, dusting off 

those 1980s bilingual tools to use in reading. My students can read 

that level. So we go through it. 

But it is celebrating it, using it, keeping it alive that doesn’t just 

educate anybody in Alaska, but those kids who strongly need it. 

This also goes back to the need for more up to date, relevant curriculum that is alive, not stick figures in those books. 

Senator BEGICH. Some real stuff. 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Yes, some new up to date, keeping in 

mind student learning and best practices. 

Senator BEGICH. I will end by saying, that is the power of the 

technology, too. You can move that new information quicker than 

a textbook being printed and going through all that process. There 

is so much available online if you just have the high speed 

connectivity. You can access it and then your students will have 

more options and more choices and more opportunities. Is that a 

fair statement? 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. Absolutely, and cost efficient as well. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. I know what the distance is like. So both Senator Murkowski and I have to fly back 

and forth to Alaska. So having you here, we cannot say enough to 

thank you. 

Ms. HAMILTON ROACH. It is an honor. And thank you to the rest 

of the panel for allowing me to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Sonta. We appreciate your testimony 

and appreciate your answers to the questions. As a classroom 

teacher, like yourself, we will say, you are dismissed. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We will move on to the other panel members. We 

will have all your testimony then we will ask questions when you 

are all done. Representative Brockie, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CLARENA BROCKIE, DEAN OF STUDENT 

AFFAIRS, AANIIIH NAKODA COLLEGE 

Ms. BROCKIE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to address the Committee today. 

My name is Clarena Brockie and I am Aaniiih from the Fort 

Belknap Indian Reservation. Both of my parents are Aaniih. I am 

also a proud member of the Montana House of Representatives. I 

represent House District 32, which includes the Rocky Boy Indian 

Reservation and the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. I am also 

the Dean of Students at Aaniiih College. 

Aaniiih College is a small school with a big mission, serving 225 

students each semester, most of whom are members of one of the 

two tribes on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. 

The Committee knows the dire situation we face as Indian people 

in terms of the loss of our languages, so I will not recite all the 

statistics. When Christopher Columbus and other Europeans first 

came to Indian Country, more than 300 different languages were 

29 

spoken here. Today, less than half remain. This tragic outcome is 

a direct result of prior U.S. government policy of assimilation, 

which sent many Indian children to boarding schools, where they 

were prohibited and often fiercely punished for speaking their own 

languages. This legacy is made even worse when you consider that 

once a language becomes extinct, it takes with it much of the history, the philosophy, ceremonies, culture and environmental and 

scientific knowledge of the people who spoke it. 

It is difficult to imagine the degree to which such a loss will impact our Indian children and youth who already suffer from 

generational poverty and oppression, violence, abuse, neglect, a 

lack of self-esteem and lack of hope. Doing research for my graduate thesis on the oral history of the Gros Ventre, I learned how 

meticulously and systematically my own language had been removed from our homes and schools. It had a profound effect on me. 

The Aaniiih nin became one of the many tribes that was in danger of joining the group of vanishing Indians. In 1997, only 25 

Aaniiih speakers were alive and no children kindergarten through 

12th grade spoke the language. Despite this, the Aaniiih nin have 

survived. Today, our language is beginning to thrive, thanks to an 

important project at Aaniiih Nakoda College. 

In the late 1990s, our college wrote a grant to save our language 

through an immersion elementary school on our college campus. In 

2003, we opened the White Clay Immersion School. Today the largest group of Aaniiih speakers are White Clay students. Since our 

immersion school began, Native children speakers has gone from 

zero to 30. Students attend a full day of White Clay Immersion 

classes, teaching and learning rely on Native knowledge and Native ways of knowing and being. Non-native ways of learning are 

incorporated to offer students the best of both worlds. The curriculum emphasizes the interconnections between the physical, 

mental, and spiritual well-being through cross-disciplinary integration, inter-generational learning and field-based learning experiences and community projects. This innovative partnership involving a tribal college taking ownership of K through 8 education is 

a transformative model for other American Indian communities. 

White Clay graduates transition to public schools and are recognized as leaders in student government, academics and sports. For 

example, students graduating from White Clay in 2013 won the 

science, math, English literature and art awards as sophomores 

last year at their new off-reservation high school. 

Unfortunately, financial support for White Clay Immersion 

School is sporadic. Most of our funding comes from private foundations and local support. In addition, we receive funding from the 

Department of Health and Human Services and Administration of 

Native American Programs, ANA. However, this is a competitive 

program and in some years, White Clay received no funding. White 

Clay does not receive funding from the State of any Federal formula funding. Instead, staff holds fundraisers to support school 

trips, lunch, supplies and other activities. Although it is always a 

struggle, our college is committed to the survival of our Aaniiih 

language. We know that because they are grounded in their culture 

and confident in their language, our White Clay students will enVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
30 

sure that our people, our language will thrive for many generations 

to come. 

In closing, I want to join President Shortbull and all tribal colleges in making these recommendations. One, the Committee 

should include tribal college Native language research and education programs as an amendment to S. 1948. This is a provision 

that Chairman Tester included in a legislation introduced previously as part of his bill, THE PATH. 

To revitalize our languages, we must work at all levels, pre-K to 

college, and we must continue to expand the critical need for Native language research. Second, to achieve lasting results, the ANA 

language grant program should award grants for 10 years or alternative, five years with an option to renew upon the demonstration 

of success. 

Finally, I will echo the words and frustration which I heard from 

members of the Committee during your hearing last week on Indian higher education. It is so incredibly frustrating to know that 

the need is so great and the models of success exist to know that 

tribal colleges, more so than any other entities, are working to 

transform Indian Country, achieving success but being rewarded 

only with flat line or decreased funding. We are accountable institutions; we need the Administration to be accountable as well. 

Mr. Chairman, we need your help, not just to acknowledge our 

treaties and the Federal trust responsibility, but take concrete action today to advance the proven successes of tribal colleges and increase our capacity to do even more in Indian Country. And we 

have a word for thank you, [thank you in native tongue.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brockie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLARENA BROCKIE, DEAN OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, AANIIIH

NAKODA COLLEGE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Clarena 

M. Brockie, and I am Aaniiih (Gros Ventre) from Montana. Both of my parents are 

enrolled as Gros Ventre. I am proud to represent Montana’s 32nd District, which 

includes the Fort Belknap and Rocky Boy Indian Reservations, in our state’s House 

of Representatives. I am also the Dean of Students of the Aaniiih Nakoda College 

in Harlem, Montana. Aaniiih Nakoda College was chartered by the Fort Belknap 

Indian Community Council in 1984. We are a small school with a big mission, serving approximately 225 students per semester, most of whom are members of one of 

the two tribes on our reservation. 

Thank for inviting me to testify at this hearing examining legislation to strengthen efforts to preserve and revitalize our Native languages. It is an honor to be given 

an opportunity to speak on behalf of the many people who cannot stand here today, 

but I know they are with me in spirit. 

Aaniiih Nakoda College, along with the nation’s other 36 Tribal Colleges and Universities, which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, 

AIHEC, support S. 1948 and S. 2299, both of which would help us as we work to 

ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American Languages. 

Current Status of Native Languages 

The Committee knows the dire situation we face as Indian people in terms of the 

loss of our languages, homelands, and identity, so I will not recite all of the statistics. I will just mention that when Christopher Columbus and other Europeans first 

came to Indian Country, more than 300 different languages were spoken here. 

Today, well less than half remain. Most of these are spoken only by a handful of 

elders and are in serious danger of disappearing—in fact, all but 15 or 20 of our 

Native languages are spoken only by adults who are not teaching their younger generations the language. This tragic outcome is a direct result of prior U.S. government policies, including assimilation which sent many Indian children to government-run boarding schools where they were prohibited from—and often fiercely punVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
31 

1Pease-Pretty On Top, Janine. ‘‘Native American Language Immersion: Innovative Native 

Education for Children and Families.’’ Publication of the American Indian College Fund with 

support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of Battle Creek MI. 2003. Page 12. 

ished for—speaking their own languages, their last tie to their homelands and their 

very identity. This terrible legacy is made even worse when you consider that once 

a language becomes extinct, it takes with it much of the history, philosophy, ceremonies, culture, and environmental and scientific knowledge of the people who 

spoke it. It is difficult to imagine the degree to which such a loss will impact our 

Indian children and young people, who are already suffering from generational poverty and oppression, violence, abuse and neglect, lack of self-esteem, and most tragic, lack of hope. 

Fortunately, over the past few decades, greater attention has been focused on the 

need to preserve our Native culture and language, and a few modest pieces of legislation have been enacted at the federal level, including the Native American Languages Act of 1990 and inadequately funded Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006. 

The Survival of Native Languages 

My graduate school thesis focused on the Oral History of the Gros Ventre, and 

in the process of conducting research, I learned how meticulously and systematically 

our own Gros Ventre language had been removed from our homes and schools. We 

were even prohibited from conducting our ceremonies. The Aaniiih nin became one 

of the many tribes that was in danger of joining the group of ‘‘Vanishing Indians.’’ 

In the early 1600s, there were more than 15,000 Aaniiih nin (White Clay People), 

but by 1903, there were less than 300. Anthropologist Al Kroeber visited the Fort 

Belknap Indian Reservation to collect as much of the culture and history of the 

Aaniiih as he could. He was soon followed by Clark Wissler, another noted anthropologist known for his work with supposedly dying tribes. 

In 1997, the Aaniiih language, which is one of two Native languages spoken on 

the Fort Belknap reservation, was in the last stages of survival. Only 25 speakers 

existed, and no children—kindergarten through 12th grade—spoke the language. 

But despite the grim predictions and statistics, the Aaniiih nin have survived. 

Today, our language is beginning to thrive with more young language speakers, 

thanks to an important project at Aaniiih Nakoda College. 

In the late 1990s, I was employed by Aaniiih Nakoda College (then called Fort 

Belknap College) as the Development Officer, and we decided it was time to write 

a planning grant proposal for a project to try to revive our language. At ANC, students are required to take language and tribal history classes for one or both tribes. 

In addition, Aaniiih and Nakoda language and culture classes are taught in the 

local public high schools and evening classes are held for community members who 

want to learn the Aaniiih and Nakoda languages. A speaker-learner project was also 

pursued. However, none of these efforts achieved the level of fluency we needed to 

ensure the continued vitality of our language into the future. It seemed that to be 

truly successful, the Native language needed to be spoken consistently in the home 

and at school. Without some kind of consistent reinforcement, many students retain 

only a portion of the words taught. I wrote the grant proposal, entitled ‘‘Speaking 

White Clay,’’ with all of this in mind; and we prepared it with input and support 

of the Gros Ventre Cultural committee and Native language speakers. 

Fortunately for us, the funder stressed the need to focus on our youth and asked 

in the review process, ‘‘What are you doing for the youth?’’ The goal of our grant 

was to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of our language and culture. With 

a funded plan, Aaniiih Nakoda College President Dr. Carole Falcon Chandler, along 

with staff and faculty, set out to fulfill the dream of our elders to protect our language. 

After researching the issue, we determined that our best hope for success was in 

the establishment of a full day immersion program. In 2003, Dr. Janine Pease, who 

conducted an extensive study of Native American language immersion initiatives 

entitled ‘‘Native American Language Immersion: Innovative Native Education for 

Children and Families,’’ writes: 

• ‘‘Most intriguing about the Native and Indigenous language immersion models 

is the clear and positive connection between Native and Indigenous language 

and culture with educational achievement.’’ 

• ‘‘For indigenous people, Native American language immersion activities hold 

great promise in the development of children, youth, family and community.’’ 1

32 

Establishment of the White Clay Immersion School 

In 2003, the White Clay Immersion School was established under the Aaniiih 

Nakoda College. The goals of the school are to: (1) promote the survival and vitality 

of the White Clay language; (2) provide culturally based educational opportunities 

that build cognitive skills and foster academic success; (3) instill self-esteem and 

positive cultural identify; and (4) prepare students to become productive members 

of society. 

Unfortunately, since we wrote our proposal in 1997, we have lost our oldest Native speakers. Today, no fluent elder Aaniiih speaker lives on the Fort Belknap Reservation. There are a few younger people who have learned the language and speak 

it well. However, today the largest generation of Aaniiih speakers comprises the students of Aaniiih Nakoda College’s White Clay Immersion School (WCIS). Since 

WCIS began, child Native speakers has grown from none to 30. Students at WCIS 

attend a full day of classes in an immersion setting. Teaching and learning focus 

on the White Clay language and rely heavily on Native knowledge and Native ways 

of knowing and being. Non-Native ways of learning are incorporated to offer students the best of both worlds and to help them become positive and successful members of the larger community. WCIS’s curriculum emphasizes the interconnections 

between physical, mental and spiritual well-being through cross-disciplinary integration, intergenerational learning, and field-based learning experiences. Students 

participate in community projects, public events, and international exchanges. 

The White Clay Immersion School is the first, and now one of two, full day Native 

language immersion schools operating within a Tribal College. Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, South Dakota operates the other TCU-based immersion school, through 

grade 5. WCIS now includes both elementary and middle school. The school is 

housed in the beautiful Aaniiih Nakoda Cultural Building. This unique and innovative partnership in educational self-determination serves as a transformative model 

for other American Indian communities across the United States that is facing the 

impending loss of their own Native language. 

Administrative Leadership and Quality of WCIS Staff 

The White Clay Immersion School operates within Aaniiih Nakoda College’s central administration, under the direction of the college president. Dr. Lynette Chandler serves as the director of White Clay Immersion School since its inception in 

2002. She has extensive knowledge of and training in immersion teaching practices 

and has working with indigenous language experts from Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii, Peru, and Guatemala, Australia and New Zealand. Dr. Chandler earned her 

B.S. (English) and M.A. (Native American Studies) at Montana State University and 

her Ed.D. (Educational Leadership) at the University of Montana. Her accolades include being named ‘‘Montana Indian Educator,’’ in 2012; awarded the Andrew W. 

Mellon Foundation Career Enhancement Fellowship by the American Indian College 

Fund; and, in 2008 the White Clay Immersion School received the Commissioner’s 

Outstanding Project Award from the Administration for Native Americans. Two of 

the classroom instructors have graduated from the Office of Indian Education 

Teacher Training Program. Both of the Aaniiih language teachers have their doctorate degrees, are fluent in Aaniiih. 

Success and Academic Achievement for WCIS students 

Graduates from the White Clay Immersion School have transitioned to public 

schools and are recognized by these schools as leaders in student government, academics, and sports. For example, students graduating from WCIS in 2013 are now 

sophomores at a local off-reservation public school. Last year, two students from the 

White Clay Immersion Class received the Science Award, Math Award, English 

Award, Literature Award and Art Award for their grade at their new off-reservation 

high school. They also excelled in athletics, receiving the varsity basketball awards 

and were on the honor roll throughout the school year. 

Of the original 2011 graduating class for WCIS who have gone on to local public 

schools, three of the four students have been inducted into the National Honor Society. All four are on the honor roll; they excel in sports and are involved in community activities; they work after school and will be employed this summer. All of 

these students will be seniors in fall 2014. For the last three years, these students 

have been at the forefront of leadership within their school. They are on the student 

council; participate in Jobs for Montana Graduates, Indian Club, Yearbook, volunteer programs and lead the class awards at the end of school year. Two of three 

students who have graduated from WCIS in 2012 have been inducted into the National Honor Society and all are on the honor roll. They have received numerous 

awards in high school and are working summer jobs current for the City of Harlem. 

These students excel in their specific clubs, are managers on sports teams excel in 

33 

2 Reyhner, Jon. ‘‘Indigenous Language Immersion Schools for Strong Indigenous Identities.’’ 

Northern Arizona University. 2011. Page 8–10. 3 Ibid. Pease-Pretty On Top, Janine. 2003 

track, basketball and volley ball. They volunteer in the community or school on a 

regular basis. 

Financial Security for WCIS 

Financial support for the White Clay Immersion Schools has been sporadic. The 

bulk of funding has come from private foundations and local support. In addition, 

we have received funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Administration of Native American (ANA) program. However, this is a competitive 

program and in some years, WCIS has not been funded. 

WCIS does not receive funding from the state or any federal formula funding. Instead, the staff host fund raisers to support schools trips, lunches, supplies and 

other school activities. Although it is a struggle at times, Aaniiih Nakoda College 

remains committed to our goal for the survival of our Aaniiih language, and we remain committed to all current and future students of the White Clay Immersion 

School, who hold the future of our people in their hands and hearts. Grounded in 

their culture and confident in their language, we know that through them, our people and our language will thrive for many generations to come. 

Other Successful Native Language Models: TCUs Lead the Way 

American Indian education scholar Jon Reyhner brings perspectives from American Indian leaders and educators on the critical role and value of tribal languages 

in the lives of tribal people and the health and well-being of their communities: 

• Cecelia Fire Thunder, former Oglala Sioux Tribal President, stated ‘‘I speak 

English well because I spoke Lakota well. . .our languages are value based. Everything I need to know is in our language. It is bringing back our values, and 

good things about how to treat each other.’’ (2005 at NIEA). 

• Richard Littlebear, President of Chief Dull Knife College said, ‘‘Our youth are 

apparently looking to urban gangs for those things that will give them a sense 

of identity, importance and belongingness. . .But we (the Cheyenne) have all 

the characteristics in our tribal structures that will reaffirm the identities of 

our youth.’’ 

• Vine Deloria and Daniel Wildcat, in Power and Place: Indian Education in 

America, 2001, outline a framework for Indigenous language revitalization programs. Deloria writes, ‘‘power and place produce personality. . . .the Native 

American sacred view contrasts with the material and pragmatic focus of the 

larger American society.’’ 

• Lanny Real Bird, Crow and Arikara Professor at Little Big Horn College notes, 

‘‘Many of the participants, facilitators, or teachers of the native languages are 

elders, who bring a wealth of knowledge not just limited to the languages. Their 

experience provides interaction with cultural practices or experiences, values, 

protocol, and holistic awareness that includes spiritual and traditional teachings.’’ 2

Yet, despite the documented need and proven value, funding for language immersion and revitalization programs has been particularly problematic for American Indian people, particularly because funding sources are categorical (have specific departmental priorities, have extreme dollar limitations, and are short-term). A study 

conducted by Dr. Janine Pease in 2003, and discussed above, reports on 50 language 

immersion projects in Indian Country and documents the serious challenges language program have in acquiring sustained support: 

• American Indian language revitalization programs are a difficult fit for programs most often designed for other language groups, Hispanic serving schools, 

colleges and communities. 

• Language programs funding is several federal agencies have a severe limitation 

in funding, making competition stiff and discouraging applications altogether. 

• Grant terms of three to five years limit the language programs sustainability, 

thereby limiting language learning as well. 

• Granting agencies have little or no support for planning or start-up costs; language programs benefit from plans well-done and substantial startup cost support. 3

Despite these difficulties, some excellent programs are in place at Tribal Colleges, 

which can serve as models for others. 

34 

• Aaniiih Nakoda College’s White Clay Immersion School, our own highly successful full-day immersion school, on the ANC campus, for kindergarten through 

8th grade—the successes and challenges of our program are discussed above. 

• Little Big Horn College and Fort Peck Community College in Montana have developed a tribal languages acquisition program using the Plains Indian Sign 

Language as the means for learning and using four hundred terms and phrases 

in the Crow, Nakona (Assiniboine) and Dakota languages. This initiative has 

classroom strategies, DVD for viewing at home on the TV and CD for listening 

in the car or on mobile listening devices. 

• The Piegan Institute of Browning MT developed three K–8 language immersion 

schools: Cuts Wood, Moccasin Flat and Lost Child. The schools instruct all subjects in the Blackfeet language. Founder Darrell Kipp says, ‘‘the school’s graduates are the first young fluent speakers of the Blackfeet language in a generation. . .the school is not only resuscitating the language, but also help to preserve Blackfeet culture. 

• At Turtle Mountain Community College in Belcourt, North Dakota, a key institutional goal is for all college employees to engage in 100 hours of language instruction, with 20 percent of staff reaching fluency. 

• Aaniiih Nakoda College and six other TCUs in Montana have collaborated in 

the Learning Lodge Institute to develop best practices in language teaching and 

to create a certification process to enable language instructors to teach in public 

school classrooms. 

• Oglala Lakota College, in Kyle, South Dakota, has also established a successful 

k–5 Lakota language immersion school, while also working to expand the number and effectiveness of language instructors through inter-departmental collaboration of the Lakota Studies and teacher training programs. 

As these examples demonstrate, preserving, revitalizing, and teaching Native languages are fundamental priorities of the nation’s Tribal Colleges. In fact, many were 

established specifically to protect and preserve a tribe’s language. Over the years, 

the TCUs have broadened their programming beyond college-aged students to impact younger children. 

Closing Recommendations 

Mr. Chairman, I join President Shortbull and all of the Tribal Colleges, in making 

these recommendations: 

(1) Include Senator Tester’s TCU language research provisions: The Committee 

should include the important Tribal College Native language research and education programs, which he included in legislation he introduced in the 110 and 

111th Congresses as part of THE PATH legislation, as an amendment to S. 

1948. To revitalize our languages, we must work at all levels, pre-K to college, 

and we must continue to expand critically needed Native language research. 

More support is needed for Native language immersion programs, classes, community-based programs, and enrichment activities. However, equally important 

is the need to invest wisely in research and pedagogy and how Native Language 

use improves the academic achievement of Native American students. Tribal 

Colleges simply cannot continue to be asked to do more with less. 

(2) Increase ANA language grant periods: To achieve significant results that will 

truly impact the future of our people, the DHHS–ANA language grant program 

should be modified: rather than awarding grants for a period of three years, 

grants should be awarded for a period of 10 years. Alternatively, DHHS–ANA 

could adopt the model used with success by the National Science Foundation. 

NSF currently makes awards under its Tribal College and University program 

for period of five years, with the option to award an additional 5-year grant 

upon a demonstration of adequate progress. NSF has determined that to address systemic challenges, sustainable funding for at least 10 years is needed. 

In closing, I will simply echo words of frustration, which I heard from many members of the Committee during your hearing last week on American Indian higher 

education: it is so incredibly frustrating to know that the need is so very great and 

the models of success exist; to know that Tribal Colleges—more so than any other 

entities—are working every day to transform Indian Country, achieving success but 

being rewarded only with flat-line or decreased funding; to be asked by our people, 

the Administration, and Congress to do more and more with less and less. We are 

accountable institutions. We need the Administration to be accountable as well. 

Mr. Chairman, our struggles will continue. We need your help and that of the Administration not just to acknowledge the existence of treaties and the federal trust 

35 

responsibility, but to take concrete action—starting right now—to advance the proven the successes of the Tribal Colleges and increase our capacity to do even more 

for the betterment of Indian Country. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Representative Brockie. 

Mr. Shortbull? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS SHORTBULL, PRESIDENT, OGLALA 

LAKOTA COLLEGE 

Mr. SHORTBULL. Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas Shortbull, President of Oglala Lakota College. Thank you for inviting me to address the Committee today. I appreciate the opportunity to personally acknowledge my good friend, Senator Tim Johnson, and to 

thank him for being a dedicated champion of the Nation’s tribal 

colleges and universities during his 28-year tenure in Congress. I 

speak for all the members when I say he will be greatly missed 

when he retires later this year. 

Mr. Chairman, the tribal colleges support passage of S. 2299. 

This modest legislation is helping tribal colleges as we work to preserve and sustain our tribal languages and cultures. Greater funding is needed now because once the language is gone, it is lost forever. Ironically, in some ways the loss of our Native languages mirrors that experience by immigrants who came to this Country more 

than 200 years ago. When immigrants spoke broken English, they 

were made fun of. As a result, almost all immigrants chose not to 

speak their native language to their children and grandchildren. 

This is the same choice that many American Indian parents made 

generations ago, because they were made fun of and worse, summarily punished for speaking in their native languages around 

non-Indians. 

These immigrants and American Indians concluded that to succeed in this Country, there was no choice but to forego speaking 

their native language. The result is that native languages have all 

but disappeared on some reservations. This is not the case on Pine 

Ridge, where most elders still speak our language, but not our children. Today on 5 percent of 4 to 6 year olds on my reservation can 

speak Lakota. This change in only two or three generations is a direct effect of the cultural genocide which was perpetrated against 

Native people. 

The Federal Government has a moral and legal responsibility to 

correct the consequences of its appalling practices of the past. Native language programs need to be immediately and adequately 

funded, so that future generations of Indian people will be able to 

experience their own Native language and culture and know where 

they come from and who they are. Several years ago, OLC staff 

began to notice a troubling trend. Every year, fewer of our entering 

students could speak Lakota. Most of these students had attended 

local schools, some of them speaking Lakota language classes for 

8 to 12 years. They could recite on average about 20 words and a 

few phrases. 

However, the sad fact is that on my reservation, language instruction in our K to 12 schools has not produced any Native language speakers over the last 40 years. We knew that if our people 

had any hope for reversing this trend, it was up to OLC. It was 

time for OLC to open our own elementary Native language school. 

36 

We applied for the first of two three-year grants from ANA, but we 

spent most of the first three years of our project researching methods for achieving greater Lakota language proficiency while teaching the language. 

We came to understand that to maximize our effectiveness and 

make systematic change, an immersion program is the only solution. Based on our experiences, we have two recommendations. 

First, the ANA language grant program should award grants for a 

period of 10 years or in two five-year periods, rather than the three 

two-year periods. It takes at least 10 years to establish a strong 

and successful program. 

Second, the TCUs, as Clarena said, we need to follow your recommendation in THE PATH so that we can be included in S. 1948. 

I would like to use my final minute of time to bring to the Committee’s attention a very important issue. Adult education is critically important for adults seeking a second chance in life. That 

chance was given to our World War II veterans right after World 

War II, when they could get GEDs and go on to college. American 

Indians have the highest high school dropout rate, highest unemployment and poverty rates in the Nation. I strongly support dedicated Federal funding to tribal colleges to provide adult education 

programs, including GED training. Today we have no dedicated 

funding. It all goes to the States, even though they count our people in a State funding formula. 

I want to alert the Committee to a very serious threat to the success of any GED seekers. This January 8th, the organization entrusted with creating the GED exam over 70 years ago unveiled a 

new GED test that focuses heavily on math skills and it excessively 

difficult. In my view, the new requirement would be at the expense 

of those seeking to join the military, attend a vocational school or 

take advantage of other employment opportunities that require a 

high school diploma These people would likely have the skills needed to pass the old GED test, but the doors of opportunity will be 

closed to them because they may not pass the new GED exam. 

We asked graduating high school seniors on the Pine Ridge Reservation to take the new GED practice test. The result, 61 percent 

could not pass it, yet they are graduating from high school. This 

experiment demonstrates that the new GED exam could negatively 

impact American Indians and other minorities, and will greatly reduce employment opportunities for the poor in this Country. I ask 

that this Committee and other committees of jurisdiction examine 

the ramifications of the new GED exam, including the impact on 

Americans who are at the greatest danger of having doors of opportunity closed to them, simply because they cannot pass the new 

GED exam. We need to ensure that the GED and other equivalency 

tests are fair and relevant to all Americans. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shortbull follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS SHORTBULL, PRESIDENT, OGLALA LAKOTA

COLLEGE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, on behalf of my institution, Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, South Dakota and the 36 other Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) in the U.S. that compose the American Indian Higher 

Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing 

37 

examining legislation to strengthen efforts to preserve and revitalize our Native languages. 

My name is Thomas Shortbull. I am a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe, President of Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota, and a member of the Board of Directors of AIHEC. It is an honor to speak with the members of this Committee about 

Tribal Colleges and the work we are doing to transform Indian Country. I am grateful to have this opportunity to recognize my good friend, Senator Tim Johnson, with 

whom I served in the South Dakota State Senate in the mid-1980s, and to thank 

him for being a dedicated champion of the nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities 

during his 28-year tenure in the United States Congress. I speak for all of the 

AIHEC member institutions in wishing him a retirement that is all he envisions 

and indeed, deserves. He will be greatly missed. 

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, I will speak briefly about the Tribal College Movement and the legislation that is the subject of this hearing, including some recommendations that we are confident will advance our collective efforts to preserve 

and strengthen Native languages and culture. I will also take this opportunity to 

discuss the need for Adult Basic Education programs in Indian Country, and lastly, 

I will describe some of my concerns about the newly implemented GED test. I ask 

that my written statement, submitted on behalf of Oglala Lakota College and the 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium, be included in the Hearing Record. 

Background: The Tribal College Movement 

Mr. Chairman, you and the members of this Committee have visited Tribal Colleges; you have walked on our campuses, met with our leadership, and spent time 

with our students. All of this must have given you a fairly clear picture of the often 

tenuous financial situation facing many of our TCUs, when compared to state colleges and universities. Through visits to our campuses, you have gained an appreciation for the danger that inconsistent and inadequate funding presents to our efforts to attract and retain American Indian students and high quality faculty, to 

hire grant writers with the ability to compete against Research 1 institutions (as 

we are required to do), and to learn about and adopt the latest teaching, data collection, and management strategies required to maintain accreditation with regional 

accrediting bodies. These are issues we grapple with on a daily basis, even as we 

work to rebuild self-esteem and instill hope, a strong work ethic, and purposeful engagement within our students, many of whom have known little except lives of extreme poverty, unemployment, violence, abuse, and neglect. We are doing all of this 

work and more in conditions that rival third world countries—amidst often dysfunctional governments and failing social systems, broken families, and oppression from 

both without and within. Yet, we are resilient, and we are succeeding. We are 

changing the lives and futures of students and their families for generations to come 

through a holistic and supportive educational environment that is culturally-based 

and relevant to our students and their families. We are building stronger and more 

prosperous Tribal nations through the restoration of our languages, community outreach programs and applied research on issues relevant to our land and our people, 

workforce training in fields critical to our reservation communities, and communitycentered economic development and entrepreneurial programs. We are transforming 

our education systems—training early childhood educators, successfully managing 

once failing Head Start programs, rebuilding schoolhouses and children’s lives; reforming K–12 science and math programs and providing summer and Saturday enrichment alternatives; preparing an American Indian K–12 teacher workforce; and 

transforming Native language instruction at all levels. We are growing a Native 

health care workforce—from behavioral health to emergency room nursing, to serve 

our people and provide care in our language and according to our customs. 

We must be doing something right, because despite the lack of adequate funding 

and many other challenges we face, the Tribal College Movement has grown tremendously since Oglala Lakota College was established by my tribal leaders 43 years 

ago. To support our young and developing institutions, in 1973, Oglala Lakota College and the five other TCUs in existence at the time came together to establish 

the American Indian Higher Education Consortium—AIHEC—enabling us to more 

effectively address the unmet higher education needs of American Indians and Indian country. 

Today, 37 Tribal Colleges operate more than 75 sites in 16 states. TCUs are located in the Plains, the Southwest, the Great Lakes, the Northwest and even the 

North Slope of Alaska and have advanced American Indian higher education—and 

all Indian people—significantly since we first began in the late 1960s and early 

1970s. Let me give you just one example: before Oglala Lakota College launched our 

nursing program, none of the nurses employed by the Indian Health Service to work 

on the Oglala reservation were American Indian. Today, more than 50 percent of 

38 

the nurses on our reservation are American Indian and 85 percent of them are graduates of Oglala Lakota College. 

Yet despite these advances, the lack of adequate funding that I mentioned earlier 

remains a serious obstacle to the sustainability, independence, and competitiveness 

of TCUs. A number of factors contribute to our ongoing funding challenges. 

• While Tribal Colleges are public institutions, they are not state institutions, and 

consequently, we receive little or no state funding. In fact, very few states provide support for the non-Indian state residents attending TCUs, which account 

for about 20 percent of all Tribal College students. However, if these same students attended a state institution, the state would be required to provide the 

institution with operational support for them. This is something we are trying 

to rectify through education and public policy change at the state and local 

level. 

• The tribal governments that have chartered Tribal Colleges are, for the most 

part, not among the handful of enormously wealthy gaming tribes located near 

major urban areas that one reads about in the mass media. Rather, they are 

some of the poorest governments in the nation. In fact, seven of the 10 poorest 

counties in America are home to a Tribal College. 

• Finally, the Federal Government, despite its trust responsibility, binding treaty 

obligations, and the exchange of more than one billion acres of land, has never 

fully-funded our primary institutional operations source, the Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (TCU Act), and overall, funds TCUs 

at levels far below that of other institutions of higher education. Today, the 

TCU Act is appropriated at about $5,850 per full time Indian student, which 

after more than 30 years is still only about 73 percent of the level authorized 

by Congress to operate these Tribal institutions. Faced with ever rising costs 

of day-to-day operations, to continue to thrive and expand as community-based 

institutions, TCUs must stabilize, sustain, and increase our basic operational 

funding. While our per student funding is higher than it has been at times in 

the past, it is still considerably lower than the operating support received by 

other public 4-year institutions, which is the direction that many TCUs are 

evolving. In fact, 13 TCUs currently offer several bachelor’s degrees each and 

five, including Oglala Lakota College, offer master’s degrees. 

Tribal Colleges are first and foremost academic institutions, but because of the 

number of challenges facing Indian Country—high unemployment, poorly developed 

economies, poor health status, and lack of stable community infrastructures, Tribal 

Colleges are called upon to do much more than provide higher education services. 

Tribal Colleges often run entrepreneurial and business development centers; many 

TCUs are the primary GED and Adult Basic Education provider on their reservations, and most if not all TCUs offer a variety of educational and training programs 

for tribal employees, BIA and IHS staff, K–12 schools, tribal courts and justice system staff, and many others in a manner to suit their work schedules. TCUs run day 

care centers, elementary immersion schools, Head Start programs, health nutrition 

education programs, community gardens, and often, the only community library and 

tribal museum or archives. Mr. Chairman, Tribal Colleges are by any definition engaged institutions, intricately woven into the fabric of our respective communities. 

S. 2299: Reauthorizing the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to continue a 

provision to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages. We strongly support this reauthorization, and we urge the Committee to 

work toward its enactment this year. Tribal Colleges are actively and aggressively 

working to preserve and sustain our tribal language and culture. All TCUs offer Native language courses. In some cases, the tribal language would have been completely lost if not for the local Tribal College. Turtle Mountain Community College 

in Belcourt, North Dakota, was established primarily for this purpose, and over the 

years, its success in writing and revitalizing the Turtle Mountain Chippewa language has been truly remarkable. Aaniiih Nakoda College in Montana runs a K– 

6 language immersion school, right on campus. At the White Clay Immersion 

School, children learn the White Clay language and culture in addition to subjects 

they would routinely study at any other school. Oglala Lakota College does the 

same, operating the successful Lakota Language Immersion School for kindergarten 

through fifth grade, next door to our main campus. Other TCUs are teaching and 

providing care in our Native language to our youngest children, as a regular part 

of the college’s day care program for infants and toddlers. 

Additionally, many TCUs offer unique associate and bachelor degree programs 

that include Native language instruction, as well as in-service teacher training in 

39 

language and culture. At the TCUs, teacher education programs follow cultural protocols and stress the use of Native language in everyday instruction. 

Some Committee members might wonder why Tribal Colleges, as academic institutions of higher education, would be focusing on language revitalization, running 

Head Start and day care programs, and establishing our own elementary immersion 

schools. Why? Because we are holistic institutions. TCUs focus on the whole student—mind, body, spirit, family, and community. We know that just as we are succeeding in higher education, we can ‘‘put our minds together’’ and implement strategies of success for our babies and children. Where others might fail, we have the 

commitment and the stability to succeed. 

Several years ago, we began to notice a troubling trend at Oglala Lakota College: 

every year, fewer and fewer of our entering students were fluent in—or could even 

speak—our Lakota language. The vast majority of these students had attended 

schools in the local area, some of them taking Lakota language courses for eight, 

10, or even 12 years. Yet, their mastery of the Lakota language was missing. They 

could recite a few words, ina—ahte (mother—father) and some simple phrases, sing 

a few Lakota songs, and count wa ́nc ̃i—wikce ́mna (1–10). The sad fact is that is that 

on my reservation language instruction in the K–12 schools has not produced any 

language speakers over the last 40 years. Even more troubling, we conducted our 

own survey within our local communities and learned that while 70–80 percent of 

our elders could speak Lakota, only about 5 percent of our tribe’s 4- to 6-year-olds 

could speak the language. 

We at Oglala Lakota College knew that if our people had any hope for reversing 

this trend, it was up to our college. The responsibility—and what’s more, the will— 

to act was ours. It was time for OLC to open our own elementary school. 

Oglala Lakota College applied for and received the first of two 3-year grants from 

the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on Native Americans. Because of the depth and complexity of the language issues facing our people, 

we spent most of the first three years of our project (Grant 1) researching different 

methods for achieving greater Lakota language proficiency. We opened our Lakota 

School teaching about one-half of the curricula in Lakota and the other half in 

English. However, after studying other elementary education programs, including 

highly successful Maori and Native Hawaiian programs, as well as monitoring the 

progress of our own students, we realized that to maximize our effectiveness and 

make systemic change, an immersion program is the solution. Last fall, in the second year of Grant 2, our Lakota Immersion School provided Lakota language immersion instruction to our K–5 students. 

Based on our experience at Oglala Lakota College, we have two recommendations 

for this Committee: 

(1) To achieve significant results that will truly impact the future of our people, 

the DHHS–ANA language grant program should be modified: rather than 

awarding grants for a period of three years, grants should be awarded for 

a period of 10 years. Alternatively, DHHS–ANA could adopt the model used 

with success by the National Science Foundation. NSF currently makes 

awards under its Tribal College and University program for period of five 

years, with the option to award an additional 5-year grant upon a demonstration of adequate progress. NSF has determined that to address systemic challenges, sustainable funding for at least 10 years is needed. 

(2) Because of the extensive work that Oglala Lakota College and the other 

TCUs are already doing to determine the most effective strategies for teaching our children and preserving our endangered languages, and more important, to expand this urgent work, a TCU research grant program should be 

included in S. 1948, the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement 

Act. Such a program would enable TCUs to continue to work to identify the 

best language pedagogy to achieve systemic change and ensure the survival 

and revival of our Native languages. 

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we believe that you understand the critical need for 

this type of program because in both the 110th and 111th Congresses, you 

included such a provision in legislation you sponsored known as THE 

PATH. This legislation was developed to support the work of TCUs in Native language research and practice; health professions workforce development; and Native health and wellness health research and programs. We 

strongly urge you to include the Native language provisions of THE PATH 

in S. 1948. It is vital that TCUs be included in this legislation, which currently excludes us. 

40 

American Indian Adult Basic Education and the New GED Test 

In the mid-1990s, Congress eliminated a modest set-aside within the Adult Basic 

Education (ABE) block grant program, which funded vitally-needed TCU GED and 

ABE training programs. These programs had a specific purpose: to help put more 

unemployed American Indians—who had little or no chance of getting a job—into 

the workforce. With the elimination of this modest set-aside, all federal funding for 

ABE, literacy training, and GED preparation goes to the states, which rarely fund 

tribal GED programs. 

Despite the absence of dedicated funding, TCUs have attempted to find means, 

often using already insufficient institutional operating funds, to provide adult basic 

education and GED preparation for American Indians in need of a second chance: 

young or old, all of whom the K–12 Indian education system has failed. Oglala 

Lakota College has done its share. Over the past 43 years, OLC has awarded more 

than 3,000 GEDs to our people. Three thousand tribal members now have a chance 

to go on to college or to simply get a job, pay taxes, and contribute to the future 

of this nation because of OLC’s GED program. 

As this Committee knows, many more of our people are in need of a second 

chance. American Indians have the highest high school drop-out rates in the nation. 

On some of our reservations, well more than 50 percent of all youth drop-out. Later, 

often when it is too late, they realize that they need a high school degree to secure 

even a low level job. So they turn to the only alternative: the GED. 

This is exactly the intent of the GED program. Since it was developed in the 

1940s, the GED has always been a second chance. First, it was designed to be a 

second chance for returning GIs, men who left high school before graduation to become the Greatest Generation. When they returned home, they found that they 

could not take advantage of their GI Bill education entitlements because they lacked 

a high school diploma. So the GED was developed to be their second chance. Congress created the program and the American Council on Education (ACE) was entrusted to develop the test and preparation program. 

For decades, the GED has served as a second chance for thousands and thousands 

of American Indians, many of whom join the work force immediately or go on to 

become Tribal College graduates, often continuing their education to earn bachelors’ 

and advanced degrees. In fact at OLC, some of our most successful students hold 

a GED. But today, our ability to continue to provide GED preparation and testing 

is tenuous. In fact, some TCUs have already stopped providing this vital service, including several in the Chairman’s home state of Montana. They simply cannot afford to provide it any longer, particularly with recent sequestration cuts on top of 

years of flat-line funding and labor-intensive reporting requirements imposed by 

states (if the state even allows TCUs to participate). 

As I mentioned earlier, American Indians have the highest high school drop-out 

rates, highest unemployment, and highest poverty rates in the nation. We ask only 

for the same opportunity for a second chance—the same chance to succeed—that is 

available to others in this country through the federal ABE block grant program. 

Tribal Colleges must have sufficient and stable funding to continue (or resume) providing essential GED and ABE services. 

The New GED: Congressional Oversight Needed 

With the launch of the new GED, the need to address this challenge is even more 

critical. Today, adequate funding is only part of the problem. Tribal Colleges are 

concerned about the significant changes made to the GED test in 2013. The new 

GED exam, which was instituted in January 2014, has shifted its focus from being 

‘‘second chance’’ for those who did not complete high school to being an academic, 

college preparatory examination. With a much stronger focus on mathematics, 

science, and writing, the new GED is widely acknowledged as being significantly 

more difficult to pass than the previous test. In fact, the 7.5 hour exam has become 

so difficult that even high school graduates often cannot pass it. This May, we conducted an experiment involving seven feeder high schools to Oglala Lakota College. 

We asked graduating seniors to take the official, ACE-developed practice exam for 

the new GED test. Of the 68 graduating seniors who took the test, 61 percent did 

not pass. Yet, they all earned a high school diploma. If those of us in this room 

today took the exam, the results would probably be similar, if not worse. Some 

states have become so concerned about the shift in focus and difficulty of the GED 

that they are abandoning it in favor of other high school equivalency tests. 

As Tribal Colleges, the new GED poses a serious dilemma for us. Without question, we want students to enter our institutions academically prepared for higher 

education, and the new GED test may help ensure this. But it also may ensure that 

many, if not most, of our tribal people will never have the opportunity for a second 

chance. They will never gain the most basic tool needed to lift themselves out a 

41 

cycle of generational poverty and oppression: a high school equivalency diploma. 

Currently, about 70 percent of entering TCU students need developmental courses 

in math and more than half must take one or more developmental courses in reading and writing. The fact that these students would not pass the new GED exam 

may not be significant nationally. But in communities with 50 to 80 percent unemployment, extreme poverty, the nation’s highest suicide and domestic violence rates, 

the impact could be devastating. 

The academic focus and rigor of the new GED is not our only concern. The new 

exam is fully electronic, and it is costly. While younger GED seekers may be comfortable with computer-based testing, older members of our community are not, yet 

their need for employment and their desire to make their lives better is real. To 

adequately prepare them academically and at the same time develop their computer 

literacy will require greater preparation, in terms of training and practice, which 

will be an unfunded expense for our institutions. Finally, the fees for taking preliminary practice tests and the actual GED exam have risen sharply, placing yet another obstacle to low-income individuals, or in our case, to the Tribal Colleges. 

We ask that the Committee work with the Tribal Colleges and our AIHEC Office 

to make the GED and other equivalency exams fair and relevant to all Americans. 

We urge you to hold oversight hearings on the implementation of the new exam. 

I believe we may even need to consider two or three tiers of tests, which individuals 

could take depending on their aspirations and needs. This may be viewed as a controversial statement, and it is not one with which all of my colleagues agree, but 

it may be a reality, and it certainly should be discussed, depending on the outcome 

of this year’s GED exams. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Johnson, thank you for this opportunity to share our 

story, successes, and concerns with you today. We look forward to enactment of legislation to advance the preservation and revitalization of our Native languages and 

to a day when all Americans—including the first Americans—seeking to further 

their education and career goals have full and fair chance at success. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shortbull. I appreciate your 

bringing up the GED situation. That definitely gets it on our radar 

screen. 

Now, Ed Delgado, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ED DELGADO, CHAIRMAN, ONEIDA 

TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. DELGADO. I don’t know if I heard this story a few years ago 

or if I read it. But I recall during a period in Gallup, New Mexico, 

the Navajo Code Talkers walked, had a parade. And there were a 

couple of young Navajo youth there, troubled youth, gang member 

youth. Where the Code Talkers walked, there was one youth who 

said to the other, take off your hat. Those are Code Talkers, Navajo 

Code Talkers, show respect. In that one moment, those tribal youth 

became better. They became people that we would be proud of in 

that few moments. 

I say that because there are things in my culture, in Indian culture and in Indian language that we hold dearly. And language 

and culture is truly good medicine. It makes you better. 

Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of 

the Committee, Shekoli. I am Ed Delgado, I am from the People 

of the Standing Stone, the Chairman of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

about the importance of preserving Native languages. With the enactment of S. 1948 and S. 2299, this Committee will have helped 

to achieve that goal. 

We continue to feel the negative impacts of our grandparents and 

our great-grandparents being taken from their families, sent away 

to boarding schools and punished if they spoke the Oneida language. We were forced to assimilate into a non-Indian culture beVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
42 

cause, as they were told, it was best for their future. Thus, they 

refused to speak and teach the language to their children, and as 

a result, our language, culture and traditions have suffered. 

It is our belief that the Oneida language is a key component of 

our cultural identity. We are slowly regaining what we lost. But we 

need our help to continue our long-term commitment to language 

revitalization. Today, the Oneida currently have only six functional 

speakers in our community, as the last fluent speaker passed away 

one year ago. The Oneida language has not been the first language 

spoken by our people in over a century. And we continue to face 

obstacles to keep our language alive. 

The majority of Oneida children attend public schools and are 

faced with their own challenges of meeting curriculum goals. Our 

language is simply not a top priority in those schools. Fortunately, 

progress has been made with the local university and some of the 

local public school districts to offer accredited Oneida language 

courses. Recently, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 

awarded the Seymour and Pulaski Community School Districts 

with a grant. Both partly reside within the reservation boundaries. 

The grant is used for the Oneida language curriculum as an elective course for high school credit. 

The legislation under consideration today will advance Oneida 

into a new era of language preservation. S. 1948 will help students 

learn native languages by funding language immersion programs, 

such as those our tribe has put in place. We share your view, Mr. 

Chairman, that this instructional method enhances participation in 

educational outcomes, and we commend you for encouraging other 

tribes to adopt this model. 

We agree, as stated in the bill, that tribes must be responsible 

for certifying that the school has the capacity to provide the Native 

American language education. The stakeholders involved in the 

planning and development of Oneida’s language program in 2010 

reached a similar conclusion. We sincerely appreciate this acknowledgement in the bill. 

S. 2299 will reauthorize a number of the important programs 

that are being successfully used in Indian Country. Funds from the 

Native American Programs Act will provide for the continued development and success of our language program. One approach 

that could be incredibly beneficial is the opportunity for paid internships and job opportunities for young people working in the 

language department. Students who possess a passion for learning 

the language would become vested in the future of the Oneida language. Unfortunately, Oneida’s job training program has a waiting 

list and we have had to turn away several star pupils as the language department lacks the resources to hire them. 

In closing, our language is a necessary component to the very 

being of our people and our tribe. Unfortunately, we do not possess 

enough resources to accommodate the need. We so desperately need 

the legislation and the support of members of Congress who share 

our values. 

Further, it is our hope to continue to refine our language program and close the Oneida achievement gap in public schools. With 

additional resources, not only can the Oneida language be susVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
43 

tained, but the People of the Standing Stone will persevere. 

Yaw¥ko, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Delgado follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED DELGADO, CHAIRMAN, ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS

OF WISCONSIN


618a1.eps
44 


618a2.eps
45 


618a3.eps
46 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ed. 

Namaka Rawlins, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF NAMAKA RAWLINS, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC 

PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION, AHA PUNANA LEO, 

INC. 

Ms. RAWLINS. Greetings, good afternoon Chairman Tester, and I 

see that the others have left, but Vice Chairman Barrasso, and 

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is 

Namaka Rawlins, and Senator Tester, and I see that Senator Johnson has also left, but I want to thank you very much for introducing S. 1948 and S. 2299. 

It is an honor to testify before you in support of these bills. My 

full testimony was provided. 

I am the Director of Outreach and Partnerships for the ‘Aha 

Punana Leo. The ‘Aha Punana Leo is the oldest Native American 

language immersion non-profit organization in the United States. 

Over 30 years ago, our organization grew out of a dream to save 

our language. We started with non-certified but highly-qualified 

and knowledgeable elders and teamed them with dedicated, youthful language learners to run our preschools. Our curriculum was 

and is grounded in best practices relevant to our own language and 

culture. 

Those Hawaiian-speaking preschoolers moved into the public 

schools, following our same successful teaching methodology of exclusive use of Hawaiian. In 1999, we graduated our first seniors, 

who by the end of high school were highly fluent and literate in 

both Hawaiian and English. Today there are 2,500 children in such 

schools in Hawaii, by far the largest number of any Native American language program. 

We have also established a Hawaiian language college within the 

University of Hawaii at Hilo. Besides the undergraduate program, 

it has three graduate degrees and an immersion teacher, education 


618a4.eps
47 

certification program, all taught in Hawaiian. Our organization 

worked with the college to develop a total Hawaiian immersion laboratory school. That laboratory school has a record of 15 consecutive years of 100 percent graduation rate. That laboratory school 

has an 80 percent college-going rate. 

The student population for that school is 95 percent Native Hawaiian and 75 percent qualify for free and reduced lunch. 

These two bills are very important for the survival of Hawaiian 

and all Native American languages. Every one of our Native American languages are at various stages of endangerment. Some only 

have one or two elder speakers remaining. For Hawaiian, there 

were less than 50 children 18 or younger fluent in our language 

when we began. We now have several thousand. Native language 

immersion and revitalization efforts have had a positive impact on 

communities that extend beyond proficiency to include cultural and 

family engagement and community support. And they have had 

very positive academic outcomes. 

Senator Tester, when your press release was read to our 21st Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium held earlier 

this year in our town of Hilo, resounding applause erupted from 

the general assembly, consisting of representative from 25 States 

and 10 countries. In attendance were the majority of the representatives from Native American schools and programs using their languages as the medium of education. They included Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, other charter schools, regular public schools 

and non-profit administered schools. Those schools held a special 

meeting at the symposium to review your bill, S. 1948, and decided 

to focus its potential to further align the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with the Native American Languages Act. 

Like S. 2299 and S. 1948, NALA, the Native American Languages Act, was a product of this Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 

NALA resulted from a bipartisan response supported across Native 

America. We indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians, American Indians and Alaska Natives, worked together at a grass roots level to 

pass NALA. NALA established the United States’ Native American 

language policy including educational policy but NALA was not 

fully reflected in the ESEA. Attached amendments to S. 1948 were 

developed as a result of our January symposium and provide for 

distinctive Native American language pathway for education. Such 

a distinctive Native American language pathway would be parallel 

to the distinctive pathway accorded by NCLB to education in Puerto Rico through its official language, Spanish. 

Senator Tester, Hawaiian is the official language of our State. 

Other Native American languages are also official of their State 

and their reservations and villages. At present, because NCLB is 

not fully compliant with NALA, NCLB has presented huge discriminatory challenges to all of our Native American language 

schools throughout the Country. Those challenges, I believe, are 

due to an oversight when NCLB was drafted over a decade ago. 

That oversight result in applying an inappropriate one size fits all 

to our highly distinctive schools taught through indigenous Native 

American languages. That one size fits all approach ignores our 

needs for distinctive standards and assessments and determining 

qualified teachers for our Native American language schools. 

48 

That one size fits all approach is moving our languages back toward extinction. One size does not fit all. 

All me to give you a specific example of the importance of the 

proposed amendments to S. 1948. Our Hawaiian medium preschool 

to grade 12 laboratory school, described earlier, is where we demonstrate best practices in education through a Native American 

language. Again, this school boasts a record of 50 consecutive years 

of 100 percent high school graduation rate and 80 percent college 

enrolment rate. Our students graduate full fluent and literate in 

both Hawaiian and English, with an additional six years study of 

Japanese, a foreign language of unique importance to our State. 

Yet, under NCLB and its flexibility waiver, this same high 

achieving laboratory school has incredibly been designated as the 

second lowest performing school in the State. NCLB threatens the 

very existence of our school. The one size fits all educational pathway set out in NCLB needs to be changed if existing Native American language immersion schools are to survive and continue their 

good work. That one size fits all needs to be changed so that more 

communities throughout the Country can provide a future for their 

children based on the knowledge and language of the ancestors. 

I heard it earlier stated that this is an important solution that 

we find, is a way going forward. Our amendments align NCLB to 

NALA and make it possible for Native American language medium 

programs to collaborate with higher education, tribal colleges, experts, therein aligning accountability measures to the unique linguistic and cultural features of the language of instruction, including assessment of academic content through the language of instruction. Realigning the accountability framework of NCLB supports the good work being accomplished across the Country to reverse language loss and to save our Native American languages. 

Mahalo, thank you very much. We do have a word, it is mahalo. 

Mahalo, Senator Tester and members for holding this hearing and 

we ask for our support to move these bills forward I assure you 

that schools taught through Native American languages, grounded 

in the policies of NALA, will not only reverse the effects of past 

policies of government bans on the use of our languages but will 

also produce higher outcomes in terms of high school graduation, 

college attendance, community service and national service. 

Mahalo. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rawlins follows:] 

49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NAMAKA RAWLINS, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

AND COLLABORATION, AHA PUNANA LEO, INC. 


618b1.eps
50 


618b2.eps
51 


618b3.eps
52 


618b4.eps
53 


618b5.eps
54 


618b6.eps
55 


618b7.eps
56 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you all 

for your testimony. I very much appreciate it. 

Don’t let the fact that there aren’t a lot of people up here discourage you. The important time for them to be up here is when we 

vote for these bills and pass them out of Committee. So it is good. 

This is a question for all of you, so we will start with Clarena 

and just go down the line. At this point in time, I don’t think it 

is any surprise that many Native language programs struggle with 

finding teachers who are not only qualified to teach but also have 

the required certification from the State boards of education to do 

so. Hopefully this will change over time as your programs become 

more successful. 

The question is this. Would you support legislation that would 

exempt teachers of Native American languages from needing to be 

highly qualified under State certification standards, and allow 

them simply to be highly proficient in a Native language? 


618b8.eps
57 

Ms. BROCKIE. Mr. Chairman, I think they can already do that in 

Montana. You can get certified through the State, I think it is 

called Class Seven, and teach in the colleges. But at Aaniiih 

Nakoda College, we have used our Indian teacher training program 

and we have hired both of the teachers there that are teaching currently. The two teachers are from the teacher training program and 

so they are certified. 

But for language, yes, we would support that. I know in Montana 

you can already do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shortbull? 

Mr. SHORTBULL. I think that you need to probably not exempt 

them but to have them have a college degree and also their language emphasis be enough to certify them to teach in the school 

system. So not an exemption, but a special category for them. 

I want to take this opportunity to deal with one more thing with 

GED. That is, I think that they should have done a random sampling of 100 high schools in this Nation to see how many of the 

high school students could have passed it. I believe that as much 

as one-third of the 100 schools, the students would not be able to 

pass the exam. 

And also at this time I want to issue a challenge. I want to ask 

all the U.S. Senators to take the new GED exam and let’s see how 

many of the U.S. Senators can pass it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHORTBULL. And two, the staffers are laughing, and I would 

ask all the staffers to take the new GED exam and see how many 

of you can pass it. I think the results will be pretty alarming, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will give it a go. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ed, the question about teacher certification, do 

you want to take that up? 

Mr. DELGADO. As a classroom teacher for 17 years, all 17 years, 

one non-Oneida, non-Indian student, the rest are all Indians. I 

would, like Mr. Shortbull, there have to be parameters there. 

Learning the languages is very fundamental. But you also have 

other qualities, too. You have the temperament, and you learn that 

often in your classes. You have to know about the certain techniques about kindness and understanding and patience. 

So maybe they didn’t have to have a four-year degree, but maybe 

there is something else they could use. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Rawlins? 

Ms. RAWLINS. I guess I am going to go in opposition. That is how 

we started. We started, as I explained earlier, our elders were not 

certified. We needed to get that exemption so that we could get 

them into our schools and be counted as our teachers in our 

preschools. So we were bringing them in as language speakers 

first, because that is the first thing that you need, you need to have 

that high fluency in the classroom. 

Then we brought them together with the youthful learners to run 

the schools. Eventually, as time goes on and you start to have 

those youthful learners who end up becoming teachers, certified 

teachers, getting degrees, then you can kind of move on and then 

you keep building up. You have to have a way of bringing in those 

58 

that will take over, and you need to keep replacing them with your 

highly fluent first teachers. Then find a pathway for them to continue the skills. 

I agree with you, you need to have some of that passion for 

teaching. Our teachers need to first of all love our children and 

take care of our families and be able to work with families and 

take care of the children that you are responsible for in providing 

an education. So you identify those skills and look at high language 

fluency, then you build your program to continue the education and 

what-not to get them further. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. This question is for Clarena. Tribal 

colleges and universities play a critical role in keeping Native students connected to their culture as well as providing necessary educational options in Indian Country. So the question is, what role do 

tribal colleges and universities have in Native language preservation and revitalization in Indian Country? 

Ms. BROCKIE. For Aaniiih Nakoda College, part of the mission is 

to try to retain the culture. When you talk about the culture, you 

are talking about the language, the history, their ways of how they 

live, going and being. So that is really important, I think, as a tribal college. I think they have to maintain it. I believe that most tribal colleges’ mission statement is the same. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Following up on that, and this question is 

for all of you, what kind of success have you folks observed in academic behavior of students who are enrolled in immersion and dual 

language programs? 

Ms. BROCKIE. If you look at my testimony, it really makes a difference, it really does. We had two groups of students this year 

who are going to be seniors this fall and we have another group 

who have just finished their sophomore year. These students are 

on the honor roll, three-fourths of them have been inducted into 

the Honor Society and all of them who are on the honor roll have 

done well in math, science, they are active in sports, they are on 

the student council. So you know that this immersion school, including their culture and history, it is important to children as they 

are growing up. 

If I could have brought two of our students, I would have 

sneaked Cici and Serena in my luggage with you, so they could 

have stood here and told you all the things that they know. These 

are fourth graders and they know about our history, it is not just 

limited to the classroom, but they know where all our scared sites 

are, they know where to go get roots. They know the roots. They 

know how to do sweetgrass, they dry tobacco, they know the historical stories, our cultural mythical characters. They know the trickster stories, they know about He Who Starved Himself to Death. 

To grow up and know the same things that their great-grandfathers and mothers knew is really something. They know these 

stories. Twenty years ago, not even 20, 10 years ago if you asked 

someone about, who is He Who Starved Himself to Death, they 

wouldn’t even know about it. The average student wouldn’t have 

known about it. But you are seeing more of this history, culture 

being taught, not just in immersion school but in the local schools 

as well. 

59 

So I think it is important for them, and I think once they are 

grounded in that, I think they become really secure in who they are 

and they advance from there. I have big hopes for those students 

when they graduate next year. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will get them to testify next time, Clarena. 

Mr. Shortbull? 

Mr. SHORTBULL. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to speak to your 

previous question. It may be only tribal colleges or some grassroots 

efforts that are going to save our languages in this Country. The 

reason for that is the schools are now into what is called Common 

Core. They have to meet all of these requirements and it is going 

to be, the schools make the choice, do they want to preserve the 

language or do they want to meet Common Core. Most schools are 

going to choose Common Core over the language. 

So that is the reason I believe that it will end up being either 

tribal colleges or grassroots organizations like Namaka, whom I 

consider a legend as far as language preservation and revitalization. We really respect the work that she does. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ed? 

Mr. DELGADO. Since my mid-30s, and I am almost 70 now, I have 

been an Oneida first and an American citizen second. Before that, 

I was an American citizen first. And that was it. I was heavily 

grounded in American, my American history. And that made me a 

better person. 

But being Oneida also makes me a better person, to know about 

our cultural stories and our cultural heroes and there are many. 

And our history helping create the United States. That is something that makes me better, knowing that. Just like prior to my 

mid-30s, learning all George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and 

all that stuff made me better. 

So learning about where you where you are and about your people and your history makes both Indian people proud and better, 

just like American people. Your proud history makes all of you better. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Rawlins? 

Ms. RAWLINS. I want to focus, I consider that our students who 

have graduated have done well. We usually give the statistics on 

the colleges they have attended and from. They have attended 

some of the most prestigious colleges. A former student today is a 

professor at Oxford. I don’t know how much more we can be providing that information. 

And this year we have our first doctor. We have a medical doctor 

who has graduated. She will be doing her internship some place in 

Virginia. 

But more than that, what we find and what our teachers tell us 

is that our students are very respectful, they are engaged, they are 

eager to learn. Somebody said earlier, they run to school and then 

they walk to school and then they run away from school. That was 

said earlier, and when I heard that I was thinking about our school 

and our laboratory school program. Our children come to school, 

our families are engaged and we get them right through. 

It is not only what we find but here in the audience today we 

have other school representative who came from the conference 

down at Crystal City who are here. I want to recognize them, beVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
60 

cause this is hard work. I believe that because of the dedication, 

but I know all of you here today are the cheerleaders for our programs back home. So I want to recognize and give honor to the 

work that has been done, all the good work, and just share the 

need. We find our students, as I said, the teachers are telling us 

that they are very respectful and eager to learn. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just for the heck of it, if you are representing a 

school that teaches Native languages anywhere in the Country, 

stand up. 

[Some audience members stand; applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Just for the record, there are too many to ask 

where you are all from. I would run out of time. Thank you. 

For the panelists, raise your hand if you have ever run out of 

ANA funding. Clarena, if you have ever run out of ANA funding. 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. SHORTBULL. We are about to, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you all can answer this, because you can talk 

about it. What do you do? What are your options if you run out of 

ANA funding? Clarena, we will start with you? 

Ms. BROCKIE. We struggle, of course, but we have people who are 

committed to keeping the program open. As I said in my longer testimony, we have private donors. We have foundations that are 

funding us. But we don’t have any Federal or State dollars, and we 

do our own fundraising for school supplies, for lunches. Donations 

are made in that way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shortbull? 

Mr. SHORTBULL. Well, right now the issue is, when our funding 

runs out it is going to be a dilemma for us. Right now we can support it. But if we go through another sequestration bout, or we go 

through some Congressional people are on a different bent on 

things, we get loss of funding, then there is really going to be a 

question mark as to if we can sustain these programs, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Delgado? 

Mr. DELGADO. As stated earlier, we lost our last two speakers a 

year ago. When I was teaching, we had three in the school who 

taught us, so we could teach our students. We also took students 

in and taught the functional speakers, who now teach. Without 

them, without our functional teachers, without being able to create 

more, we will be handicapped in being able to transmit our language, not only to our schools but to our elders and those who want 

to learn. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Rawlins? 

Ms. RAWLINS. We also fund-raise, as a non-profit. We are fundraising all the time. And we stretch our dollars. When we get an 

ANA grant, it is for a specific project to develop what is a need at 

that point. 

But I do know that there are programs that when they lose that 

funding or when they end their grant, they have no way of sustaining, we may have to let go their director or some very crucial 

part of leadership in the program. That is not good. That is not 

sustaining some of the good work, some of the good momentum. 

The CHAIRMAN. Losing continuity. 

Ms. RAWLINS. Yes. 

61 

The CHAIRMAN. So this question is for those who want to answer 

it. I don’t know if it applies to you or not, Ms. Rawlins, but it 

might. By more securely tethering Native students to their heritage, immersion programs may also be able to connect speakers of 

Dakota and Salish and Cherokee and other languages across Native communities. I say it may not apply to you, but it might, too. 

And if it does, I want you to answer this. 

Do you believe that immersion programs serve to connect Indian 

students throughout Indian Country in addition to strengthening 

inter-tribal connections? Clarena? 

Ms. BROCKIE. I am not sure I know what you mean. 

The CHAIRMAN. What I mean is that you are teaching White 

Clay, the fellow beside you is teaching Lakota. Are there connections between those two languages and between those two heritages that allow the tribes to inter-connect? 

Ms. BROCKIE. Well, we are both in the Plains area, we have some 

connection. But I think that, I don’t know how I would say this, 

but we share a lot of ceremonies together with other tribes. I think 

these people who are sitting up here know that. You go to a lot of 

people in our areas, we have sweats and we have pipe ceremonies, 

powwows. We have the Pan Indian thing going on that everybody 

does the jingle dress. So yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shortbull? 

Mr. SHORTBULL. In the 1970s, Dr. Bride wrote a book that said, 

once the students take the first four grades, they do very well. And 

all of a sudden, an identity crisis hits. We don’t want that identity 

crisis to hit our Indian students. We want them to be strong in 

their culture. 

As it relates to the interconnectivity between tribes, you see it 

at powwows all the time. People talk about their language, their 

culture. So there is that connection that they have in both trying 

to preserve their culture. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, anybody else? 

This is a question for you, Mr. Delgado, but it could be for any 

of you. Have you seen interest from non-Native folks in learning 

your language? 

Mr. DELGADO. I understand that in Pulaski, there are some 

classes going on right now and that some non-Indian students are 

participating in those, because they have friends who are Indians, 

and there are Indians and non-Indians going to school together, 

with a reservation right next to them. Also if you go back to 40 or 

50 years ago, the Oneida Reservation, we were just formulating 

into a constitutional reservation. 

Ther were actually, non-Indians and Indians all speaking the 

language. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Mr. DELGADO. They worked together, really close together. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shortbull? 

Mr. SHORTBULL. Mr. Chairman, a great irony of this, and there 

are American citizens, but we get a lot of Europeans that come to 

our Country and they live with Indian families. They become fluent 

speakers. The great irony is that the American citizens don’t want 

to do that. But the Germans, they dress up like us, they have clubs 

62 

and all of this stuff. So we have kind of an international impact 

on the reservation, but not an American impact. 

The CHAIRMAN. Clarena? 

Ms. BROCKIE. Mr. Chairman, I think in a way, you have to do 

something to protect your culture, your families, so they are not exploited. That is my way of thinking. There are some ceremonies 

that you have that non-Indians are not allowed to go into. And 

some ceremonies on some tribes that non-members are not allowed 

to go into. That is part of your tribal sovereignty. You have to decide for yourself what you are going to protect. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. RAWLINS. For us in Hawaii, we have a history of island and 

kingdom and nation of Hawaiian as the language. So we had commerce and people all over, Hawaiian was the language of the land. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is a question for you, Ms. Rawlins. Some of 

the discussion around my bill, S. 1948, revolves around distinction 

of funding for only immersion programs, rather than funding alternative methods of language instruction. Could you explain the importance of using immersion in teaching Native languages and how 

this method impacts language acquisition and learning? 

Ms. RAWLINS. The method of full immersion of the use of the language of instruction, that is the method, the methodology is the use 

of language and instruction in all content area. So over the 30 

years we have been doing this, the best practice is the full use of 

the language in reversing language loss and increasing fluency, 

and being able to deliver that all the way through in the curriculum through high school. 

The CHAIRMAN. Basically as a technique, immersion and its effect versus other methods of teaching tribal languages that are out 

there. 

Ms. RAWLINS. Right. That is our best practice, is full immersion. 

Mr. SHORTBULL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer that question. In the first year that we had our language program, we went 

bilingual, 50–50. Then the next year we said the majority will be 

in Lakota. But we finally concluded that the only way to learn the 

language effectively is through immersion. So that is where we are 

today. I believe that no other program will produce fluent speakers 

other than through immersion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Thank you. 

I want to touch on this very quickly, Ms. Rawlins, if you could. 

You touched on it in your testimony a little bit. Could you elaborate on some of the difficulties created or aggravated by ESEA as 

it concerns Native language instruction? 

Ms. RAWLINS. The challenge that we have is that, and I mentioned it as a one size fits all, is that the State of Hawaii has put 

in place, because of the Federal law, because of No Child Left Behind, that there is only one assessment, one statewide assessment, 

one State plan and one statewide assessment. And it is in English. 

So the challenge there is to have the assessment in the language 

of instruction. You have a State with an official language, yet we 

are not allowed to have that assessment in the language of instruction. And Puerto Rico is allowed to have their State assessment in 

the language of Puerto Rico, which is Spanish. So that has caused 

our parents, our families, to boycott the exam, because that does 

63 

not give the results, the good data that you need for the language 

of instruction. 

So because our families are not taking these exams, we are now 

at the bottom, as a school we are second to last as an under-performing school. And with that comes the consequence of being an 

under-performing school. Then it kicks in, you need to change your 

curriculum, change out your teachers, all of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hear you. And I agree with you. 

So Clarena and Tom and Ed and Namaka, I appreciate your 

being here today. I appreciate your testimony, I appreciate your 

commitment to tribal languages and culture. I think it is critically 

important. 

I have said it many times in this Committee, that there are 

many tribes that are facing third world conditions out there economically. I think that this is yet another opportunity to help pull 

up Indian Country economically and improve the quality of life. 

I want to thank you all for being here, thank you for traveling 

the distance you have. I know you believe in the importance of Native languages. 

Thank you all. For the record, the hearing record will remain 

open for two weeks from today. With that, the hearing is adjourned. One more thing, I want to thank the folks from the Department of Education and Health and Human Services for their 

testimony and thank you for sticking around to hear the second 

panel’s testimony. Thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

1 40 percent of all students participating in native language immersion programs are in Hawaii. 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I want to thank Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso for holding this 

important hearing today to consider S. 1948 and S. 2299, two bills that matter significantly to the indigenous people of America. 

For centuries, Native Americans faced unjust federal policies of relocation, assimilation and termination. Their homelands and communal lifestyles were targeted, 

families were torn apart; unique traditions and cultural practices were endangered 

and sometimes lost forever. In Hawaii, children were punished for speaking Hawaiian, in the same way that American Indians and Alaska Natives were punished for 

using their own native languages in school. By the early 1970s such policies had 

effectively pushed the Hawaiian language to the brink of extinction. 

For more than thirty years, Hawaiian educators, families, students, and the Native Hawaiian community have fought to save and revitalize their indigenous language. They began with early childhood language nests and added primary and secondary grades as the children advanced in grade levels. Now multiple generations 

have progressed through Hawaiian medium schools. Hawaiian medium education is 

available from preschool to the doctorate level. In fact, Hawaii is the only state in 

the nation that grants doctorate degrees in a native language. Hawaii also produces 

the most native language learners in the national public education system, with a 

record of 40 percent. 1 The immersion schools and language nests in Hawaii have 

become aspirational models for native language preservation in the United States 

and worldwide. 

The revival of the Hawaiian language has led to a cultural renaissance that revitalizes the Native Hawaiian arts—visual arts, performing arts, and language arts. 

It also strengthens and preserves a rich culture and identity that both Native Hawaiians and Hawaii residents embrace and appreciate. Today, a growing population 

of Native Hawaiian speakers helps to sustain and preserve the language. However, 

the hard work of revitalizing the Hawaiian language requires an ongoing and conscientious effort. The immersion schools and language grant programs supported by 

S. 1948 and S. 2299 will help to ensure the continued success in improving education and preserving native languages not only for Native Hawaiians, but also for 

American Indians and Native Alaskans. 

I look forward to advancing these bills to help reverse the loss of native languages 

and cultures in America. The diversity of native languages in our country is a 

unique cultural treasure that enriches us all. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL BUNDY, PH.D., SUPERINTENDENT, TWO EAGLE

RIVER ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FOR THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES

Introduction 

Our school is the Two Eagle River Alternative School for the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). Established in the 1970s, the school was developed out 

of concern for tribal students dropping out from local reservation public schools and 

having no other educational opportunities available to them. 

In my current role as superintendent for the Two Eagle River School and as the 

former superintendent for the Northern Cheyenne Tribal School, I bring my experience and perspective to the issues surrounding the leadership and management of 

two BIE funded tribal controlled schools within Montana. With over thirty years of 

experience in education in Alaska, Idaho and Montana, I have extensive knowledge 

and understanding of the causation and remediation required to improve student 

achievement. After only one year, our math scores raised 22 percent and our reading scores 19 percent at Two Eagle River School. Our school serves the CSKT FlatVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
66 

head Reservation and any tribal or Indian student who wishes to attend may do 

so. Of a special note, there are seven public schools within the boundaries of our 

reservation and yet students choose to attend our school for varying reasons. Parents and students who apply to our school report to us that they are not comfortable, are having difficulties fitting in or are seeking more acceptance than the 

public schools can offer. Students and parents want a greater connection to their 

culture and many public school teachers are not accepting or understanding of their 

unique needs. 

The purpose of this paper is to shine a light on issues BIE funded grant schools 

are facing and struggle with daily. Our mission is clear and our goals are attainable, 

but if Indian education and student achievement are to rise in a sustainable way, 

certain problematic issues must be addressed. For example, salaries for teachers 

and administrators differ significantly within BIE funded schools by region and 

state. Our teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ salaries have been frozen for three years 

and they are paid less than all surrounding public schools. Benefits such as health 

insurance and retirement are critical for the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers. Working conditions and facilities vary greatly which adds to the challenge of recruiting to teach in a tribal school. Technology is absolutely essential for 

a modern school but without a reliable source of equipment or technology funding, 

computers become old, outdated and unreliable. Teachers want and expect the tools 

to teach students properly each day. Our school currently has a budget of $245.00 

for technology and all of our computers need updating or replacing. Technology requires IT staff to maintain or administer instructional software yet most schools 

give this responsibility to a staff member who may or may not have the expertise 

to adequately perform this task. Administrators are told to just go write a grant in 

order to add a new program or update computers. Educational technology is not an 

elective function to be purchased by a windfall of grant dollars but requires a systematic process for continual maintenance and replacement. 

As the educational leader for our school and tribal community, the following 

issues I wish to share with you. I realize certain issues or programs that require 

funding are dependent on congressional appropriations, however equity and fairness 

is an important element in the responsibility to raise student achievement. 

1.) Lack of Adequate ISEP Funding 

Two Eagle River Alternative School (TERS) serves students 8th through 12th 

grade in Western Montana. Our ISEP weighted student fund average is $8,925. In 

Montana, with equalization payments, basic Average Daily Membership (ADM), 

teacher quality payments and impact aid, public schools on the reservation receive 

over $14,600 per student in attendance. TERS receives $5,773 less per student compared to the public schools on our reservation in Montana. This past fall, our 2013 

enrollment was 104 students for which an equivalent amount of funding as the public schools would require an additional $577,000. Our ISEP funds every element of 

our school including personnel costs (salaries and benefits), instructional supplies, 

textbooks, student organizations, student activities, and other general fund expenditures. This disparity is difficult to overcome when trying to offer instructional programs of equal merit to students of a tribally controlled grant school. This year, due 

to changes in health insurance costs to the tribe under the affordable care act our 

school budget increase for this item was nearly $200,000. This additional expense 

comes at a time in the same year 6 percent of funding was withheld due to sequestration. No allowance for increased benefit costs are planned or adjusted for in ISEP 

or administrative funding with the new health care law implementation. 

2.) Title I Funds 

To date, Two Eagle River School has not received this year’s funding for Title I. 

In years’ past funding was received in July or early fall but always much earlier 

than this year. Communication between TERS and BIE has been slow or absent. 

It is difficult to count on and pay employee salaries when we do not know if a problem exists or if funding has been reduced or eliminated. We have been requested 

to prepare our Title I budget which we have done using last year’s information, but 

we are still unsure if changes are occurring. Since Title I funds are such a large 

and important part of our school budget, I cannot imagine why we have not received 

our funds. Title program funding needs to be available at the beginning of our 

school year in order for us to effectively plan and use this towards assisting our students. 

3.) Vocational Funding 

An extremely important aspect of any public high school is the preparation for the 

world of work beyond graduation. Many students may choose to enter college but 

67 

most will seek training in vocational programs. Currently, the BIE does not fund 

any form of vocational education. Although a year of vocational education is a graduation requirement in Montana, as well as in most states, no funding is allocated 

for this area of education. With a national emphasis on jobs and job-related skill 

development, I find this to be a missing link for many of my American Indian students. Resources must be found to support this important aspect of Indian education, and at this time this is not occurring. 

4.) Impact Aid/Johnson O’Malley 

At present, 100 percent of our students reside on tribal reservation lands, however, as a BIE funded school our students are not eligible for impact aid. Public 

schools inside of our reservation are eligible for impact aide in lieu of taxes to offset 

loss of funding. We have seven public schools on our reservation and they receive 

both state aid and impact aid. Grant schools are similar to charter schools and charter schools are eligible under the impact aid law. Tribal grant schools same as charter schools should be allowed to apply for impact aid to supplement their budgets. 

Tribal grant schools should be given the same consideration as other ‘heavily impacted’ districts similar to districts with military or defense property. Although not 

a taxing authority, a tribal school’s expenditures does require higher costs for both 

additional essential staff positions and for a high quality teaching staff. Additional 

personnel costs for positions such as dean of students, instructional coach, school 

family liaison, school resource officer and counseling services are required to address 

the unique social and cultural needs of our students and families. 

From the DOE website: 

Since 1950, Congress has provided financial assistance to these local school districts through the Impact Aid Program. Impact Aid was designed to assist local 

school districts that have lost property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt Federal property, or that have experienced increased expenditures due to the 

enrollment of federally connected children, including children living on Indian lands. 

The Impact Aid Law (now Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA)) provides assistance to local school districts with concentrations 

of children residing on Indian lands, military bases, low-rent housing properties, or 

other Federal properties and, to a lesser extent, concentrations of children who have 

parents in the uniformed services or employed on eligible Federal properties who 

do not live on Federal property. 

Further, Johnson O’Malley funds supplemented schools with Indian students for 

years and was a valuable part of providing supplemental assistance for Indian students. Today as an example, school funding at TERS has been reduced in the last 

few years from approximately $11,000 to $2,000. This small amount is not enough 

to effectively be weaved into any instructional program. 

We currently are a SIG improvement grantee and have made valuable gains in 

reading and math. The concern is sustainability beyond year three of the grant. 

Schools tend to balloon during grant years but have to scale back once the last year 

of funding is complete. Without sustained funding, programs and personnel are 

trimmed and the school returns to a former state of struggle and minimal accomplishment. 

5.) Administrative Costs 

Although our administrative costs are reasonable, the CSKT tribe requires all indirect funding and administrative funds remain with the tribe. Additional administrative costs are supported from our ISEP Funds. By having to use ISEP funds for 

this purpose, less ISEP funds are available for teacher salaries, benefits, technology 

purchases and school supplies etc. Administrative funding should be adequate to 

cover all expenses and need to be available to the school. 

As in our previous example, with additional healthcare costs and the necessity to 

recruit and retain high quality teachers, administrative costs should reflect the reality of increased expenses all schools are experiencing. 

6.) Timeliness of Funds 

Stable funding is necessary to plan and budget for effective school management. 

Consistent and reliable schedules for the planned deposit of these funds into school 

accounts are also necessary for good school management. Funds currently arrive at 

undetermined and different times due to the ineffective manner in which funds are 

released. Presently, TERS has not received any Title I funds and has only received 

limited maintenance and operation funds. Employee salaries are being paid from 

other funds and a request to the Tribal Council is being prepared in order to purchase heating oil for the upcoming winter if maintenance and operation funds do 

68 

not arrive soon. In addition, I am not able to adequately present to my school Board 

an annual budget. Without predictable funding amounts early enough to plan prior 

to the start of the current school year, I am unable to present to my school Board 

a well-developed budget based upon the needs of my students. Earlier this fall, I 

received a budget amendment that was incorrectly assigned to a reading program 

we do not have at our school. I called my ELO and have sent the amendment back 

for correction and have not received any correspondence as to its status in over 

three months. Even with follow up requests no reply has been received. A more efficient and timely funding schedule needs to be developed. Discretionary funds do 

vary as grants are approved, but entitlement funds require a more effective fiduciary mechanism of accountability and tracking of deposits into school accounts. 

7.) Teacher Recruitment and Retention 

With less funding per student than public schools in our region, high quality 

teachers have numerous choices to accept positions with a public school or a BIE 

funded school. Even if salaries were relatively the same (which they are not), benefits in nearby rural and urban communities in the areas of health insurance and 

state retirement programs lure our teachers away. For example, while at the BIE 

funded Northern Cheyenne Tribal School, I initiated new staff development programs and fully enriched my staff in innovative ways of increasing student achievement. However, by years’ end my teachers were being recruited away to nearby public schools. I asked the superintendent of a nearby school why he wanted my staff 

and his comment was, ‘‘You have the best trained staff and we need help with our 

underperforming students’’. Therefore, as I invest in my staff with necessary staff 

development, and if salaries and benefits are not competitive, I lose them to nearby 

schools. This is a serious problem considering how important consistency is in instructional delivery and continued implementation of programs. 

8.) Professional Development for Administration 

Lastly, in my four years as superintendent of a BIE funded tribally controlled 

grant school, I have been offered very little training in the area of BIE procedures 

and guidelines. Conflicts have arisen due to certain expectations or reports not 

being completed in a timely manner. I was unfamiliar with federal procedures which 

are quite different from my training in the public school sector. This lack of training 

sets the stage for poorly managed schools and schools that may not operate efficiently. I understand the vastness of the BIE operating in twenty three states; however, with high turnover, some mentorship by senior administrators or trainers 

would have been very helpful. I had to seek private training because the BIE held 

no trainings or orientation throughout my last four years of service. This can be 

very frustrating and will lead to high turnover of administration. 

I cannot speak exactly to the internal workings of the BIE as I am not a BIE employee. After a very successful career in public education, I sought a new challenge 

and wanted to make a difference by helping minority or Indian students be successful. I had experience in working with Alaska Native students and served as the superintendent of School District #304 on the Nezperce Reservation in Kamiah, Idaho 

before taking the superintendent position at the Northern Cheyenne Tribal School. 

What I now know is that the BIE is an organization tasked with managing Indian 

Education, but is not directed by professional educators and administrators but 

rather by individuals that that are more business or compliance oriented individuals. A heavy reliance on consultants and vendors seems to be necessary to oversee 

schools rather than assist and develop school site based leadership specific to Indian 

community schools. It is always the people in the field that are in daily contact with 

students and parents that ultimately move successful schools forward. A closer 

working relationship with tribal community schools and the BIE needs to be cultivated. The BIE needs to culture an organization perceived by tribal communities 

in partnership through education and support rather than only compliance monitoring. At present, the BIE is seen as a source of funding but with little respect as 

a professional learning and educational agency. Schools are a place of learning and 

most importantly a people business. Education is a business of nurturing future 

leaders, citizens and scholars, not building widgets on an assembly line. 

Working to improve student achievement requires several factors including 

thoughtful use of resources, strategic planning, and effective administrative leadership. Issues surrounding funding are of a concern because schools should focus their 

time and energy towards professional growth of staff and the improvement and execution of instructional programs. I present these comments in hopeful manner that 

consideration will be given to each of these items. 

69 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NIEA) 

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the Committee, tribal 

leaders and Native advocates have consistently listed education as a top priority for 

our communities. As such, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) is excited that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has heard the collective call and 

is working to highlight the condition of Native education across all grade levels in 

order to find solutions to persistant problems. As NIEA and Native education stakeholders have stated for years, equal opportunities from early to higher education are 

critical to the future of tribal nations and Native communities. 

The renewed commitment of this Committee and its focus on improving all education systems serving Native students is critical. We are happy to see legislation 

introduced that supports the strengthening of these education systems through language immersion and cultural teaching models. As part of our continuing partnership to ensure equitable education opportunities for Native students, we are excited 

to echo the broad, overwhelming support we have heard from Indian Country and 

provide this testimony in staunch support of the following Senate Bills: 

• S. 1948—A bill to promote the academic achievement of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native 

American language grant program; and 

• S. 2299—A bill to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to reauthorize a provision to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native 

American languages. 

NIEA, founded in 1969, is the most inclusive Native organization in the country 

representing Native students, educators, families, communities, and tribes. NIEA’s 

mission is to advance comprehensive educational opportunities for all American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians throughout the United States. From 

communities in Hawaii, to tribal reservations across the continental U.S., to villages 

in Alaska, to urban communities in major cities, NIEA has the most reach of any 

Native education organization in the country. By serving as the critical link between 

our communities and education institutions, NIEA hopes the Committee will take 

our testimony into consideration as you act on this legislation. 

Native Education Crisis Due to Federal Mismanagement 

As all of us realize, Native education is in a state of emergency partly due to the 

inability of the Federal Government to uphold its trust responsibility. Native students lag behind their peers on every educational indicator, from academic achievement to high school and college graduation rates. In 2010, only one in four Native 

high school graduates who took the ACT scored at the college-ready level in math, 

and only one in three for reading. In the same year, more than half of the majority 

students in high school tested at college-ready levels, illustrating the persistent 

readiness gap among Native and non-Native students. As Native students leave 

high school underprepared for higher education, academic failure or extensive remediation become commonplace for Native students. In the last decade, only 52 percent 

of Native students enrolled in higher education programs immediately after high 

school graduation and fewer than 40 percent of those students graduated with a 

bachelor’s degree in six years. In contrast, nearly 62 percent of White students graduated within six years. 

Native Student Demographics Snapshot 

• 378,000, or 93 percent of Native students, attend U.S. public schools, comprising 0.7 percent of the total public school population, with the remainder attending federal Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) operated, charter, or triballycontrolled schools. 

• Of all Native students, 33 percent live in poverty, compared to 12 percent of 

White students. 

• 29 percent of these students attend high-poverty city public schools, compared 

to 6 percent of White students. 

• In 2012, 17 percent of Native students age 25 and older held at least a bachelor’s degree in comparison to 33 percent of White students. 

70 

1 National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, United States Department of Education.National Indian EducationStudy. 2011 .(NCES 2012–466). http:// 

nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies/ 2 Contents largely drawn from McCarty, T. L. (2011). State of the field: The role of Native languages and cultures in American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian student achievement. Tempe, AZ: Center for Indian Education; and Demmert, W.G., Jr. (2001). Improving academic performance among Native American students: A review of the research literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small School. 3McCarty, T. L. (2011). 

4McCarty, T. (2013). Language planning and policy in Native America: History, theory, 

praxis. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. 

• In 2012, 6 percent of Native students held an advanced graduate degree (i.e., 

M.A., M.S., Ph.D., M.D., or J.D), as compared to 12 percent of the White population. 1

• Of the 210 Native languages still spoken in the United States and Canada, only 

34 (16 percent) continue to be taught as a first language to Native children. 2

The Trust Responsibility to Native Education 

Since its inception, NIEA’s work has centered on reversing these negative trends, 

a feat that is possible only if the federal government upholds its trust responsibility 

to tribes. Established through treaties, federal law, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, this relationship includes a fiduciary obligation to provide parity in access and 

equal resources to all American Indian and Alaska Native students, regardless of 

where they attend school. Under the federal government’s trust corpus in the field 

of Indian education, it is important to state that the obligation is a shared trust 

among the Administration and Congress for federally-recognized Indian tribes. 

To the extent that measurable trust standards in Indian education can be evaluated, NIEA suggests this Committee refer to the government’s own studies encompassing Native test scores, treaty-based appropriation decreases, and Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) Reports, among other reports, which illustrate the continued inability of the federal government to uphold the trust responsibility and effectively serve our students. Too often, the trust responsibility is broken as Nativeserving institutions are unable to receive the funding they require to support critical 

educational services, such as language immersion programs. 

As the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Commissioner Lillian 

Sparks Robinson outlined in her recent testimony to this Committee, ‘‘the unmet demand [for language immersion] remains high.’’ Although tribes and Native communities have consistently provided broad-based support for language immersion education models, the existing investment opportunities are not meeting demand and 

therefore, should be increased. Unless the federal government provides Native students equal education opportunities and learning through immersion, it will be 

nearly impossible for our future generations to be prepared for academic achievement and consequently, success in college and careers. 

Strengthen Native Language and Culture to Raise Student Outcomes 

Native language revitalization and preservation is a critical priority to tribes and 

Native communities because language preservation goes to the heart of Native identity. In many ways, language is culture. Learning and understanding their own languages helps Native students thrive and is a critical piece to ensuring schools serve 

Native students effectively. Immersion programs thereby serve the dual purpose of 

increasing academic achievement and guaranteeing that a student’s language will 

be carried forward for generations. 

For example, students with sustained, cumulative Native language and cultural 

instruction perform as well as, or better than, their peers in mainstream classes on 

completing academically challenging tasks. 3 Furthermore, those students who enter 

school with a primary language other than the school language (i.e., English) perform significantly better on academic tasks when they receive constant and cumulative academic support in the primary language for a minimum of four to seven 

years, illustrating the need for sustained, longitudinal immersion funding. 

As comprehensive academic achievement remains elusive for many Native populations, language immersion courses provide an opportunity to improve student outcomes. Strong programs with elements like Native language and cultural immersion, language and culture maintenance, and dual language and one-way immersion 

programs contribute to improved attendance and college enrollment rates, lower attrition, and enhanced teacher-student and school-community relations. 4

For example, longitudinal data from the Rough Rock English-Navajo Language 

Arts Program, which serves approximately 200 students each year in Kindergarten 

71 

5McCarty, 2011, pp. 6–7. 

through sixth grade, illustrate that after four years in the program, average student 

scores on criterion-referenced tests of English comprehension increased from 58 percent to 91 percent. On standardized reading tests, Native students’ scores initially 

declined, but then rose steadily, in some cases, approaching or exceeding national 

averages. When individual and grade cohort data were analyzed over five years, students attending the Rough Rock Program demonstrated superior English reading, 

language arts, and mathematics performance compared to a matched peer group 

who did not participate in the program. 5

Congressional Intent over Agency Interpretation 

Unfortunately, legal barriers and agency interpretation often inhibit our communities from providing such services to Native students. While our communities’ 

unique cultural and linguistic traditions are critical cornerstones for providing relevant, high-quality instruction as part of an education, current education statutes 

and improper agency interpretation often gravely obstruct Native students from attaining the same level of academic achievement as the majority of students. 

P.L. 100–297, Tribally Controlled Grant Schools Act, and P.L. 93–638, Indian Self 

Determination and Education Assistance Act, as well as P.L. 109–394, Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006 and the Native American Languages Act of 1990, all promote a policy of self-determination and investment in Native languages, including language immersion schools. Further, the 

White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education promises 

to support opportunity expansion and outcome improvement for Native students by 

promoting education in Native languages and histories. Yet, legal and regulatory 

structures that undermine these aims persist. 

NIEA is proud of the exemplary immersion models, such as those at Niigaane 

Ojibwemovin Immersion Program and School serving the Leech Lake Band of 

Ojibwe and Rough Rock English-Navajo Language Arts Program serving the Navajo 

Nation—both of which have won the prestigious NIEA Cultural Freedom Award for 

their efforts in full-day language immersion. Unfortunately, federal agency interpretation under varying Administrations as well as enacted administrative procedures 

produced under No Child Left Behind—the current iteration of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—often restrict tribes and Native communities 

from running such schools because language programs are often interpreted to be 

at odds with the ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ model mandated under the ESEA. 

ESEA’s performance standards do not take into account language diversification. 

As such, successful language programs, like those listed above, as well immersion 

programs in Hawaii, are often considered underachieving. While Puerto Rico—the 

only exception allowed under ESEA—has the authority to provide education instruction in a language other than English, tribes and Native-serving schools are not afforded this same understanding and deference when providing assessments to their 

students. Too often, the regulations created under ESEA require testing to take 

place only in English—even if the Native language is utilized as the primary medium of instruction and recognized as a state’s official language. This drives down 

assessment scores and initiates interventions for schools that were considered successful prior to ESEA. Such obstacles are simply unfair for schools that are working 

successfully to protect and strengthen Native languages and increase student outcomes through immersion instruction. 

NIEA Legislative Recommendations: S. 1948 and S. 2299 

To begin addressing this issue, NIEA requests that the congressional intent of 

self-determination and Native language support behind statutes, rather than the 

agency interpretation of ESEA and other law, be enforced so that tribes and Native 

communities have the ability to deliver effective education programs. NIEA was excited to see Senate Bills 1948 and 2299 introduced because these legislative measures provide some necessary resources for strengthening language immersion and 

cultural learning. While NIEA has several minor suggestions for improving the bills 

under consideration, the recommendations do not negate our stalwart support for 

the legislation. 

NIEA has decades of testimony and membership resolutions that support Native 

languages and learning through language immersion (NIEA Resolutions 2007–08; 

2008–03; 2009–07; etc.). To accompany those official NIEA actions, we request the 

recent June 2014 NIEA support letters be submitted for the record to accompany 

this testimony. We also recommend that the Committee utilize the numerous support letters submitted by Native communities, tribes, and organizations as it works 

to move the bills. Prior to the introduction of this language, large organizations such 

72 

as the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) provided broad-based support letters 

calling for increased immersion resources and many tribes have since submitted letters supporting the introduction of the bills. As such, we hope the Committee will 

move quickly to incorporate our recommendations, garner additional congressional 

support, and move the bills toward Senate passage. 

I. Senate Bill 1948 

While we have stated concerns with Administration and agency actions that diminish the ability to institute language immersion programs, we were excited to see 

President Obama endorse Native language immersion programs during his speech 

to Indian Country on June 13, 2014. As such, we hope this will usher in a new level 

of support for Native language learning. Now is the time to turn the initiatives described in the December 2, 2011 Executive Order 13592—Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities—into action and support Native languages through this critical legislation that works to support immersion learning. 

Senate Bill 1948 works toward the Executive Order and provides a means to 

strengthen Native languages and increase academic outcomes. Native language immersion—one of NIEA’s key ESEA reauthorization recommendations—is a critical 

priority to tribes and Native communities and is a crucial piece to ensuring schools 

educate Native students effectively. NIEA also supports the bill’s corresponding appropriation authorization of $5 million to fund its new immersion program. 

This is critical because additional funding ensures that existing programmatic 

funds under ESEA Title VII are not reduced. It is the policy of NIEA that any new 

programs or authorizations must do no harm to existing Title VII programs. While 

immersion schools need and deserve federal support, this funding must be additional to and separate from that which currently exists under Title VII as there is 

already inadequate funding under the ESEA Native education title. NIEA looks forward to working with the Committee to identify suitable offsets for S.1948 to support the bill’s goals to advance immersion schools. 

Furthermore, NIEA submits our joint organizational comments with this testimony requesting that S. 1948 include greater tribal authority over immersion programs by defining Indian tribes as ‘‘eligible entities’’ to receive grants. We also recommend the elimination of the requirement that grant monies correlate to language 

immersion success via increased graduation rates. This could be misconstrued to 

contradict the original intent of Title VII, which is based on enhancing the cultural 

traditions of students, not outcomes. While increasing outcomes could be the result 

of language immersion programs, the original intent of Title VII should be upheld 

as Congress initially stipulated. 

While we are strong supporters of the language in its current iteration, we hope 

the suggested additions will be incorporated to ensure inclusivity as well as reinforcement of the original intent of ESEA Title VII. 

NIEA Recommendations 

• Enforce congressional intent of self-determination and Native language law, 

rather than agency interpretation of ESEA, so that tribes and Native communities have the ability to deliver effective education programs. 

• Work with NIEA to identify suitable offsets for S. 1948 outside of ESEA Title 

VII to support the bill’s goals to advance immersion schools. 

• Include NIEA joint organizational recommendations within the language to ensure tribes are ‘‘eligible entities’’ as well as uphold the original intent of Title 

VII. 

• Collaborate with NIEA to create a ‘‘Dear Colleague Letter’’ to garner support 

for marking up the language and moving the bill to a full Senate vote during 

the 113th Congress. 

• Ensure any ESEA Reauthorization that progresses includes the Native language immersion grant program. 

II. Senate Bill 2299 

While Congress continues to appropriate funds to the Administration for Native 

Americans (ANA) under HHS, this bipartisan bill is crucial for reauthorizing a noncontroversial program that efficiently and effectively provides grants to revitalize 

Native languages. Currently, ANA provides competitive grants, training, and technical assistance to tribes and Native communities. Under the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006, ANA administers grants for language immersion and restoration programs, which are attributed to saving endangered Native languages and providing culturally-respectful education systems. 

73 

Due to continuing unmet need and insufficient funds under these programs, NIEA 

supports the recommendations highlighted in Commissioner Sparks Robinson’s testimony provided before this Committee that highlights the need to extend funding 

cycles for Language Preservation and Maintenance projects in order to increase sustainability and effectiveness. Funding should be provided for five year intervals, 

rather than the current length of three years. This extension would provide grantees 

the opportunity to develop fluent speakers, build and strengthen partnerships, and 

secure funds to track success and best practices, rather than participating only in 

the initial planning and implementation stages. 

Furthermore, we request that the required number of participants be lowered 

from ten to five students for language nests and from fifteen to ten students for survival schools, so that smaller communities, such as remote Alaska Native villages 

with small populations, have the opportunity to apply and compete for crucial language preservation funds. We also think it sensible to review the timeframe for the 

reauthorization of Esther Martinez. While a five year reauthorization is often standard, due to the recent partisanship in Congress and the non-controversial nature of 

the ANA program, it could be prudent to extend the reauthorization period from five 

year intervals to seven or ten year authorization periods. 

NIEA Recommendations: 

• Work with NIEA to garner support for marking up the language and moving 

the bill to a full Senate vote during the 113th Congress. 

• Analyze the opportunity to extend the reauthorization period from five years to 

a longer period of time. 

• Extend the programmatic grant period from three to five years to ensure sustainability. 

• Decrease the required number of participants so that smaller communities have 

the opportunity to participate. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate the hard work of Chairman Tester, Senator Johnson, and the bipartisan group of co-sponsors for introducing these critical legislative pieces, and we 

look forward to seeing these bills move out of Committee to become law. Furthermore, NIEA appreciates the continued support of this Committee and the leadership 

it has provided to receive comments on S. 1948 and S. 2299. NIEA enthusiastically 

supports both measures, and we look forward to working closely with the Committee 

to move these bills forward. In addition to this legislative hearing, we also appreciate the 2014 education hearing series because we cannot confront the challenges 

facing our Native students one facet at a time. Only by working with all stakeholders in all education systems will we increase our students’ preparedness for success. Once again, thank you for this opportunity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN WILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO SAVE

NATIVE LANGUAGES

Introduction 

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee. My 

name is Ryan Wilson, President of the National Alliance to Save Native Languages. 

I am honored to submit written testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee to 

provide the views of the Alliance on the importance and benefits of Native language 

immersion schools as they relate to S. 1948. 

The Alliance is highly supportive of the Native Language Immersion Student 

Achievement Act, and believes it supports a distinct purpose separate than that of 

ANA Language programs authorized under the Esther Martinez Native American 

Languages Preservation Act. 

Current Crisis in Indian Education 

Improving the educational achievement and academic progress of American Indians is a high priority of Indian country, this Committee, and the Obama Administration. The United States has a unique political and legal relationship with American Indian tribal governments and a special historic responsibility for the education 

of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Recent reports carried out by the U.S. Department of Education continue to reiterate the academic failure of American Indian 

and Alaska Native students. See National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(2011); National Indian Education Study (2011); The Education Trust, ‘‘State of 

Education for Native Students,’’ (2013). 

74 

* The information referred to can be found at http://center-for-indian-education.asu.edu/sites/ 

center-for-indian-education.asu.edu/files/ 

McCarty,%20Role%20of%20Native%20Lgs%20&%20Cults%20in%20AI-ANNH%20Student%20Achievement%20[2]%20(071511).pdf 

In order to further the Federal Government’s commitment to improving the educational outcomes of American Indian and Alaska Native students and improving 

the quality and performance of schools and education programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives, a comprehensive Native Language Development and Culturally Based Education policy is needed to: (1) help tribal governments meet the 

linguistically unique educational needs of their children, including the need to preserve, revitalize, and use Native languages; (2) promote American Indian and Alaska Native tribal language immersion schools and develop the capacity of tribal communities to build successful immersion schools; (3) protect tribal language immersion schools from the promulgation of adverse rules, assessments, and regulations 

from federal agencies that are incongruent with existing statutes concerning Native 

language use; and (4) promote intergovernmental (tribal/federal) collaboration and 

partnership. 

S. 1948, ‘‘Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act’’ 

The Alliance views S. 1948 as a response to broad based concern that Tribal Immersion Schools receive both support and legitimacy from the Department of Education and in particular inclusion within the broader Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act. S. 1948 is correctly placed in Title VII of the ESEA, the Indian Education Act title. S. 1948 aligns appropriately with Title VII and honors the Congressional Intent of Title VII. 

Federal Indian education policy and trust responsibility is derived from the special legal and political relationship between Indian nations and the federal government. Title VII within the ESEA is the primary statute charged with the responsibility to discharge the federal trust responsibility for Indian education within the 

Department of Education. 

The severe criticism of Indian education in the 1969 report of the Senate Special 

Subcommittee on Indian Education ‘‘Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge (Kennedy Report)’’ elicited a substantial response from Congress. In 

the Education Amendments Act of 1972, a special title ‘‘The Indian Education Act,’’ 

provided extensive support for the education of Indian students and established new 

administrative structures in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to 

carry out the work. The Indian Education Act was signed into law June 23rd 1972. 

The act has survived numerous ESEA reauthorizations and budget challenges but 

has never been fully implemented. The No Child Left Behind Act has diminished 

Title VII and circumvented the Congressional intent of the Indian Education Act. 

It is time to strengthen Title VII and modernize the statute to reflect a growing 

body of research that substantiates immersion schools as a best academic practice 

for Native students (See ‘‘State of the Field’’ by Dr. Teresa McCarty). * 

The National Indian Education Association conducted under President David 

Beaulieu an extensive investigation into Title VII programs that included 11 field 

hearings in 2005. What NIEA documented through acquiring testimony of over 100 

witnesses was that Title VII programs specifically the 1300 formula grant programs 

were being directed/steered towards sponsoring academic activities clearly authorized under Title I of the ESEA. Impactful and meaningful supplemental cultural 

programming including Native language instruction were being eliminated and the 

statute to address the unique cultural needs of Native learners was not being implemented. 

The Alliance believes that passage of S. 1948 will strengthen the Indian Education Act and protect Title VII from being a surrogate of Title I. If Title VII continues to emulate Title I the threat is very real that it loses its unique purpose as 

a standalone title in the ESEA. Prior to introduction of S. 1948, the Alliance, National Indian Education Association, National Congress of American Indians, Great 

Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, 

United Tribes of North Dakota, Alaska Federation of Natives and numerous individual tribes and organizations called for the introduction of legislation that would 

create a grant program in Title VII of the ESEA to support Immersion Schools. 

After Chairman Tester introduced S. 1948 the Navajo Nation, Eight Northern Pueblos and Affiliated Tribes Northwest Indians endorsed this legislation. There is broad 

based support for strengthening The Indian Education Act through passage of S. 

1948 which would amend Title VII. 

75 

Existing Authorities 

Executive Order 13592, ‘‘White House Initiative on Improving Indian Education,’’ 

promises Native learners the opportunity to learn their Native Languages. Additionally, Public Laws 93- 638, 100–297, offer the promise self-determination and tribal 

control of BIE schools. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 Public Law 

101–477 and the Esther Martinez Native American Preservation Act Public Law 

109–394 promote a policy of investing in Native languages and supporting Tribal 

Language Immersion Schools. Finally, the Snyder Act Public Law 67–85 broadly authorizes Congress to appropriate resources for such activities in the Department of 

Interior and grants considerable flexibility to the Administration to support and initiate new activities in the area of Indian Affairs. 

None of these existing statutes and the Obama Executive Order protect immersion schools from the policy in-congruence that NCLB creates. This statutory conflict 

places immersion schools and tribal communities who wish to organize/create immersion schools at a distinct disadvantage. S. 1948 would codify in statute both support through resources and as a matter of federal Indian education policy an endorsement of immersion schools as legitimate educational venues worthy of federal 

investment. 

Common Core, Race to the Top, assessment models utilized by states and the proposed BIE realignment will not accommodate immersion schools or make room for 

them. This places a heightened importance on S. 1948 and the urgent need to create 

a place for immersion schools. 

Widespread Calls for Native Language Immersion Schools 

Education Secretary Duncan and former Interior Secretary Salazar met with Indian education experts during the first year of the Administration to gain advisement on Indian education issues. All in attendance including myself articulated the 

urgent need for the Administration to engage in a meaningful way on Native language immersion schools and incorporating Native languages into culturally based 

education. The Administration met with tribal leaders and formed a National Tribal 

Leaders Education Task Force. This Task Force echoed the same concern regarding 

immersion schools, Native languages, and culturally based education. The Administration also engaged Indian Country in Indian education consultation hearings and 

received volumes of testimony supporting immersion schools and culturally based 

education. Further, the National Advisory Council on Indian Education has included 

in its annual reports recommendations supporting immersion schools for Indian 

Country. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and National Indian 

Education Association (NIEA) joint recommendations for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization call for a formula grant program for Native 

language immersion schools. Broad based support exist for tribal language immersion schools, Indian country could not have expressed support for these schools any 

clearer to the Administration. 

It is the position of NCAI and the coalition of Native organizations that are a part 

of the NCAI Native Language Working Group/Task Force, including the National 

Alliance to Save Native Languages, that language plays a significant role in influencing academic performance and general well-being of Native peoples. This position 

was first reflected in the Meriam Report of 1928 and reinforced in each of the following: the U.S. Senate Report, Indian Education: A National Tragedy, A National 

Challenge (1969); the Indian Education Act of 1972 (Title VII, NCLB); the Indian 

Nations At Risk Report (1991); the White House Conference on Indian Education 

(1992); federal policy through the Native American Languages Act (1990);federal 

policy through the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act 

(2006); and three Presidential Executive Orders (Clinton, 1998, Bush, 2004, Obama 

2011). 

Shortcomings of the Current Approach 

Unfortunately, Executive Order 13592 has not been effective in achieving its proposed policy goal because it does not offer a program or pathway to execute a strategy for supporting or creating venues where Native learners have an opportunity 

to learn their Native languages. Furthermore, budget cuts and assessment models 

that do not account for culturally based education or instruction have meant that 

the unique linguistic needs of Native learners have not been met, stalling development of tribal language immersion schools and immersion programs. Unstable leadership within the BIE, the pending restructuring of the BIE, and difficulty forecasting budget challenges have created a climate of retreat. Native language instruction under the Obama Administration has decreased, not increased. 

Additionally, there exists no support for continued development of tribal language 

immersion schools within the leadership of the BIE/BIA and Department of Interior, 

76 

the White House Initiative on Indian Education and the Department of Education. 

The Obama Administration appears to be confused on this issue despite the clear 

message Indian country has repeatedly sent. The Administration has co-mingled 

Native language instruction, history, culture and immersion as if they are one in 

the same. The Administrations’ approach to supporting existing immersion schools 

is at best in-coherent and at worst in opposition. 

The White House Initiative on Indian Education Executive Director Bill 

Mendoza’s testimony during the June 18th hearing was symptomatic of a deeper 

systemic problem within this Administration. Director Mendoza listed a number of 

programs within the Department of Education and Interior that support language 

instruction but none of these programs directly support Immersion schools, none 

exist exclusively for immersion schools. It appears the Administration supports Indian being taught as a course (presumably for 50 minutes a day), but not Indian 

languages being used as the medium of instruction as they are used in immersion 

schools. All of the programs Director Mendoza listed existed before the life of the 

current Administration. 

The inability of the Administration to have a position on S. 1948 despite the bill 

being introduced on January 16th 2014 nearly half a year ago is reflective of this 

Administrations apathy towards Native languages and immersion schools. 

In his historic visit to Indian country on June 13th President Obama stated ‘‘and 

even as they prepare for a global economy, we want children, like these wonderful 

young children here, learning about their language and learning their culture, just 

like the boys and girls do at Lakota Language Nest here at Standing Rock. We want 

to make sure that continues and we build on that success—and you don’t have to 

give up your culture to also be a part of the American family. That’s what I believe 

and coming here today makes me believe it that much more’’. 

The President was referring to an immersion school the Lakota Language Nest, 

yet the Administration was unable to have a position on S. 1948 the following week 

(even though S.1948 is the only legislative effort in the 113th Congress supporting 

immersion schools). In the context of the Administration’s ESEA Blue Print which 

promises support for Immersion, the White House Initiative which promises Native 

students an opportunity to learn their Native languages, and existing statutes 

which could advance immersion schools. This is unacceptable to Indian country. 

Need for Increased Federal Support 

The Administration for Native Americans, housed in the Department of Health 

and Human Services, does offer planning grants to launch immersion efforts 

through its Esther Martinez programs. Although these investments are vital to initiate immersion activities they are not sustainable because they have a three year 

maximum award. These hotly contested dollars are among the most competitive and 

are not designed to ensure programs’ long-term solvency. Sustainable federal support for tribal language immersion schools simply does not exist. BIE, Public, and 

Community Based schools that wish to engage in the development of tribal language 

immersion schools need federal support. This federal support must be additional to 

and separate from that which currently exists to support school operations. If Congress is to carry out its commitments to self-determination, sovereignty, and protection and revitalization of Native languages, it must provide resources for tribal language immersion schools. This funding is also essential to enabling BIE to complete 

its mission, Title VII to execute Congressional intent as well as to fulfilling the 

promises of President Obama’s Executive Order on Indian Education. 

Conclusion 

Indian Country believes that we have a sacred birthright, treaty right, policy 

mandate, and existing statutory vehicles for continued use and development of our 

tribal languages, cultures, and ceremonial practices—all of which are essential for 

our general well-being and identity as American Indian, and Alaska Native peoples. 

Our interest in achieving high levels of academic performance requires support for 

S. 1948, which is required by the demands of a multi-cultural and multi-lingual 

world. Native learners and their communities/parents who are seeking the benefits 

of tribal language immersion and culturally based education must have the opportunity to attend and participate in educational venues that promote fluency in their 

heritage language. By any education and socioeconomic measure American Indian 

and Alaska Native children lag behind the general population. This deficit in equality of educational opportunity has grown during the Obama Administration. The 

Native American Languages Act, Indian Education Act, Tribally Controlled Schools 

Act and when enacted Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act need 

to co-exist with the ESEA, BIE realignment and Common Core. Both Congress and 

the Administration must ensure the continuation of the federal governments trust 

77 

responsibility and permit an orderly transition from exclusive English based instruction to Native language as the medium of instruction for those tribal communities 

who have both the capacity and desire to engage in Immersion. S. 1948 makes a 

significant commitment to do so and offers America an opportunity to grant its Indian nations their fullest and freest use of Native languages. 

We affirm with the highest conviction that there are significant cognitive, psychological, and academic benefits for our children and communities who can participate 

in tribal language immersion schools. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and for considering this much-needed legislation The Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE HARPER, DIRECTOR, NIIGAANE OJIBWEMOWIN

IMMERSION

Gidanimikooninim, esteemed Committee Members. I greet you all and thank you 

for introducing the proposed bills, and for the opportunity to testify in support of 

the importance of our Native Languages, Culture-Based Education, and their connection to success for Native students. I will present testimony that describes, 

through our in-service field experience of the last ten years, the ways in which funding and public policy incongruence both supports and interrupts the transmission 

of educational content through the medium of our identified indigenous language of 

Ojibwe, and will reinforce needs that the proposed S. 1948 and S. 2299 can serve 

to meet. 

I support S. 2299, a bill to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to 

ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American Languages. This Act 

and according funding has supported our community to build capacity to deliver 

Ojibwe language revitalization and maintenance efforts across multiple generations 

and multiple entry points at our Leech Lake Nation. I would like to focus the remainder of testimony on support for the newly introduced S. 1948 and I urge 

amendments to the bill that will align the Native American Languages Act of 1990 

(NALA) with the No Child Left Behind, as the current ESEA is also known. I support the amendments to S. 1948 as provided in the testimony by Namaka Rawlins 

today in her testimony to this Committee. I was present at the 2014 Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium, and participated in the examination of the proposed bill, and articulation of the amendments that will align the intent of S. 1948 

with the delivery at our local levels. 

I am an enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. I serve at Niigaane 

Ojibwemowin Immersion, an elementary education site that provides over 1,000 

hours per year of Ojibwe-medium education to 40 students of our Leech Lake Band 

of Ojibwe communities. Our students enter our site speaking English as the language of the home, so our site serves a two-fold purpose to revitalize Ojibwe language and to express our educational sovereignty. We are in our tenth year of operation at our site, during which we have grown a grade per year from Kindergarten 

to 6th grade. Niigaane operates within the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe tribally-chartered Bureau of Indian Education Bugonaygeshig School at the Leech lake reservation in Minnesota. 

Expressions of our indigenous Native cultures have led to deeper examinations of 

leadership and decisionmaking ideals and community operations systems that are 

specific to our Native communities. We are broadly expressing an alternative decisionmaking structure in operating our immersion education sites, as is the original 

intent of educational sovereignty. However, policy mandates create barriers to operating our tribal schools in our languages as a tribally designed way. We are unfunded, essentially, due to Highly Qualified teacher designations and assessments 

in a language other than Language of Instruction, among other ESEA requirements. 

Jurisdiction of our schools is not tribally controlled or determined, nor even BIEmonitored, but is individually determined by states. Title I Accountability factors 

supercede Title VII and Native American Languages Act (P.L. 101–477) policies that 

are supposed to support our student success by recognizing the unique linguistic 

and cultural needs of our Native students. This clearly values the American 

monolingual sytems over our multilingual systems. At our Niigaane site, we have 

created a pathway to success in a way that looks different, but works as well as 

or better than monolingual English-medium education. Our students matriculate 

out at 6th grade to other English-medium schools in the region, and we informally 

track their progress. 100 percent of our students who have matriculated from our 

program are performing at or above the level of their English-monolingual peers on 

English-medium measures of academic progress in the high schools to which they 

have transferred. These students have the added benefit of being functionally bilinVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
78 

gual at an age much younger than the average Minnesota student. Research on 

multilingualism has long recognized that language learning produces higher-level 

cognitive functioning and higher-level social and cultural competence than does 

monolingualism. 

Our school requires a family to commit to volunteer at the school in order to improve our site and offerings, thus involving multiple generations of our people in our 

education site; only a few decades ago, our families were intimidated or uninterested 

in participating in the public school educational sites because they did not reflect 

our Ojibwe community. This amazing turnaround results in up to 1,000 hours per 

year of volunteer resources, which we could not afford to purchase within our already insufficient level of funding. To report on HS graduation rates of our students 

will require a ten-year longitudinal data collection system; however, we are confident in our strategies because we have adapted successful strategies from other 

indigenous immersion education sites that are showing success in this area. 

There does not currently exist in statute an annual funding stream exclusively for 

Native Language immersion schools. S. 1948 must maintain the intent to create a 

dedicated fund for Native language immersion site efforts. 

We need to strengthen language in this bill to serve students in immersion education sites to teach and measure in our languages in a way that is linguistically 

and culturally congruent to our educational goals. 

• Contract between the Department of Education and Language Immersion school 

site LEAs. This will allow us to forecast funding to support our operations, and 

we can use grant funding for capacity-building projects. We must guarantee 

that the funding will go to the targeted students who are being educated in the 

medium of the Native language, and not just being swallowed up by school districts. Strengthening the language in the proposed bill to require application 

and reporting on targeted students will ensure this. 

• Definitions and guidelines exist in NALA regarding the use of Native American 

languages as the medium of instruction to encourage and support student success. However, it is unfunded. Subsequent amendments in 1992 and 1996 provided an amount of funding, but landed in a competitive grant process, which 

does not provide stability for the programs or schools. Secure funding is necessary to support self-determination through education. 

• We must recognize that these schools or programs operate in different structures such as BIE schools, public schools, and tribal or locally operated programs and ensure inclusion for all varied program types, languages, and states. 

• Site-specific targeted proficiency standards must be trusted. Oral proficiency included in academic achievement assessments in the Language of Instruction 

(rather than a language in which the students are not educated, English). 

• High school graduation rate and other data relevant to career and community 

participation standards should be included in the reporting by the language immersion site. For our people, educational outcomes include High School graduation rates and the consideration of career and community integration to sustain 

our local communities. Standardized test scores on English assessments will 

never accurately predict educational outcomes for students who are educated in 

the Native Language for all academic and social content. 

• We need a new option to fulfill federal requirements relative to uniform state 

plans. Our Native language immersion education sites must describe a schoolspecific method with Native American language of instruction appropriate 

standards, assessments of students and teachers. 

We feel that our locally determined route to language and culture revitalization 

through the medium of Ojibwe language immersion education for all academic and 

social contexts will benefit our nation far into the future by developing new members of the Ojibwe Nation who are grounded in Ojibwean ideals of citizenship. These 

benefits will extend to any context or community in which these Niigaane Ojibwe 

Immersion students—Ojibwe citizens—may find themselves, and will continue to 

positively contribute to the knowledge base of the world. 

We have determined locally that our population will be well-served by Ojibwe-culturally based education, and we seek the funding support to continue to develop our 

efforts, and continued investigation into public policy and funding appropriations 

that support our efforts. 

Miigwech weweni gaa’inendameg, thank you for your kind consideration. 

79 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BROOKE MOSAY AMMANN, DIRECTOR, WAADOOKODAADING

OJIBWE LANGUAGE IMMERSION SCHOOL

Boozhoo Anishinaabedog, Aaniin gakina awiya. Niiyogaabawiikwe nindizhinikaaz. 

Migizi nindoodem. Inaandagokaag indoonjibaa. Odaawaa-zaaga’iganing indaa dash 

indanokii iwidi. Miigwech bizindawaiyeg. 

Thank you for listening to me. I am specifically addressing and testifying in regards to S. 1948, a bill to promote the academic achievement of American Indian, 

Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native 

American language grant program within the Department of Education. Senator 

Tester, I appreciate your introduction of the bill and all of the lawmakers who have 

taken the initiative to support its movement. 

My name is Brooke Mosay Ammann, and I am the Director of Waadookodaading 

Ojibwe Language Immersion School on the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe reservation 

in northern Wisconsin. I am also the parent of two students at the school. The mission of our school is to create proficient speakers of the Ojibwe language who are 

able to meet the challenges of our rapidly changing world. We do this through teaching our children grade level skills in standard academic subjects through the medium of the Ojibwe language. Our students are proficient in both Ojibwe and 

English. 

Waadookodaading ended our school year with fifty-three students in the preschool 

through fourth grades. We have twenty-four students on the wait list for next year 

that we will not be able to accommodate. Although our school is a public charter, 

we are located on tribal lands and our authorizing school district is only obligated 

to offer us pass through funds for each student. We hold classes in federal surplus 

modular building units that are aging and worn, held together by determination and 

hope. We are responsible for finding the funding to support ourselves. 

Our school is in the fourteenth year of operation. We have thus far only gone 

through the fifth grade, starting with just eight students in preschool and educating 

them for as long as we could before we sent them off to mainstream English language medium classrooms. As I was present for the meeting at the Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium referenced in the testimony delivered by Namaka 

Rawlins of ‘Aha Punana Leo, I must record that I concur with her sentiments regarding the difficulties federal policy creates for those of us revitalizing our Native 

American languages through a school based model. Waadookodaading also had the 

chance to review the bill and contribute to the changes she has submitted, with 

which we also agree. 

Although we are not able to provide graduation and college attendance data at 

this time, I would like to outline the impact of the Ojibwe language immersion 

school on our community. Waadookodaading is not just revitalizing our Ojibwe language it is revitalizing our community. 

The Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation is located within Sawyer County, which has 

the second highest poverty rate in the state. The Tribe’s BIA Labor Force Report 

for 2013 documents an unemployment rate of 50 percent. Like many rural impoverished communities, we have seen the brightest students and community members 

move on from the small town life to seek personal economic and career opportunities 

elsewhere. This ‘‘brain drain’’ is especially evident in the education field, as rural 

school districts struggle to attract quality teaching and administrative talent. And 

as is the case nationwide, indigenous communities and rural reservation areas feel 

the impact of this trend the most. American Indian teachers are not teaching American Indian students, and our youth struggle with making connections to these important role models either because of a cultural disconnect or because teachers use 

reservation schools as stepping stones on the path to higher paying assignments. 

Though on a small scale, our school is reversing the brain drain. At 

Waadookodaading, 100 percent of the staff is Ojibwe, 83 percent of the teaching 

staff have a Master’s Degree or higher, 100 percent of the staff considers Ojibwe 

their 1st or 2nd language, and 81 percent are enrolled in federally recognized tribes, 

with half of them representing their home community of Lac Courte Oreilles. The 

other half moved to the community with the goal of working at Waadookodaading. 

Beyond attracting dedicated teachers and staff to the community, there are students 

currently enrolled in teacher training programs with the explicit goal of becoming 

certified teachers fluent in the Ojibwe language. Their goal after program completion is to return to the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation to teach at 

Waadookodaading. We have parents and consultants who are working on Doctoral 

degrees in linguistics with a focus on the Ojibwe language who were inspired by the 

work of Waadookodaading teachers. Skilled first language Ojibwe speakers who 

were once physically and emotionally abused by schoolteachers have found their 

way back to the classrooms to create stories and curriculum and develop teacher voVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
80 

cabulary. Our young adults see that speaking Ojibwe is an asset, and can be the 

foundation of a career in which a person can be earn money and build a career in 

our beautiful Wisconsin homeland. Ojibwe language medium education is the type 

of teaching and education reform that historically disenfranchised people are willing 

to support, and even devote their lives toward advancing. 

In closing, S. 1948 is a much needed, natural step in the progression of growth 

of the Native American language medium school movement. While we are grateful 

for and support the continuation of the Administration for Native American Native 

Language Revitalization funds, and especially those of the Esther Martinez Initiative, those funds are limited and recent changes favor new initiatives. Those of us 

that have led the way in piloting the American Indian language medium schools 

have proven that this is a valid approach to improving community school engagement and American Indian student outcomes. This past school year, 

Waadookodaading had six programs from the United States and Canada visiting 

and observing, looking for guidance as they begin their own Native American language medium schools. It is time for the Native American language medium school 

to be recognized and funded as the vital component of the American educational 

landscape it has become. 

Miigwech miinawaa bizindawiyeg. Thank you for listening to me. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. SULLIVAN SR., PROFESSOR, THE COLLEGE OF

ST. SCHOLASTICA

Boozhoo ogimaadog! Giwii-miigwechiwi’ininim weweni omaa gii-pi-nakondameg 

da-bizindaweg agiw Anishinaabeg endazhiikangig yo’ow sa 

indanishinaabemowininaan. Mii omaa wendimaang yo’ow mino-bimaadiziwin gaapi-inenimiyangid a’aw Manidoo. Aaniish naa ogii-maamiinaan aniw akina 

bemaadizinijin odinwewini da-inwenid. Mii sa yo’ow sa gaa-pi-miinigoowiziyaang 

enishinaabewiyaang. Apegish sa noo naa wii-pi-onjiniketaageyeg dawiidookawegwaa agiw Anishinaabeg waakwajitoojig da-bi-giiwewidoowaad 

odinwewiniwaan. 

Greetings respected leaders. I would like to thank you all for taking the time to 

hear from those Native peoples who are working hard to stabilize our indigenous 

languages. It is from our precious languages that we are able to life the good life 

that our Creator intended us to live. After all, it is our belief that our Creator has 

given each walk of life their specific way to make their sound, to communicate with 

their babies, and maintain a connection with our spiritual realm. I hope and pray 

that each of you take the time to make an effort to assist with this most important 

work of bringing our languages back into our homes and schools. 

As a young Ojibwe man raised on the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation, I have witnessed first-hand the decline and subsequent revival of our Ojibwe language. As a 

boy, everyone of my grandmother’s generation spoke Ojibwe yet no one of my mother’s generation can communicate in the language of their parents. Year after year, 

we consistently lost speaker after speaker as our elders grew old and were eventually called home by our Creator. Year after year our language declined, both in 

quantitative numbers of speakers and perhaps more importantly, in the domains in 

which our language is used. That all changed 14 years ago with the birth of 

Waadookodaading, our Ojibwe language immersion school and the shining pearl of 

the Ojibwe language revitalization movement. We no longer are losing speakers; we 

are producing them. Because of this school, we now have over 60 children that have 

achieved advanced proficiency in their heritage language. Though this not a massive 

number, it is the highest percentage of Ojibwe speaking children in the United 

States. Not only is our language used in the school, but also through the school we 

have been successful in expanding the domains in which we use our language. 

As a college professor and linguist, I have a unique perspective to provide to your 

committee. I have personally witnessed the benefits of Waadookodaading in our 

community. It has often been said that regaining our indigenous languages does 

something magical to our heart, mind, body, and soul. For the first time ever on 

our reservation, our children are educated by young, healthy, sober, traditional individuals who want nothing more than to pass on this healthy lifestyle to our children. Having 3 children of my own in the immersion school has been an uplifting 

and motivating journey for myself as a warrior for our language. I have a 10-yearold song that, among other things, can explain technical concepts such as mathematics and geography in our Ojibwe language. I have a 6-year-old son who can inquire about the world in our Ojibwe language. I have a 5-year-old daughter who 

knows the days of the weeks, months of the year, and places in our community only 

81 

1 25 U.S.C. § 2903 (1) (2014). 

by their Ojibwe names. All of this we have gained from the school, the number one 

domain in which our language was never spoken. 

It should be stated that our children in immersion do not only learn their tribal 

languages while engaged in their academic content, but they also learn about and 

engage in a healthy lifestyle. From our seasonal subsistence harvest activities to the 

songs and dances of our people, our children are taught to be proud of who they 

are, where they come from and where they are going. This is a new direction in 

American Indian education. As advocates for our languages and activists amongst 

our people, we no longer point the finger at ‘‘the man’’ for what has been done to 

us; we now look inward, pointing the finger at those who perpetuate the dysfunction 

that has plagued our communities since the birth of the boarding schools. Indeed, 

this is a new direction in American Indian activism. 

As elected officials with significant Native populations within your respective constituencies, I assume you are all well aware of the tragic history of American Indian 

educational policy and the unspeakable experiences that our elders endured. It is 

a miracle that our language has survived. It is a miracle that we as a people have 

survived the effort to eliminate the ‘‘Indian Problem’’. Ironically, it is schools, the 

very institutions put forth to make us better Americans have now become the place 

where we make ourselves better Indians. In a country that was founded on the principle of freedom, especially that of the freedom of religion, it is rather disturbing 

that practicing our own spirituality has only been legal since the passing of the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, (Public Law No. 95–341, 92 Stat. 469 

1978). Coincidentally, many of us engaged in language revitalization work grew up 

with this newfound freedom. Had our colonizing founding fathers considered the 

‘‘American Dream’’ for us too, perhaps an educational policy advocating for our own 

pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness would have been implemented. Perhaps our 

nation is now ready to share that dream with us. 

I ask you to keep in mind when dealing with our respective nations and the policies that will affect our educational agenda and ultimately, our language effort, consider how poorly the system put in place has failed us. We have the highest dropout 

rate for any race or ethnicity in America. The overwhelming majority of American 

Indian people have lost faith and trust in this imposed system of education that has 

taught us to hate ourselves. Perhaps if we could only be allowed to drive the car 

we could then get to where we need to be. 

Sadly, many of our schools operate on a year-to-year basis with no long-term reliable funding source. I urge you to consider the proposed modifications to S. 1948. 

With the success of indigenous language immersion education, such efforts should 

be supported, perhaps even mandated. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to 

hear my testimony, and for considering the proposed modifications to S. 1948. God 

bless. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF QUINTON ROMAN NOSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRIBAL

EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (TEDNA) 

Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barasso, I am Quinton Roman Nose, Executive Director of the Tribal Education Departments National Assembly (TEDNA), a 

national non-profit membership organization for the Education Departments of 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

to you today, and I thank Senator Tester and sponsors of the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act, S. 1948. TEDNA strongly supports S. 1948 and 

asks that the act be amended for additional strength, by defining and including Indian tribes and Tribal Education Departments or Agencies as ‘‘eligible entities’’ to 

receive grants. This amendment would allow for increased tribal control over language immersion programs and provide opportunity for increased educational success for American Indian students. 

A vital component of American Indian student success is culturally relevant curriculum that includes language immersion programs. The importance of language 

immersion programs has long been recognized by Congress in the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, P.L. 93–638, the Native American 

Languages Act of 1990, the Native American Programs Act of 1974, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. More specifically, the Native American Languages Act of 1990 explicitly stated policies to ‘‘preserve, protect, and promote the 

rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages,’’ 1 as well as to ‘‘encourage State and local education programs to 

82 

2 25 U.S.C. § 2903 (4) (2014). 3The State of Education for Native Students, The Education Trust (2013), 4, http:// 

www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/NativeStudentBriefl0.pdf. 4 Cherokee Nation, Keeping Language Alive: Immersion School Graduates More Students, Indian Country Today Media Network, (2014), http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ 

2014/05/24/keeping-language-alive-immersion-school-graduates-more-speakers-154888. 5 Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act: Hearing on S. 1948 Before the S. 

Comm. on Indian Affairs, 113th Cong. 3 (2014) (statement of Lillian Sparks, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans—U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act: Hearing on S. 1948 Before the S. 

Comm. on Indian Affairs, 113th Cong. 3 (2014) (statement of Thomas Shortbull, President, Oglala Lakota College). 

work with Native American parents, educators, Indian tribes, and other Native 

American governing bodies in the implementation of programs to put this policy into 

effect.’’ 2 Long established Congressional policy further recognizes that traditional 

languages are an integral part of American Indian cultures and identities and form 

the basic medium for the transmission, and thus survival, of American Indian cultures, literatures, histories, religions, political institutions, and values. S. 1948 furthers these policies. 

Nationwide, over 92 percent of American Indian students in K–12 are educated 

through State Education Agencies and public schools. 3 About 740 of these public 

schools are located on or near Indian reservations and over a dozen states have 

amended their laws to recognize the role that tribal histories, language, culture, and 

governments have in state public education. Even with these statistics, and numerous states actions to incorporate culturally relevant curriculum, today there is no 

federal law that explicitly recognizes the important role tribal governments should 

play in public school education. With the addition of tribes as eligible entities, the 

enactment of the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act will be a 

powerful move in the direction of tribal government inclusion in American Indian 

education. 

An avenue to increase success for American Indian students in elementary and 

secondary education is enhancing the capacity of Tribal Education Departments or 

Agencies (TEAs). The first TEA was created in 1991, when the Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

with the help of the Native American Rights Fund, enacted a tribal law creating 

a TEA in order to contribute to how and what public schools teach. Since then, more 

than 200 tribes across 32 states have formed TEAs as administrative agencies within their tribal governments and charged them with implementing educational goals 

and policies. Although TEAs have successfully improved educational services to 

American Indian public school students, they are constrained by existing law and 

hampered by a lack of resources. If amended to include Tribes as eligible entities, 

S. 1948 will enhance the capacity and role of TEAs. 

There are many examples of why tribes should be included. The Cherokee Nation 

Education Services, a TEA located in Oklahoma, operates the Sequoyah Schools system through a contract with the Bureau of Indian Education. The Sequoyah Schools 

language program has proven to be a successful model, graduating 6 sixth-graders 

and 10 kindergarten students in 2014. 4 In California, the Hoopa Valley Tribal Education department operates the Hoopa Valley Learning Center, a state and tribally 

funded program that provides student support services. 80 percent of the students 

begin the program as ‘‘at risk’’ students with failing grades, while 90 percent of 

these students finish the program with passing grades. The success of these programs show why tribes need to be more involved in American Indian education departments and to incorporate tribal histories, culture and language into the curriculum. 

As the Honorable Lillian Sparks, Commissioner of the Administration for Native 

Americans, pointed out, many tribes have successfully developed language programs 

with grants received from the Administration for Native Americans (ANA). 5 The 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, using an ANA grant, successfully increased Tlingit language 

skills in 102 youth and 40 adults by incorporating the Tlingit language into the 

Yakutat public school system. 6 Similarly, in Montana, the Fort Belknap College 

built upon the success of the White Clay Immersion School by hiring and training 

language teachers, developing curriculum, and creating an advisory council to guide 

curriculum. 7 Mr. Thomas Shortbull, President of the Oglala Lakota College likewise 

testified to the success of the Lakota Language Immersion School, operated by the 

Oglala Lakota College, which educates students, kindergarten through fifth grade, 

in the Lakota language. 8 Many other language programs and immersion schools operated by tribes across the country could benefit from being considered eligible entiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
83 

9 Norimitsu Onishi, In California, Saving a Language That Predates Spanish and English, 

N.Y. Times, April 13, 2014, at A13. 10 Id. 11 Cherokee Nation, Keeping Language Alive: Immersion School Graduates More Students, Indian Country Today Media Network, (2014), http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ 

2014/05/24/keeping-language-alive-immersion-school-graduates-more-speakers-154888. 

ties under S. 1948. However, ANA grant funding alone is not sufficient to support 

the need to expand existing immersion programs and replicate these successes for 

tribes where language immersion programs do not yet exist. 

The Yurok Tribe has developed a language immersion and education program 

which has become the model for many California tribes. 9 The Tribe has partnered 

with local school districts, bringing the Yurok language to the neighboring public 

schools. The Yurok language is now offered as classes, and one school offers a new 

Yurok immersion program. 10 The Cherokee Immersion Charter School, within the 

Sequoyah School system of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, graduates students 

who have learned grade level state standard curriculum while speaking only Cherokee. 11 These programs are taking significant steps to improve the educational statistics for American Indian students, as well as creating partnerships with public 

school districts. The success of these programs has greatly increased student success. However, there are not an abundant amount of programs and the existing programs struggle to continue. S. 1948 would allow further development and financial 

stability of established, as well as new, language immersion programs. 

In 2011, for the first time, Congress authorized direct federal appropriations for 

TEAs in the FY12 Appropriations Act. This was recognition by Congress of the important role TEAs have in operating and contributing to elementary and secondary 

education. Washington State also made an important recognition when WA HB– 

1134 was signed into law May 15, 2013. That bill provides for a co-governance 

model of education through the development of state-tribal compacts. 

The Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act recognizes the importance of Native American languages in delivering education to American Indian students. Not only has Congress found that the use of Native languages is an effective 

education tool for American Indian education but it has also found that the use of 

these languages in education also helps preserve the language itself. Both improved 

education and preservation of Native American languages is of utmost importance 

to the culture and identity of all tribes. 

Tribal governments will help save our Native languages. Under tribal law, under 

the laws of some states, and increasingly even under federal law, tribes and TEAs 

are in the best position to coordinate resources from tribal, federal, and state programs to focus on language immersion programs in schools and communities. Many 

TEAs are even developing and implementing the needed language preservation and 

immersion programs. As TEAs grow in numbers and capacity, they are successfully 

taking the lead in meeting the need for tribal language, culture, and history programs. As they grow in numbers and capacity, TEAs are consistently taking the 

lead in meeting the need for tribal language, culture, and history programs and curricula. 

TEDNA strongly supports the Native Language Immersion Student Act, and 

urges the Committee to strengthen the bill by adding Indian tribes and TEAs as 

‘‘eligible entities’’ to receive grants and I have attached proposed amendment language to this written testimony for your review. 

Again, I thank Senator Tester and the co-sponsors of S. 1948 for taking leadership 

on this vitally important issue. 

Attachment 

84 


618c1.eps
85 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE (UTTC) 

United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) submits this statement in support of S. 

1998, the Native Adult Education and Literacy Act of 2014. The legislation would 

provide a statutory allocation of funding under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act for tribal colleges and universities and Native Hawaiian education organizations. Likewise, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, of which we 

are a member, is strongly supporting a funding allocation under this Act for tribal 

colleges and universities. 

We thank Senators Hirono, Moran, Begich, Heinrich, and Schatz for their leadership in recognizing the need for more resources for Native education institutions to 

provide adult and literacy education for our constituencies. We expect others will 

join as cosponsors. 

For 45 years, United Tribes Technical College has provided postsecondary career 

and technical education, job training, remedial, literacy and family services to some 

of the most impoverished, high risk Indian students from throughout the nation. We 


618c2.eps
86 

are governed by the five tribes located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are 

not part of the North Dakota state college system and do not have a tax base or 

state-appropriated funds on which to rely. We have consistently had excellent retention and placement rates and are a fully accredited institution. 

Students at UTTC come from 75 different tribes, the preponderance from the 

Great Plains, the area of highest poverty in Indian country. Many are first generation college attendees. Eighty five percent (85 percent) of our students receive Pell 

Grants. Many of our students need developmental reading and/or mathematics 

courses. Over the past five years, 60 percent of our incoming freshmen took developmental math courses and 55 percent took developmental English courses. Twenty 

five percent of students took both developmental math and English. As you know, 

students must have a Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) before continuing in 

college, and this year the GED requirements for mathematics were substantially increased. We need the resources to help our students meet those requirements. 

In addition to the remedial courses noted above, we are trying to be pro-active 

in encouraging students to finish high school and to be ready for college. We have 

a dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school students, providing them an introduction to college life and offering high school and college credits. And our elementary school, Theodore Jamerson, which is located on our campus 

and funded through the Bureau of Indian Education, has a FACE program, a family 

literacy program. 

We are glad to offer remedial and other services for our students. Our core operating funding comes from the Bureau of Indian Education and the Section 117 Perkins program but these sources do not pay for remedial education. We cobble together funds from other sources for remedial education as we know that such an 

investment is needed in order to help ensure that our students succeed at the postsecondary level. 

The prospect of applying for a dedicated source of tribal college funds under the 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act would be of substantial help. Currently 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act funds are distributed via formula to 

states. Some of it does benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives, but a dedicated source that would fund tribally-designed programs could have a significant 

impact. In this Committee’s hearing of June 11, 2014 on Higher Education for Indian Students, witnesses provided a statistically dire picture of the status of Indian 

education even though good work is being done by the tribal colleges and organizations providing scholarships to Native students, both undergraduate and graduate. 

The need simply outstrips the resources by a long way. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing and others on Indian education. We are 

hopeful that S. 1998 will be included in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization agreement that has been reached between the Senate and House Education committees. We are pleased that the agreement reached on WIA took the Indian program provisions of the Senate, rather than the House, bill; the inclusion of 

the text of S. 1998 or something similar to it would improve it even more. 

NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Washington, DC, June 16, 2014 

Hon. TIM JOHNSON, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: NIEA SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL 2299—THE NATIVE AMERICAN

LANGUAGES REAUTHORIZATION ACT

Dear Senator Johnson, 

On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), I am excited for 

the introduction of the Native American Languages Reauthorization Act (S. 2299). 

This bipartisan bill is crucial for reauthorizing a non-controversial program that efficiently and effectively provides grants to revitalize Native languages. As the most 

inclusive Native education organization in the country, we are working hard to support your efforts to see this language become law. 

According to UNESCO, 74 Native languages stand to disappear within the next 

decade. Equally as alarming, scholars project that without immediate and persistent 

action, only 20 Native languages will be spoken by 2050. The Esther Martinez Initiative funds immersion programs that are successfully passing on Native languages 

to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. Native language 

revitalization is a critical priority because language preservation goes to the heart 

of Native identity. In many ways, language is culture. Learning and understanding 

87 

traditional languages help Native students thrive. And, immersion programs ensure 

the survival of a student’s language and cultural identity for generations. 

NIEA appreciates your attention to protecting and strengthening Native languages and looks forward to working with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

to move the bill to the full Senate. We also appreciate your continued dedication 

to our Native communities. Through our concerted efforts, we know that negative 

statistics representing our Native students will begin to reverse. 

RE: SUPPORT FOR S. 1948—THE NATIVE LANGUAGE IMMERSION STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT ACT

Dear Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso, 

On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), thank you for the 

renewed focus and energy of the Committee on Native education. The recent hearings on the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and public schools serving Native students created a strong foundation for collaboration. To build upon this momentum, 

NIEA respectfully requests that the Committee hold a hearing on Native languages 

and pass Senator Tester’s bill, S. 1948—The Native Language Immersion Student 

Achievement Act. 

NIEA, founded in 1969, is the most inclusive Native organization in the country— 

representing Native students, educators, families, communities, and tribes. NIEA’s 

mission is to advance comprehensive educational opportunities for all American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians throughout the United States. From 

communities in Hawaii, to tribal reservations across the continental U.S., to villages 

in Alaska and urban communities in major cities, NIEA has the most reach of any 

Native education organization in the country. 

NIEA supports Senate bill 1948 because it ensures that Native language immersion—one of NIEA’s key Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization priorities—is not overlooked, but strengthened. Native language revitalization and preservation is a critical priority to tribes and Native communities because 

language preservation goes to the heart of Native identity. In many ways, language 

is culture. Learning and understanding traditional languages helps Native students 

thrive and is a critical piece to ensuring schools serve Native students effectively. 

Immersion programs not only increase academic achievement, but guarantee that 

a student’s language will be carried forward for generations. 

Once again, thank you for your continued support of Native education. 

Sincerely, 

PAM AGOYO, 

President, National Indian Education Association. 

Dear Senate Committee on Indian Affairs: 

I am a member if the red lake band of Chippewa Indians. I am in support of S. 

1948, a bill to support academic achievement of American Indian, Alaska Native, 

and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native Languages grant 

program. Committee members should support the amendments to S. 1948 as provided by Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium participants in the testimony submitted by Namaka Rawlins for hearing on 6/18/2014. 

S. 2299 reauthorizes the Native American Language Preservation Act to 2019, 

which provides funds to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages. 

Thank you for taking the time to hear my testimony, 

ELIZABETH SAHKAHTAY STRONG

Dear Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

I urge support of S. 1948, a bill to support academic achievement of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native Languages grant program. Committee members should support the amendments to S. 1948 as provided by Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium participants in the testimony submitted by Namaka Rawlins for hearing on 6/18/2014. 

Please also support S. 2299, which reauthorizes the Native American Language 

Preservation Act to 2019, which provides funds to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages. 

Time and again studies have proven the economic and cognitive benefits for children learning multiple languages. I can personally attest to the restorative effect 

it has on Native communities, which as you know are still healing from generations 

of mistreatment and outright assimilation attempts from the United States governVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
88 

ment. It is beyond time for the U.S. to make amends to these sovereign nations, 

and it can begin by supporting indigenous language learning via S. 1948 and S. 

2299. Please, do the right thing and vote yes to the Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium amendments to S. 1948 and to both bills. 

Please also urge your colleagues to support the House companion bills H.B. 4214 

and H.R. 746. 

Best regards, 

JENNIFER HALL, 

Leech Lake Ojibwe descendant, proud Ojibwemowin learner. 

To Whom It May Concern, 

I urge support of S. 1948, a bill to support academic achievement of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native Languages grant program. Committee members should support the amendments to S. 1948 as provided by Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium participants in the testimony submitted by Namaka Rawlins for hearing on 6/18/2014. 

S. 2299 reauthorizes the Native American Language Preservation Act to 2019, 

which provides funds to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages. 

89 

NOKOMIS PAIZ

Red Lake, MN. 


618c3.eps
90 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

THOMAS SHORTBULL

Question 1. What is the best proven method to support language preservation and 

to ensure that native languages remain living languages, spoken by children as well 

as elders, in schools and in homes across native communities throughout the United 

States? 

Answer. In our tribe, the language has sporadically been taught in schools using 

methods that were inspired by methods used to teach foreign languages in mainstream schools. After thirty years these approaches have not produced any new 

speakers. The same can be said of language teaching at the college level. OLC is 

also working toward a modified immersion method for adult learners. We have tried 

a number of demonstrations and will be trying more. 

The Full Immersion method developed and implemented by the Maori and the 

Hawaiian communities has, by contrast, shown an undeniable success over thirty 

years of practice. The Full Immersion concept reenacts the conditions of the natural 

acquisition of the first language of a child. It utilizes fluent speakers, usually Elders, as teachers, and involves the families of the children. It ultimately involves 


618c4.eps
91 

the communities as the language becomes again a more widely and spontaneous 

way of inter-generational communication in private as well as in public. 

Question 2. Can you discuss the importance of having living languages and name 

some of the benefits as they relate to cognitive development, literacy, academic 

achievement, college attainment or other education and development goals? 

Answer. The language is the foundation of the identity as it carries the culture 

that is specific to it and is the element of distinction between one culture and others. This distinctive character is active and actual in the life of the speaker to the 

contrary of ‘‘blood degree’’ that is passive and abstract for the life of the individual. 

A child who is recognized as a Lakota and is brought up in and with the living language is de facto rooted in his/her very culture. The language spoken around him/ 

her by adults who are the current carriers of the unaltered culture validates the 

culture, and reinforces his/her personality, self-esteem, and motivation. The child 

has the best chance to become a productive member of the community as a leader, 

maker and/or a role model. 

The mastery of two languages, each relevant to part of the dual reality of life for 

the Native nations, allows the individual to comprehend and help others comprehend this complex reality and to figure out and model how to deal with each side 

of this reality. This helps the person maintain the authenticity of the identity and, 

at the same, time be able to efficiently address the necessities of life in 21st century 

America. Research shows that bi- or multi-lingual individuals have an enhanced 

ability to embrace complex realities, comprehend differences, and produce creative 

and effective ideas in problem-solving situations. 

Question 3. Can you address concerns expressed by critics of immersion or bilingual education programs that exposure to two or more languages simultaneously at 

a young age may delay or hamper language acquisition or proficiency? Does a child’s 

ability to speak multiple languages impact developmental milestones or academic 

achievement in later years? If so, how? Are there benefits of training a child to communicate in two or more languages? 

Answer. As the child learns simultaneously two different languages, the processing of information and acquisition of skills takes more time than if the child was 

working with one language only. However, as the child progresses in the one and 

the other language mastery, the processing of information becomes more effective, 

faster and the child develops original strategies to keep on progressing; this is particularly true of the memory functions [like storing/recalling] and mnemonic process 

[like associations, linear or circular links, formal or semantic connections for instance]. 

We refer you to the following research done by NEA: 

Regarding World Language Education NEA Research, December 2007 

The Benefits of Second Language Study Research Findings with Citations 

Status of U.S. second language study 1 

Research Findings: Second language study: 

. . .benefits academic progress in other subjects 2 

. . .narrows achievement gaps 3 

. . .benefits basic skills development 3 

. . .benefits higher order, abstract and creative thinking 4 

. . .(early) enriches and enhances cognitive development 4 

. . .enhances a student’s sense of achievement 4 

. . .helps students score higher on standardized tests 5 

. . .promotes cultural awareness and competency 5 

. . .improves chances of college acceptance, achievement and attainment 6 

. . .enhances career opportunities 6 

. . .benefits understanding and security in community and society 6 

. . .barriers 6 

Bibliography 7 

Web References 12 

Question 4. What are some of the spillover benefits of having immersion programs? Can you discuss any impacts or progress toward: 

a. Creating leaders 

Answer. The Lakota Language is carrying the culture, view of the world, values 

and meaning of life of the Lakota people, and, as such, is determinant in the choosing of men and women who will lead their people into the future in accordance with 

the deep Lakota identity. As leaders speakers of the language will be able to continue the mending of the society, communities and families by understanding what 

to restore to achieve the ability to successfully live in two worlds. Many of the greatVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
92 

est modern leaders of the Lakota are, or were, fluent in English and Lakota including Gerald One Feather, founder of Oglala Lakota College. 

b. Community building 

Answer. As carrier of the traditional language, these individuals will naturally be 

the point of crystallization whenever the community expresses a desire or need to 

revitalize a larger part of the culture. The original societal structure of the Lakota 

is the Tiyospaye (extended family), and the current communities reflect this specific 

aspect of the culture to which the Lakota Language confers meaning and significance much more than the English language does. 

c. Cultural identity/pride 

Answer. As we know that a language carries the culture and that without the language the culture cannot carry on , the speakers are acknowledged and recognized 

as the perpetuators of the true culture that is so distinctive of the Lakota people 

as a people (as is true for Cheyenne speakers for the Cheyenne people, Dine for the 

Dine people, etc. . .]. The speakers incarnate the identity, pride, self esteem and 

self assurance of their people. 

Question 5. Maintaining living native languages takes an immense amount of 

time, energy and resources to design appropriate curricula and learning materials. 

It is similarly challenging to cultivate native language instructors and professionals 

who can successfully educate pupils in the native language. Moreover, piecing together annual budgets from a number of different funding sources can be difficult. 

Are more resources needed to support the immersion language programs? And if so, 

why? 

Answer. Most immersion language programs are small, and face expenses that 

are comparatively greater than those of larger conventional schools. The utilities 

cost is more expensive at a per child ratio for a 40 child program than for a 300 

child school, and so is transportation. Extra curricular, sports, and cultural activities impose various types of expenses including gas for transportation, participation 

fees, acquisition of equipment, and meals. Very often this is either a barrier or at 

least limitation to these activities. Donations in monies and in kind are very often 

what we depend on in order to give our children the opportunity to partake in a 

hand games tournament or in archery. We are very limited at this time in terms 

of budget to provide continued training to our teaching staff which is crucial for the 

success of the full immersion programs. Oglala Lakota College makes a large contribution to just assure that we can continue a quality program. 

Question 6. Language is closely tied to one’s identity and self-confidence, and in 

communities, language teaches and reinforces the traditional culture and values. Do 

you have evidence or data comparing the psychological well-being or academic 

achievement of immersion students versus non-immersion native students? 

Answer. On this topic, I cannot provide verifiable data as the students who are 

enrolled in conventional schools do not fall into our data recording. However, our 

students show an effective internalization and practice of traditional cultural values 

such as respect of others and self respect. Outside observers such a an Administration for Native Americans ‘‘Impact Visit’’ agent and Lannan Foundation visiting 

team noted as striking the culturally relevant behavior displayed by the children, 

individually and as a group. Most students take an ostentatious pride in attending 

the school, ‘‘their school’’ in their own words, and in having a working knowledge 

of the their language. Some of them have been ‘‘importing’’ some language in their 

home. Some others proudly speak of using the language at home with their relatives, mostly their grandparents. 

Two former students have been transitioning from our program to conventional 

schools outside the reservation. One is in 5th grade in a rural area school not very 

far from the reservation and was a ‘‘straight A student’’ for the first year in the conventional school as a 4th grader. The other one finished her 4th grade in a conventional school in New jersey. She struggled for the first 4 months but passed on to 

5th grade, and based on a recent phone conversation with the parents is now totally 

adjusted and performing well. 

Question 7. In your work, have you noted whether native language proficiency and 

native cultural familiarity have any impact on the self-esteem and resiliency of native immersion students? 

Answer. Our program is still young and the observation of this type of impact is 

limited. However, we see most of our older students [4th and 5th graders] having 

a positive image of themselves as individuals, as members of a traditional family, 

and as a group by contrast with other children from conventional schools. This is 

observed in several families who reported the fact to us on various occasions like 

our Winter (Christmas) Celebration and Family Puppet Making workshop . Families 

93 

report often on their student spontaneously singing traditional songs at home that 

they learned at the school. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

CLARENA BROCKIE

Question 1. What is the best proven method to support language preservation and 

to ensure that native languages remain living languages, spoken by children as well 

as elders, in schools and in homes across native communities throughout the United 

States? 

Answer. Immersion Schools not only revitalize the language but preserve the cultural heritage, ceremonies, traditions and history. Native languages survive when 

it is spoken on a continual basis, in the home as well as in schools. In some communities the language is center when traditional ceremonies are conducted. 

Question 2. Can you discuss the importance of having living languages and name 

some of the benefits as they relate to cognitive development, literacy, academic 

achievement, college attainment or other education and development goals? 

Answer. In 2002 the White Clay Immersion opened a full Native Language immersion school operating under the Aaniiih Nakoda College in direct response to the 

reality that only 25 Aaniiih language fluent speaker remained in 1997. With research and planning the school was opened in 2002 under the direction of Dr. Lynette Chandler. Today there are no fluent elder Aaniiih speaker lives on the Fort 

Belknap Indian Reservation. Graduates from White Clay Immersion School have 

transitioned to public schools and are recognized by these schools as leaders in student government, academics and sports. They have received awards for Science, 

Math, English, Literature and Art. Of the original 2011 graduating class for WCIS, 

three of the four students have been inducted into the National Honor Society. 

These students are also on the student council, participate in Jobs for Montana 

Graduates, Indian Club, Yearbook, volunteer programs and lead the class awards 

at the end of the school year. 

Question 3. Can you address concerns expressed by critics of immersion or bilingual education programs that exposure to two or more languages simultaneously at 

a young age may delay or hamper language acquisition or proficiency? Does a child’s 

ability to speak multiple languages impact developmental milestones or academic 

achievement in later years? If so how? Are there benefits of training a child to communicate in two or more languages? 

Answer. As expressed in question two, the White Clay Immersion students have 

excelled beyond the average student. These students have transition without any 

difficulty and have continued to excel in the public school setting. 

Question 4. What are some of the spillover benefits of having immersion programs? Can you discuss any impacts or progress toward: (a) Creating Leaders (b) 

Community building (c) Cultural identity/pride. 

Answer. It is essential to the survival of the language that every effort is made 

to assure the continuance of the language that is in danger of being lost. It is more 

than a ‘‘spillover benefit.’’ The Language reveals who we are as Native people, building pride and cultural identity. However the Immersion schools provides a rounded 

education, including knowing the oral history, those that sustained the people, provided them guidance and knowledge on culturally what was important such as respect, generosity, listening to your elders, how to survive, learning from your mistakes, believing in the Creator, and spiritual guidance. With a good foundation, they 

become leaders in the community. 

Question 5. Maintaining living native languages takes an immense amount of 

time, energy and resources to design appropriate curricula and learning materials. 

It is similarly challenging to cultivate native language instructors and professionals 

who can successfully educate pupils in the native language. Moreover, piecing together annual budgets from a number of different funding sources can be difficult. 

Are more resources needed to support the immersion language programs? And if so, 

why? 

Answer. Yes. Financial resources are limited. Some private Public schools have 

restricts that immersion schools don’t always fit under. 

If language revitalization had to wait for funding, it would be very difficult to implement. When a language is in danger of being lost, those people must do whatever 

they can to assure that it continues. Sometimes it starts with classes in the home 

or from a small private grant to implement whys of retaining the language by 

hosting classes, paring language speakers with learners, having after school proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
94 

grams. But at some point immersion is needed to insure the retention of the language. 

Funding is sporadic, with constant grant writing meeting with foundations and 

local fundraisers. The Administration of Native American programs (ANA) has specific language that limits what you can do or every three years a new objective or 

direction is required. If the basic goal is to learn the language, the measure should 

be how many students have learned and retained the language. And the funding 

is limited to three years. 

Question 6. Language is closely tied to one’s identity and self-confidence, and in 

communities, language teaches and reinforces the traditional culture and values. Do 

you have evidence or data comparing the psychological well-being or academic 

achievement of immersion students versus non-immersion native students? 

Answer. The evidence we have is the success of the WCIS and how they are progressing. The first class of 2011 will be graduating next year and we will summarize 

their success academically, socially and culturally. 

Question 7. In your work, have you noted whether native language proficiency and 

native culture familiarity have any impact on the self-esteem and resiliency of native immersion students? 

Answer. The ANC White Class Immersion School had it first graduating class in 

2011 with only one other class and we have evaluations and measures in place for 

reviewing the success of the program. We realized that tracking graduates and gathering data is an important tool in measuring success. 

Summary: My answers are based on the White Clay Immersion School student’s 

success, experience and transition into the public school. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

HON. ED DELGADO

Question 1. What is the best proven method to support language preservation and 

to ensure that native languages remain living languages, spoken by children as well 

as elders, in schools and in homes across native communities throughout the United 

States? 

Answer. The best-proven method to ensure the survival of native languages is Indigenous Language Immersion. This form of immersion includes incorporating the 

Indigenous culture and using the Indigenous language as the medium of instruction 

for all subjects. 

Question 2. Can you discuss the importance of having living languages and name 

some of the benefits as they relate to cognitive development, literacy, academic 

achievement, college attainment or other education and development goals? 

Answer. The importance of having a living language is paramount for the survival 

of Indigenous identity, worldview, knowledge, ceremonies; in fact, a living language 

holds a whole world that includes every bit of information and knowledge about the 

universe from the point of view of the Indigenous people speaking that language. 

The language provides invaluable information of how to heal the Indigenous people 

physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually from the historical trauma experienced over many generations. The benefits for cognitive development are acquiring 

more complex skills at an earlier age and cognitive flexibility. In an environment 

where one’s own ancestral language is living and thriving it has positive impacts 

on the following cognitive skills: critical thinking, memory, problem solving and decision-making. Indigenous literacy includes oral tradition, culture, art; Indigenous 

literacy is beneficial to supporting a thriving, living language. The works of William 

Demmert cite that academic achievement is much higher in Native American children who know how to speak their language and participate in their culture. It provides them with a foundation of how to see the world and helps them navigate in 

the culture of academia from kindergarten to college and beyond. A living language 

affords the Indigenous community the ability to provide their young people with 

necessary tools to give them success in both their culture and mainstream society’s 

culture. 

Question 3. Can you address concerns expressed by critics of immersion or bilingual education programs that exposure to two or more languages simultaneously at 

a young age may delay or hamper language acquisition or proficiency? Does a child’s 

ability to speak multiple languages impact developmental milestones or academic 

achievement in later years? If so how? Are there benefits of training a child to communicate in two or more languages? 

Answer. The concerns expressed by critics of immersion or bilingual education are 

usually centered on students acquiring English and one other language. In the 

95 

arena of Indigenous Language Immersion, it only benefits a young person to have 

their ancestral language as their first language and/or bilingual in both their language and English. There are no delays or hampering of language acquisition or 

proficiency when it comes to educating Indigenous youth in their own language as 

well as English. A child’s ability to speak multiple languages only improves their 

success in reaching developmental milestones and achieving academically throughout their lives. Training a child to communicate in two or more languages provides 

the critical thinking skills to adapt intelligently to any environment whether academically or socially. 

Question 4. What are some of the spillover benefits of having immersion programs? Can you discuss any impacts or progress toward: (a) Creating Leaders (b) 

Community building (c) Cultural identity/pride. 

Answer. Some lasting benefits of having immersion programs are strengthening 

the community as a whole. The nature of Indigenous Language Immersion includes 

the participation of wide range of age groups. Within our families, we have experienced destruction of relationships via boarding schools and mainstream education. 

With immersion, families will need to work together to mend and maintain those 

relationships. When family relationships are strong, it builds a strong community. 

When our communities are strong we see a decrease in social ills and an increase 

in cultural identity and pride. 

Question 5. Maintaining living native languages takes an immense amount of 

time, energy and resources to design appropriate curricula and learning materials. 

It is similarly challenging to cultivate native language instructors and professionals 

who can successfully educate pupils in the native language. Moreover, piecing together annual budgets from a number of different funding sources can be difficult. 

Are more resources needed to support the immersion language programs? And if so, 

why? 

Answer. Yes, indeed, more funding resources are needed. In the particular, the 

language community in Oneida, WI is in the process of creating second language 

speakers in order to have an immersion or a bilingual program intended to create 

first language speakers of Oneida again. The amount of time and energy it takes 

to maintain one’s course to become a second language speaker at this point in our 

language’s history is a massive challenge. Our audio resources must utilized in the 

most efficient manner possible because we have no more first language speakers 

who are able to help us. New and creative media must be made with the previously 

recorded material in order to mirror the language exposure that one would have 

naturally. Strategic planning of funding resources must be based on producing quality resources and functional second language speakers. The work involved in growing our own fluent speaking Oneida teachers and then re-educating our community 

and youth is the most important effort that will echo for generations to come. 

Question 6. Language is closely tied to one’s identity and self-confidence, and in 

communities, language teaches and reinforces the traditional culture and values. Do 

you have evidence or data comparing the psychological well-being or academic 

achievement of immersion students versus non-immersion native students? 

Answer. We are in the beginning stages of documenting the kind of evidence and 

data that will compare Oneida students who are being taught with our current curriculum to those who are not using our current curriculum. Our community does 

not have Indigenous Language Immersion at this time.However, the current curriculum produced by the Oneida Language Revitalization Department, is being offered for credit at a nearby high school where data is being collected and will show 

improvements in academic success for the Oneida students learning language. 

Question 7. In your work, have you noted whether native language proficiency and 

native culture familiarity have any impact on the self-esteem and resiliency of native immersion students? 

Answer. The impact that native language proficiency and native cultural familiarity has on students is definitely positive. They show a pride in themselves that 

is authentic and not constructed from mainstream society’s culture. They know 

whom they are, where they come from and where they fit in or belong. Their selfconfidence and self-esteem soar, which helps with behavioral, issues as well as managing school work. Students show resiliency when faced with life’s problems or trauma because they have their traditional ways to rely on to get them through whatever kind of issues they may have. 

96 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

NAMAKA RAWLINS

Question 1. What is the best proven method to support language preservation and 

to ensure that native languages remain living languages, spoken by children as well 

as elders, in schools and in homes across native communities throughout the United 

States? 

Answer. The short answer to this question is that use of the language as the medium of instruction in schools and medium of communication between staff in native 

communities is the best-proven method to support language preservation and maintenance as living languages. I will address this question first with information from 

other countries, followed by our experience in Hawai’i and then discuss the spread 

of the model through our network of Native American language medium/immersion 

schools on a national level. 

Providing education through the medium of small locally distinct languages is a 

growing international phenomenon. The countries with the most experience in use 

of small autochthonous languages as the language of education are found in Western Europe, especially Scandinavia. Even for those countries, educational use of 

such small languages as the medium of normal public education is less than a century old. The advantage that Western Europeans have in developing this sort of 

education, however, is their long history of developing high multilingualism in their 

national school systems for their majority populations. These countries, therefore, 

have a high sensitivity to language use in schooling that makes it easier for them 

to see the benefits of education through small languages. 

Some examples of small Western European autochthonous language-speaking populations similar in size to Native American languages are the cases of the Faroese 

language, the dialect network of Romansh and the Sami languages discussed below. 

This is followed by the example of New Zealand Ma ̄ori and then a detailed description of the Hawaiian situation. The spread of the model to states outside Hawai’i 

closes this section. 

The Faroese Language of Denmark 

The Faroese language is spoken in the Faroe Islands, to the north of Scotland. 

These small islands are a part of Denmark, but run with a semi-autonomous government. That autonomous government has some similarities to tribal governments 

in the United States. The population of the Faroe Islands in 2013 was estimated 

to be 49,709, living in an area covering 540 square miles. Over fifty American Indian reservations are larger than the Faroe Islands, but most have smaller populations. 

In the early 1900s, there was fear that the unique Faroese language and culture 

would die out. The language had formerly been suppressed in the schools, churches 

and government. The people were considered backward and the education level was 

considered quite low. 

Today, both the language and the socio-economic situation are quite different. Almost 100 percent of the population of the Faroe Islands now speaks Faroese, with 

those who do not being residents who recently moved to the islands. The language 

is widely used in local religious institutions and also in the local government. The 

survival of the language is attributed to Danish government change in 1937, when 

Faroese replaced Danish as the language of instruction of all schools in the Faroe 

Islands. The language is spoken by all born and raised in the Faroe Islands, a demographic that makes up the vast majority of the some 50,000 people living in the islands. Education through Faroese includes preschool, K–12 education, and vocational training. There is also a small university similar to a tribal college in the 

Faroe Islands. The university offers a small set of courses at the bachelors, masters 

and doctoral level for the student population of 142. Teacher training through 

Faroese is also available. 

Although education is through Faroese, all Faroe Islanders also learn Danish and 

English in schools and are highly proficient in Danish. The government of the Faroe 

Islands provides special support for university students to study in mainstream 

Denmark through Danish and also to attend English medium universities outside 

Denmark. The Faroe Islands were once a socioeconomic backwater, but the community has done well educationally and socio-economically. Its Human Development 

Index (HDI) as rated by the United Nations is 0.950 (considered ‘‘very high’’). This 

is higher than that of Denmark as a whole at 0.900 (also considered ‘‘very high’’) 

and also that of the United States at 0.914. The revitalization of the Faroese language from the late 1930s using a modern educational system immersed in the local 

language can be considered very successful. 

97 

The Diverse Dialects of Romansh in Switzerland 

Romansh is spoken in southern Switzerland. There are five regional dialects. The 

dialects are very different from each other and each has its own writing system, 

making them effectively five different languages. This is similar to the situation 

with certain American Indian languages, which are closely related, or considered 

dialects of each other, e.g., Ojibwe dialects, Tohonno O’odham and Pima, Lakota and 

Dakota, etc. The dialects are separated from each other, often by areas where most 

of the population speaks German. This, again, is similar to certain American Indian 

languages which are spoken on several reservations in an area with intervening 

populations of non-Native Americans, e.g., Ojibwe reservations in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin and Lushootseed (Salish) speaking peoples on multiple reservations in 

western Washington. 

The most widely spoken dialect of Romansh has about 18,000 speakers and the 

smallest dialect has about 1,000 speakers. In all dialects many of the speakers are 

older people. Similar to a number of Indian Reservations, the Romansh are not the 

sole people living in their home areas. Besides the German speakers living among 

them, the Romansh have considerable contact with Italian and French speakers who 

inhabit nearby areas of Switzerland where Italian and French are official as well 

as bordering countries of Italy and France. Finally, the home area of the Romansh 

including St. Moritz is popular with tourists from many countries, including English 

speakers. 

Education through Romansh is rather new in the Romansh area, beginning in 

earnest only in the later half of the 20th century. Not all Romansh villages have 

education through Romansh. However, where education through Romansh is in effect, it has resulted in increasing numbers of children using the language. In 2000, 

there were 6,411 students attending school in Romansh. Although each area uses 

its own dialect in school, there is also an overarching school dialect that has been 

established as a bridge among dialects. Students in Romansh medium schools also 

learn this bridge dialect in addition to their home dialects. All students from these 

Romansh schools graduate highly fluent in German and often speak French, Italian 

and English. Jean- Jacque Furer, who has done extensive research on Romansh, 

concluded in 2005 that there are still enough speakers to ensure that Romansh will 

survive in the long term. He considers the Romansh-language school system the single most crucial factor in the survival of Romansh. Creating school materials and 

teacher training in Romansh and its various dialects has been a challenge but the 

government of Switzerland has been supportive. 

At one time the Romansh were considered to be very backward and children were 

punished for using Romansh in the schools. The Romansh area today, however, is 

an economically vibrant area and the Romansh are full participants in the highly 

multilingual society of Switzerland. Their population concentrations, however, tend 

to be small villages, whose small local governments the Romansh control simply by 

being the majority population in these small villages. They do not have any special 

political autonomy in the sense that the Faroese of the Faroe Islands of Denmark 

do. 

The Sami Languages of Norway, Sweden and Finland 

The Sami are the sole people of Europe who are both ‘‘indigenous’’ and 

‘‘autochthonous.’’ The term ‘‘autochthonous’’ (of the land) is appropriate for the 

Faroese and Romansh who originate in their home areas. However, the Faroese and 

Romansh are similar to the majority populations of their counties in their origins 

and historical life style—that is standard European agricultural and pastoral life. 

In contrast, the Sami are similar to many American Indians and Alaska Natives in 

being an indigenous people with a highly distinct traditional life style from the majority populations of their countries, while also ‘‘autochthonous’’ that is originating 

in that part of their home countries. The Sami were originally northern huntergatherers and herders of semi-domestic reindeer similar to the caribou whose herds 

were followed by certain Alaskan Native peoples. The traditional homes of the Sami 

were analogous to those of the Alaska Athabaskan peoples and not unlike the American Plains Indian tipi. The Sami share with American Indians a long period of persecution of their language and distinctive shamanic religion. Unlike the Faroese and 

Romansh, the Sami had their children taken from them and placed in boarding 

schools. This history has resulted in many individuals of Sami ancestry being unable to speak their ancestral language and some Sami languages going extinct. 

Also similar to Native Americans, and different from other autochthonous peoples 

of Europe, the Sami have numerous land rights and traditional subsistence rights 

issues with the governments of the countries in which they live. Norway, Sweden 

and Finland have accorded Sami distinctive political rights similar to those of Native Americans in the United States. This autonomy is exercised through ‘‘Sami parVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
98 

liaments.’’ Norway was the first country to establish this autonomy in 1973 with 

Sweden the latest in 1993. The small numbers of Sami living over the Russian border from Finland are not recognized as a distinct people by Russia. 

There are ten distinct Sami languages, which are incomprehensible one from the 

other. Within the various Sami languages there are also dialect divisions. The largest Sami language is Northern Sami with 15,000 speakers in Northern Norway. 

Northern Sami is official in two Norwegian counties and in six towns, where the 

language is used in local government where the majority population is Northern 

Sami. An official writing system was adopted in 1979. There are also some Northern 

Sami living in adjoining areas of Sweden and Finland. In Norway, approximately 

1,000 children have Northern Sami as their primary language (mother tongue) and 

attend school through the Northern Sami language through secondary school. These 

children and schools are located primarily in the core Sami areas of Karasjok and 

Kautokeino. These children also graduate fully fluent in Norwegian. Like students 

in mainstream Norwegian schools, they typically study two foreign languages, one 

of which is English before graduation from high school. There is also a Sami university college with an enrollment of about 150 students. That university uses Northern Sami as the primary language of education with some courses offered through 

other languages including English, due to the high multilingualism of the Sami 

youth enrolled. 

The other Sami languages are much smaller than Northern Sami. Some have less 

than one hundred speakers left; yet the governments of Norway, Sweden and Finland recognize the right of the distinctive Sami peoples speaking those languages 

to education in their own languages. Most groups aspire to school systems through 

their own languages such as those that currently exist for the Northern Sami, but 

lack sufficient teachers fluent in the languages. In such cases, courses in the language as a second language are offered for children and the community in mainstream schools as an initial stepping stone toward education through the medium 

of the local language. A similar situation exists in areas where Northern Sami was 

formerly spoken and the local Northern Sami are seeking to return the language 

to their children. For example, in Finland in 1998, approximately 115 children at 

the primary and secondary level were receiving almost all their education through 

Northern Sami, even though they generally did not enter school knowing the language. 

The efforts of the Inari Sami of Finland are an example of a very small Sami language being reestablished by its community. The Inari Sami was never a very large 

group of people and once faced extinction. Today, theirs is a growing language of 

approximately 300 speakers out of a total ethnic population of 800. While most of 

that population lives around Inari Lake, many are scattered elsewhere in Finland 

and thus not able to participate in the efforts of language revitalization. 

By the end of the 20th century, the only people who spoke their language were 

elders. In the late 1980s, an Inari Sami organization was established to revitalize 

the language focusing on including the language in the modern life of the area 

where the Inari Sami lived. In 2000, they began a ‘‘language nest’’ program similar 

to the Hawaiian Pu ̄nana Leo to produce young speakers. They also established programs to produce adult speakers using the ‘‘masterapprentice’’ system combined 

with college credit courses in Inari Sami. Inari Sami youth in the local high school 

were also provided the opportunity to study their language as a course. The Inari 

Sami language organization combined the development of second language speakers 

with efforts to produce materials and develop modern terminology. Through this 

they were able to begin Inari Sami medium elementary education for children in 

their community located on Inari Lake in northern Finland. By 2004, they had 

reached grade 4 with a population of 18 students in their small Inari Sami language 

medium school with plans to expand to higher grades. All those children are also 

fluent in Finnish. Inari Sami medium education is producing a population of fluent 

speakers and making it possible for families using the language in the home to 

maintain the language as a first language in cooperation with the educational system. While the Inari Sami medium school began much later than efforts in Faroese, 

Romansh and even Northern Sami, it is making good progress in a context of high 

support from the Finnish government. The familiarity of Scandinavian governments 

with producing high quality modern education with high fluency in several languages is where Inari Sami language schooling has an advantage over Native American language medium schooling. The Finnish language itself was not generally seriously used in education until the turn of the 20th century, requiring much development of new terminology and development of teachers. Furthermore, Finland has 

two official languages within its mainstream population, Finnish and Swedish. The 

Swedish population is located on the western edge of the country and has full preschool through doctoral (P–20) education available to it in that language. In addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
99 

tion, all students in Finland learn the other official language in school along with 

English and at least one foreign language. The Sami schools produce similar results 

with the addition of Sami as well. 

Although the United States does not have the experience with multilingualism in 

schooling that Finland does, quite a few Native American peoples are positioned by 

their populations to follow the example of the Sami peoples in terms of developing 

education through their own languages. These positioned Native American groups 

also have larger populations of speakers than the larger and medium sized populations of Sami peoples. Examples include the Choctaw (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 

103,910—’’speaker’’ population: 10,343), Navajo (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 286,731— 

‘‘speaker’’ population: 169,471), Yup’ik (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 28,927—’’speaker’’ population: 18,950), Pueblo-Keres (‘‘ethnic’’ population 49,695—’’speaker’’ population: 

12,945), Tohonno O’odham (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 19,522—‘‘speaker’’ population: 

7,270), Crow (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 10,332—‘‘speaker’’ population: 3,705), Sioux (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 112,176—’’speaker’’ population: 18,616), Chippewa/Ojibwe (‘‘ethnic’’ 

population: 112,757—‘‘speaker’’ population: 8,371), Hawaiian (‘‘ethnic’’ population: 

156,146—’’speaker’’ population: 24,042). Several of these large to medium Native 

American groups also have their own tribal colleges similar in size to the college 

of the Northern Sami in Norway. 

With the smallest Sami groups having suffered complete language loss or near 

total loss with only a handful of elder speakers left, there are also parallels in very 

small Native American groups, especially those of the West Coast and Alaska. 

Among the Scandinavian countries, even the smallest Sami languages are supported 

in developing into the medium of education for their schools, with intermediate 

steps of support as shown in the example of Inari Sami described above. 

The Example of New Zealand Ma ̄ori 

New Zealand is a former British colony in the Southern Hemisphere that is approximately the size of California with a population 1⁄8 of that of California. The indigenous Ma ̄ori of New Zealand are the largest minority at approximately 15 percent (600,000 individuals) of the overall population of 4.5 million. The Ma ̄ori are not 

only a large group for an indigenous people but they also have a unique political 

position within the country due to the Treaty of Waitangi through which Britain 

gained political sovereignty over the country. As is the case with other indigenous 

groups elsewhere in the world, Ma ̄ori students tend to perform more poorly than 

other groups in New Zealand mainstream schools. 

Traditionally, all Ma ̄ori spoke a single Polynesian language, but use of the language was greatly eroded through schooling in which only English was allowed. In 

spite of inroads made against the use of Ma ̄ori language at least until the end of 

World War II, most Ma ̄ori spoke the Ma ̄ori language. The language then began a 

rapid demise among children resulting in efforts to teach it as a language course 

in universities and high schools. In the early 1980s, a movement began in the country to use the language in schooling. The national government provided major financial support for this and large numbers of children were enrolled first at the preschool level and then in elementary and secondary schools. Ma ̄ori medium television 

and radio also developed rapidly and today provide high quality programming for 

Ma ̄ori speakers. 

The Ma ̄ori language revitalization movement has had very positive results in 

terms of revitalizing the language and in developing students with fluency in both 

Ma ̄ori and English. The initial growth of these schools in the 1980s and 1990s, however, was exceedingly rapid creating some challenges in terms of quality control. 

The quality issues led to excessive government regulation along mainstream lines 

that failed to account for unique features of education through the language. Excessive government regulation and the internal quality questions led to disillusionment 

within the movement at the same time that communities were experiencing the 

emotionally discouraging effects of the loss of fluent Ma ̄ori speaking elders. Cooperation among schools and also between them and university programs in Ma ̄ori and 

teacher training was less than optimal. Coupled with all this were economic challenges in Ma ̄ori communities leading to large Ma ̄ori emigration to Australia for employment. All these issues led to a decline in enrollments in Ma ̄ori language schooling in the early part of the 21st century. 

There is now, however, the beginning of another increase in enrollments as news 

of the positive academic as well as linguistic results of Ma ̄ori schooling is beginning 

to spread through the Ma ̄ori population. An example of an especially successful 

school is Nga Taiatea Whare Kura located in Hamilton, New Zealand, where students are performing well above the national average for Ma ̄ori students. Even with 

the effect of the period of decline, the enrollment in Ma ̄ori language medium schooling is larger than that of any indigenous group in the world. In 2013, over 17,000 

100 

students were being educated through Ma ̄ori for more than half the day in over 280 

school sites, with well over 95 percent ethnically Ma ̄ori student population. An even 

larger number of students are studying Ma ̄ori in English medium schools, either as 

a course or attending classes for less than half the day through Ma ̄ori. In 2013, 

there were over 140,000 such second language style learners of Ma ̄ori, of which 

some 55 percent were ethnically Ma ̄ori. Most students in New Zealand, regardless 

of ethnicity, also learn simple Ma ̄ori words, greetings and songs in Ma ̄ori sometime 

within their education even if they do not study Ma ̄ori as a full language. 

Hawaiian, an Example from the United States 

Within the United States, Hawaiian has the longest history of being used as a 

regular government medium of education, both historically and in the contemporary 

period. Hawai’i has the second oldest government public education system in the 

United States, having being established in 1840 shortly after that of Massachusetts. 

The Hawai’i public education system was originally taught and administered entirely through Hawaiian. It included a small college that prepared teachers. The 

level of literacy of Native Hawaiians produced in this system was higher than that 

of any other country and only exceeded by a few cities in Scotland and some parts 

of New England, but not by any other country. There was also high literacy in other 

languages, especially English among Hawaiian speakers. Public education through 

Hawaiian was made illegal in 1896 as part of the process of the annexation of Hawai’i to the United States. That ban was not removed until 1986. Between those 

two dates, Native Hawaiian academic achievement plummeted, with Native Hawaiians the least academically successful among all ethnic groups by the 1980s. 

In 1983, the non-profit ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo, Inc. was established to revitalize Hawaiian. At that point, a careful count of fluent Hawaiian speakers aged 18 or younger 

was numbered at 36. Older highly fluent speakers were either born before 1920 or 

from a tiny isolated community on the small island of Ni’ihau. Hawaiian, therefore, 

had a much more endangered profile in the 1980s than most other Native American 

languages as there were many reservations and isolated communities in other states 

where the languages were still being regularly spoken by all adults and most children at that time. The potential for Hawaiian surviving was also more dismal than 

that of the related Polynesian Ma ̄ori language, for which there were many speakers 

born before 1950. 

The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo began by establishing ‘‘language nests’’, a concept pioneered 

in 1982 in New Zealand for the Ma ̄ori language. Language nests are full day and 

full year centers operated five days a week where children under the age of public 

education are gathered together with fluent speakers of an endangered language to 

use that target endangered language exclusively throughout the day. They are very 

much focused on the family and rely on community expertise, especially elders, to 

deliver a program that integrates use of the endangered language for contemporary 

purposes, but based in the traditional culture and worldview of traditional speakers 

of that language. 

The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo’s language nests are called ‘‘Pu ̄nana Leo’’ and include a system that serves communities throughout the state of Hawai’i. In 1986, the state legislature passed legislation allowing Pu ̄nana Leo to function under state day care 

and preschool legislation with an exemption for any certification requirements for 

those teaching in the Pu ̄nana Leo. This recognizes the fact that early childhood education qualifications used in English medium preschools do not prepare teachers for 

the unique language and culture requirements of Pu ̄nana Leo nor for the unique 

features of teaching academic content through Hawaiian. The Pu ̄nana Leo carries 

out internal teacher training through on-site apprenticeship-like learning, through 

an annual live-in week long in-service summer training, and through two weekend 

live-in in-service trainings annually. All Pu ̄nana Leo training is through Hawaiian 

and conducted in cooperation with the state Hawaiian language college. Among the 

highly distinctive features of that training is preparing Pu ̄nana Leo teachers to develop early literacy in Hawaiian using a syllabic method highly distinctive of Hawaiian and not applicable to English. This methodology has resulted in the majority 

of four year-olds in the Pu ̄nana Leo able to read in Hawaiian before entering kindergarten. 

Contemporary education through Hawaiian was developed from the ’Aha Pu ̄nana 

Leo. In 1987, the state Department of Education agreed to incorporate a Hawaiian 

language medium kindergarten established by the ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo at two different 

sites. The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo in turn committed to finding families and teachers as 

well as providing teaching materials. The state provided the salaries of those teachers and the classrooms. The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo produced teaching materials using 

Hawaiian language speaking college faculty and students along with parent volunteers to cut and paste into the resulting texts. The programs expanded in this manVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
101 

ner from grade to grade through elementary school and also to other sites where 

language nest educated children were ready to enter into elementary kindergarten 

classes. Education at the elementary school level was, and remains, totally through 

Hawaiian with English introduced to a single English language course beginning in 

grade five. Students enter grade five, however, fully fluent in conversational English 

and having transferred their literacy skills in Hawaiian to literacy in English. 

At the intermediate and high school levels, different models were adapted in different communities based on the availability of resources. At one extreme are communities where education through Hawaiian to grade 12 is confined to a stream of 

two or three courses per semester within a mainstream English medium school. Students take other courses through English with the general population of the host 

school. In other cases, separate full Hawaiian medium intermediate and high school 

sites have been established, typically with attached full elementary programs. At 

these sites, education at the intermediate and high school level can be totally in Hawaiian, with the English class begun in grade 5 continuing as a single course 

through to grade 12. The English class in some sites, such as that of the Hawaiian 

language college laboratory school site Nawahi School, is taught through Hawaiian. 

Some sites are standard public schools, while others are charters. 

In 1996, the state legislature mandated the establishment of a Hawaiian language 

college to serve schooling through Hawaiian with undergraduate and graduate 

training in the Hawaiian language. The college, located at the University of Hawai’i 

at Hilo, works in partnership with the non-profit ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo to produce curriculum materials, train K–12 teachers, provide inservice, provide new vocabulary, 

and provide electronic access to those resources. In addition, the state legislature 

mandated that the Hawaiian language college operate a laboratory school program 

with the P–12 Nawahiokalani’opu’u School (Nawahi) site as its primary site. The 

Hawaiian language college itself is operated and administered entirely through Hawaiian and requires its faculty to teach in the P–12 level in its laboratory school 

in order to obtain tenure, thus creating an integrated program from preschool 

through the doctorate. The college also works closely with the ’Imiloa Science Museum on the university campus to provide bilingual Hawaiian and English signage 

and tours as well as displays on education through the Hawaiian language based 

in Hawaiian traditions. This not only provides additional access to educational resources through Hawaiian, but also allows the larger community to learn about developments in education through Hawaiian. 

Among qualifications provided in the College through Hawaiian are a B.A. in Hawaiian Studies, a teaching certificate, an M.A. in Hawaiian Language and Literature, an M.A. in Hawaiian Language and Culture Education, and a Ph.D. in Hawaiian and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization. 

Another unique feature of the Hawaiian Language College is its outreach mission 

to other indigenous peoples of the United States and the world. The college provides 

a B.A. in linguistics taught through English to allow other Native peoples to come 

to the University of Hawai’i at Hilo and study language revitalization with Native 

Hawaiians. The College’s Ph.D. program in Indigenous Language Revitalization is 

open to other indigenous peoples and allows for students to continue studying their 

indigenous languages as part of that program. There are plans to implement support at the teacher certification and masters’ level for other indigenous peoples parallel to the presently operational track taught through Hawaiian. 

The movement to revitalize Hawaiian is just over 30 years old and began at a 

period when it was still illegal to use Hawaiian in public schooling. For the 2013– 

2014 school year, there are 2,642 enrolled from preschool (Pu ̄nana Leo language 

nest) to grade 12 in schools taught through Hawaiian. Unlike Ma ̄ori, enrollments 

in Hawaiian medium schooling has never declined but has instead continued to 

grow steadily since its initiation. Most encouraging for the movement has been the 

establishment of Hawaiian language speaking homes where children are being 

raised with Hawaiian as their first language. While still very much a minority of 

the children enrolled in schools taught through Hawaiian, this population is the result of graduates of schools taught through Hawaiian deciding to use Hawaiian as 

the first language of their children. 

When the movement began, there was great concern within the educational establishment that the children in these schools would grow up to be adults unable to 

speak, read and write English and lacking the academic skills expected of students 

graduating from the public schools. This concern was not limited to educators, but 

was also very strong in the general community and even among many Native Hawaiians. One argument against the schools was that the nonstandard English dialect spoken by many Native Hawaiians (popularly called ‘‘Pidgin’’) made it especially 

important that Native Hawaiian children attend schools where only Standard 

English was used. There were also those who saw attention by the government to 

102 

Hawaiian in school was inappropriate when other languages such as Japanese were 

of major importance to the state economy. Many thought that children educated in 

Hawaiian in elementary school would become dropouts in high school and contribute 

to already dismal high school graduation results of Native Hawaiians. 

The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo took the stand, however, that maintenance of the Hawaiian 

language among their children was a right of Native Hawaiian parents who saw primary fluency in Hawaiian as essential for maintaining Native Hawaiian identity 

and cultural practices—including religious practices—that were expressed through 

the language. Hawaiian language medium education was seen as the only way in 

which this right could be protected. Evidence for this position was based on the experience of the loss of the Hawaiian language in schools where only English was 

used, and also the observation of loss of Hawaiian among Hawaiian speaking children who entered the bilingual education program designed for immigrant children. 

The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo also argued that the academic achievement of Native Hawaiians relative to other ethnic groups actually decreased after the elimination of 

schooling through Hawaiian in 1896. 

While the right of Native Hawaiians to maintain the language in its homeland 

has been at the center of the movement in Hawai’i, the programs have produced 

strong academic outcomes. Indeed, some of the most impressive outcomes have been 

in the areas where naysayers were most adamant in insisting that such schooling 

would be a failure. Furthermore, the sites that have been strongest in use of Hawaiian have also been those that have had the highest level of academic success. 

We have especially good data from Nawahi School, the P–12 laboratory school of 

the Hawaiian language college. This is also the school that is strongest in use of 

Hawaiian and the school where there is an especially high number of children entering from homes where they have spoken Hawaiian from birth. The P–12 enrollment 

at the Nawahi campus for the 2013–2014 school year was 350 students. The graduating class represented the fifteenth graduating class of the school. Since its first 

graduating class, Nawahi has had a rate of 100 percent high school graduation and 

over 80 percent continuing on to college. 100 percent of the class of 2014 is enrolled 

in college for the fall of 2014. Students are concurrently enrolled at the university 

or at the Hawaiian language college, earning college credits upon completion of high 

school. The success of Nawahi has resulted in communities requesting to establish 

satellite campuses of Nawahi in other areas and still other schools being included 

in the laboratory school system as a way of recognizing their programs. The World 

Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) has confirmed the 

overall strength of the preschool to tertiary programs of the Hawaiian language college through international accreditation. 

Upon graduation, the majority of graduates from Nawahi enroll in the University 

of Hawaii system. However, there have been students from Nawahi who have graduated from the University of Portland, Northern Arizona University, Seattle University, Loyola Marymount University and Stanford, among others. The fact that upon 

high school graduation students from Nawahi can function in English medium universities is evidence in support of the school’s contention that restricting English to 

a single course from grade 5 produces a high level of English proficiency by high 

school graduation. We have also discovered that students at Nawahi approach learning Standard English with keen interest as an ‘‘additional’’ language to Hawaiian 

eliminating the often times observed identity conflicts between the local ‘‘Pidgin’’ 

(Creole English) and Standard English use amongst Hawai’i’s youth. 

The full use of Hawaiian as the medium of education at Nawahi has had the opposite effect predicted by detractors relative to mastery of foreign languages. Since 

the founding of the school, it has sought to have all students graduate with experience in learning at least one additional language to Hawaiian and English. At 

present, all students in grades 1 through 6 study spoken and written Japanese for 

1 hour and 40 minutes per week. This is more time than is provided in Japanese 

International Baccalaureate programs in the public schools and even exceeds the 

amount of Japanese studied in elementary school in the state’s sole private Japanese Buddhist school. In the past, Nawahi has provided instruction in Latin, Spanish, and Marquesan for intermediate and high school students, but presently lacks 

the resources to maintain such programming. The skills that its students have in 

learning languages are also evidenced by the accomplishments of some of its graduates upon leaving Nawahi. One graduate completed a B.A. in political science in 

three years with minors in French and Spanish. Another studied Italian and then 

worked as a translator of English articles into Italian for an Italian magazine. Still, 

a third was a Peace Corp volunteer in Kazakhstan where he was recognized as the 

best learner of the difficult Kazakh language among those working in that country. 

While records are especially good for Nawahi, other programs taught through Hawaiian have also done well academically. Over the past 15 years, there have been 

103 

graduates of the overall system including Nawahi who have gone on to become journalists, doctors, lawyers, nurses, contractors, members of the military, television reporters, policemen, musicians, firemen, teachers, and professors among other professions. The strengths of the program have resulted in one of the challenges of schools 

taught through Hawaiian being the loss of high school students to recruitment of 

prestigious private schools. In such private schools, Hawaiian-speaking students 

provide a unique resource in terms of strengthening private school connections to 

the Native Hawaiian community and its culture. 

Often overlooked in evaluating the contribution of Hawaiian language medium/immersion schooling in Hawai’i has been the social impact. Hawai’i, the Native Hawaiian community in particular, faces a ‘‘brain drain’’, that is those who do well academically are especially prone to move away from the islands and the Native Hawaiian community. The graduates of schooling through Hawaiian tend to stay in 

state at state colleges and universities and those who leave for education come back 

to Hawaii after graduation. A considerable number of them are involved in services 

to the Native Hawaiian community through work in government and private foundation offices involving Native Hawaiian people, including education. Others are involved in distinctive Native Hawaiian cultural activities in which language fluency 

is especially important. 

Positive social impacts have been observed beyond simply the students themselves. The ’Aha Pu ̄nana Leo requires all parents in its programs to attend weekly 

meetings, contribute their time to running the language nests and also study the 

Hawaiian language themselves. This committed behavior of parents to their child’s 

education continued as they entered into the public schools resulting in high parent 

involvement in the education of children in schools conducted through Hawaiian. In 

quite a number of cases, this has resulted in parents going on to college to earn 

a degree, often in the area of education and themselves becoming teachers in the 

Hawaiian language medium/immersion school system. 

In spite of the huge role that these schools have had in assuring the survival of 

the Hawaiian language and culture and their academic and social impacts, they still 

face challenges. One of these is the lack of congruence between best practice as developed for them and the educational policies and laws of the federal government 

and the state government. These laws relate to assessment of educational progress, 

provisions of support for students with academic challenges, definitions of ‘‘highly 

qualified teachers’’, and programming eligibility and reporting requirements for 

grant funds. Such lack of congruence pushes schools taught through Hawaiian away 

from the types of programming that have produced the highest language revitalization, academic achievement, and positive social results. Rather than disillusionment 

as occurred under similar pressures on Ma ̄ori language medium education in New 

Zealand, Hawaiian medium education has been rather resilient and considerably 

successful in overcoming such pressures. Part of the reason for this may be the history of interethnic relationships in Hawaii that has resulted in both leaders and administrators of public education and the leaders of Hawaiian language revitalization 

more open to addressing issues from a shared history and cultural honoring from 

both sides. Another source of support has been from external Native Hawaiian entities that have helped move through periods of difficulty as answers to challenges 

are sought. 

Other Native American Language Medium Schools 

The general movement to revitalize Native American languages has spread 

throughout Native America with inspiration coming from programs in Hawai’i and 

foreign countries, especially New Zealand and Canada. The overall movement has 

also built from experience during last half of the 20th century with bilingual education that approached contemporary Native American language medium/immersion 

education in some features. During that period, certain Navajo bilingual programs 

such as that of Rough Rock made extensive use of Navajo with first language speakers of the language in the earliest grades, but then switched to primary use of 

English as the medium of education. The academic and English proficiency outcomes were quite strong, but the use of Navajo in schooling was organized in such 

a way to gradually lead students away from use of Navajo as a language of contemporary life and therefore raising their own children in it. Contemporary Native 

American language programming is explicitly focused on having students use the 

target Native American language as their language for raising their own children 

upon adulthood. 

There are currently programs in fourteen states besides Hawaii, with programs 

planned for implementation in the near future in several other states and also in 

US Pacific Island territories. The number of languages involved in these efforts is 

now over twenty. Many other communities with other languages are also interested 

104 

in starting these programs. Most of the existing programs are still at the preschool 

and lower elementary school stages and none have full high school programs as 

exist for Hawaiian and the languages in Europe and New Zealand described earlier. 

Only a few of the US programs besides Hawaiian have been in existence long 

enough to have had students who moved on to English medium high school and on 

to graduation. However, preliminary results are positive for these students and communities. These families have rallied behind the movement to save their languages 

and are investing in the future with their children. Difficulties exist, however, with 

funding and also in the interface with policies and legislation that conflict with the 

goals of Native American language revitalization. 

Question 2. Can you discuss the importance of having living languages and name 

some of the benefits as they relate to cognitive development, literacy, academic 

achievement, college attainment or other education and development goals? 

Answer. As illustrated above, it is possible for very small groups to maintain living languages through schools taught through those languages. It is also the case 

that in the contemporary world such schools taught through small languages 

produce exceptionally high proficiency in the mainstream language (e.g., Danish in 

the Faroe Islands, German in Romansh villages, Norwegian in the Northern Sami 

area, etc.) with that high fluency acquired at a very young age simply by the high 

level of interaction with the mainstream language in interaction with the mainstream community and government outside school itself. This has sometimes been 

called the ‘‘minority official language medium education advantage’’ as these small 

languages have a certain distinctive political status in their homelands. Students attending school in the country’s majority language find it much more difficult to 

learn a second language and usually do not do so until later in their school careers, 

even when there is extensive teaching of a second language in early elementary 

school. (Countries with small official languages such as Finland and Denmark share 

something of the ‘‘minority official language medium advantage’’ in that from an 

early age students in those countries realize that they need to learn large international languages such as English, which are readily available to them through 

international mass media and popular culture.) 

Contemporary brain research has shown that high fluency in two languages, especially at a young age, results in higher cognitive development. That higher cognitive 

development is especially critical in what is called ‘‘executive functioning.’’ Executive 

functioning relates to the ability to concentrate and avoid distractors in focusing on 

a task. This cognitive advantage is useful in academics, and also in general adult 

life. It is an especially useful skill in higher education. 

A further advantage of proficiency in two languages is an enhanced ability to 

learn other languages and cultures. Not only is there an ability to learn languages 

and culture, but an appreciation of how languages and cultures differ and thus a 

sensitivity that reduces the potential for misunderstanding even when encountering 

someone from a new language and culture for the first time. Linguistic and cultural 

skills are especially important in the contemporary world where there is so much 

economic and political interaction between highly diverse peoples. Such skills are 

also highly valued by the American military as it can find itself operating in an isolated area where there is no knowledge of English in the local population and no 

knowledge of the local language and culture within its own ranks. 

A major advantage that Native American peoples have relative to the cognitive 

advantages to high multilingualism is the distinctiveness of Native American languages relative to English. The greater the distinctiveness between languages and 

cultures proficiently used by a student the greater the understanding of the breadth 

of differences possible in human languages and cultures. 

Schools taught through Native American languages have an additional advantage 

relative to the development of literacy, as learning initial reading through a Native 

American language is easier than learning to read through English. There are several reasons for this. First, English is the most difficult of the European languages 

in which to learn initial reading. The reason is its highly irregular spelling system 

and also the phonotactics of the language with the ‘‘blends’’ of up to four consonants 

together that make it difficult for children. Native American writing systems are 

much more regular than that of English. The regularity of a writing system makes 

a huge difference in rapid mastery of reading by children. For example, the most 

regular writing system among European languages is that of Finnish. In a study 

on reading mastery, by the end of first grade, children in Finland can read Finnish 

with a rate of just 2 percent mistakes. This contrasts with a rate of 66 percent mistakes for first graders in England reading through English ( Ziegler & Goswami, 

2006). 

An additional advantage of some Native American languages such as Cherokee, 

Ojibwe, Yup’ik and Hawaiian is phonotactics with relatively few consonant clusters 

105 

making initial reading rather easy to acquire. Children can generally learn to read 

syllabically earlier than they can learn to read by individual letters, but reading 

through languages with many consonant clusters as the case with English cannot 

be taught syllabically. The Cherokee writing system is distinct in being a syllabary, 

which is one reason for the high literacy among Cherokees in the 19th century. The 

strong identification of the local Native American language and culture with academics that develops through Native American language medium schooling encourages students in such schools to continue their schooling, both within the school and 

beyond it. While such schools are new in many Native American communities, the 

schools that have been in existence the longest—those for Blackfeet and Navajo for 

example—report higher rates of high school graduation and college attendance compared to other schools in their communities. 

Although national educational goals of high school graduation and college attendance are being attended to and reached through Native American language medium 

schools, there are other important goals being reached as well. First, the focus on 

the traditional language and culture in these schools naturally incorporates character education from a base in the local indigenous traditions. This leads to a 

healthier community in terms of respecting and caring for others, including elders 

and younger children. The products of these schools feel a responsibility to uphold 

community values and thus are a positive force against the importation of criminal 

activity including gang culture into Native American communities. The products of 

these schools have been noted for their participation in community indigenous cultural activities and governments at a high level, as they are often the youngest individuals fluent in the traditional languages in which those highly regarded activities 

are conducted. Another area where these young people have participated is in military service, an occupational field where many Native Americans participate. Students from these schools have been able to pass the examinations for military service and serve honorably for their country. Their knowledge of their traditional languages may be of use to the government at some point in the same way that earlier 

generations of Native Americans used their languages as ‘‘code talkers’’, including 

tribal members of the Navajo, Choctaw, and Comanche once did. 

Question 3. Can you address concerns expressed by critics of immersion or bilingual education programs that exposure to two or more languages simultaneously at 

a young age may delay or hamper language acquisition or proficiency? Does a child’s 

ability to speak multiple languages impact developmental milestones or academic 

achievement in later years? If so how? Are there benefits of training a child to communicate in two or more languages? 

Answer. There has been considerable research into multilingual education over 

the past three decades that has discredited former commonly held views that education through a less dominant language will result in educational deficits. Much 

of this research has come out of Europe and Canada where all school children are 

required to study at least two languages, but there has been considerable research 

conducted in the United States as well. In short, rather than being a detriment, 

learning through a less commonly spoken language and thus learning two (or more 

languages) very well, has a positive academic effect. However, those effects are best 

seen in the long term, rather than in the short term, and are best realized in programs that involve a student over the many years of compulsory education. Furthermore, programs such as Native American language medium schooling are a distinct 

category within such schooling and produce results that are even more encouraging 

than programs in immigrant languages relative to academic achievement within the 

racial subgroup that is attracted to them. 

U.S. Foreign Language (and Canadian French) Immersion 

Much of the research in education through more than one language has been done 

in foreign language immersion (German, French, Japanese, Spanish, etc.) in the 

United States and Canadian French immersion (for English speaking Canadian children) in English speaking Canadian communities. This type of immersion differs in 

several ways from Native American language immersion, but is similar to it in that 

it produces students with proficiency in both the oral and written forms of two languages. The research has shown that initially there is a lag in reading English as 

the children focus on learning to read through the foreign language. The gap between these children and those in mainstream school later closes and the students 

who were enrolled in the immersion program often go on to exceed mainstream education peers in all academic areas, including English. The challenge for these immersion programs has not been the development of proficiency in English, but instead in the ‘‘target language’’ (French, German, etc.). In the early years of foreign 

language (and Canadian French) immersion, there was concern that the children 

would not learn English and the amount of use of the target language was someVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:29 Dec 22, 2014 Jkt 091818 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\91818.TXT JACK
106 

times only half the day beginning in kindergarten with a rather rapid change to all 

English except for one or two classes in the immersion language. Research has 

shown, however, that the English outcomes were the same regardless of the amount 

of English used in the school, due to the role of English outside school, while reduction of the amount of the target language greatly reduced the proficiency in it and 

thus the overall benefits of high proficiency in two languages. 

The research has also shown that such children who enter a school with a foreign 

language immersion program knowing only English develop a high level of proficiency in the target language, while maintaining English as their primary home 

language, out-of-class peer group language, and language of their later adulthood 

and family life. Indeed these programs are specifically designed for this outcome, 

with proficiency in the non-English foreign language a secondary level goal relative 

to maintenance of identity with the English language, primary fluency in English, 

and grade level academic programming parallels with children being educated totally through English. To give an example, in German immersion in the United 

States, early elementary education is conducted through German, but the animals 

studied are those of North America not Europe (e.g., the white tailed deer not the 

roe deer, the cotton wood tree and not the linden, etc.), the cultural holidays observed are American not German (e.g., Halloween, Thanksgiving, Valentine’s Day 

etc. and not Fasching, Pfingsmontag, Stephanstag, etc.), and the literature read is 

often German translations of the same stories read in corresponding English grades 

rather than what is read in corresponding grades in Germany. While foreign language proficiency in Foreign Language Immersion is high, it is still considerably 

below that of native speakers, and the cultural base is lower still. Yet when compared to foreign language and culture proficiency produced in mainstream English 

medium schools, the skills in foreign language and culture are very impressive indeed. Again, the foreign language immersion programs that use the foreign languages the most, had the highest outcomes in terms of the foreign language and 

had English outcomes ultimately as high as or higher than those immersion programs that used more English. Fear that English would be replaced by the foreign 

language or be negatively impacted by the foreign language has been the primary 

force in holding back foreign language immersion programs from reaching even 

higher outcomes. 

Native American language immersion has a distinctly different set of goals and 

thus when implemented properly, potentially even higher outcomes in terms of high 

proficiency in two languages than foreign language immersion programs. The most 

distinctive goal is that the school is seen as the means by which the Native American language and culture is developed and maintained as the primary language 

and culture of the child for later life. That school programming is designed with the 

goal that the Native American language and culture be the primary language and 

culture of peer group life and later adulthood and family life of graduating students. 

This goal envisions the immersion student graduate being able to raise his or her 

future children in the language and culture, something that was not possible for 

their own parents. This goal requires an even stronger use of the ‘‘target’’ Native 

American language than ‘‘target’’ foreign language use in foreign language immersion. Native American language immersion programs, however, have very high 

English outcome goals and academic goals for their programs. They seek to produce 

English outcomes as high as, or higher, at the end of high school, than English medium programs serving the peers of their students in the local community. This is 

a realistic goal due to the experience of strong foreign language immersion programs 

and even more so the highly local culture oriented experience of minority official 

language medium education in Europe (Faroese, Romansh, Sami, etc.). Furthermore, a high level of understanding of their own traditional culture and environment is seen as leading to a high level of interest in the surrounding English language and its cultural base. As we will see later in the Hawaiian example, there 

is evidence that this high level of interest in English does indeed occur as the students mature. While the language and culture educational base in such schools are 

strongly Native American, there is also an especially strong focus on the overall history and civic culture of the United States within which such Native American language schools have developed along with distinctive tribal governments that find 

their base in the Constitution of the United States. 

These Native American language schools have had considerable academic success. 

By way of contrast, English medium teaching of Native American children has not 

had very positive academic results. Over the past decade, the National Educational 

Assessment Program (NAEP) results produced by mainstream English medium education for American Indian/Alaska Native education in areas where students have 

strong Native American cultural identities have been especially very poor and little 

changed from year to year. 

107 

High quality Native American language medium/immersion education is envisioned as producing students similar to those from foreign countries who are entering U.S. universities and graduating with exemplary academic records. Students 

from Scandinavia especially enter United States universities having learned English 

as a second language, and yet outperform American English medium educated students in English language arts courses and assessments. Large numbers of students 

are graduating from American universities with advanced degrees in mathematics 

and science fields after being educated in foreign countries such as China where P– 

12 education is through a language totally different from English in its linguistic 

structure and cultural base. Students being educated through Native American language medium/immersion schools have a major advantage over such foreign students in terms of acquiring English simply from having English language and culture so readily available to them through the media and through the surrounding 

general American life. 

Question 4. What are some of the spillover benefits of having immersion programs? Can you discuss any impacts or progress toward: (a) Creating Leaders (b) 

Community building (c) Cultural identity/pride. 

Answer. The driving force in developing schooling through Native American languages and cultures has been community efforts to prevent those languages and cultures from going extinct. The developers of such programs realize that they have 

had to assure high quality academic and social outcomes as well for these languages 

and cultures cannot survive in the contemporary world if they came to be identified 

as the languages and cultures of peoples in the lower strata of the overall society 

of the United States. While great accomplishments have been made in language and 

cultural revitalization as well as academic and social outcomes for students in the 

programs, there have been some other important spillover effects that have had a 

positive effect on indigenous communities. 

Leadership Development 

The very decision to revitalize languages and cultures has required community 

members to step forward as leaders of such efforts. The intricate relationships involved in the overall effort has required an ever growing number of leaders and levels of leadership that has expanded outward from what have always begun as just 

a handful of people and children. The sort of leadership required for education and 

for cultural revival requires a solid base in knowledge about the local community 

from its very oldest historical roots until the present. It also requires research into 

the successes and failures of other indigenous communities elsewhere both in the 

United States and abroad. Finally, it requires a strong understanding of policy and 

law and how it can evolve to embrace something new such as Native American language medium/immersion education. 

The type of leadership that develops out of Native American language medium/ 

immersion education is also very diverse. Successful programs involve contributions 

from Native Americans from outside the Native American community in which the 

school is located, of non-Native Americans with specific skills in linguistics and academics, and other supporters who assist in fund raising and staff training. Rather 

than fulfilling the negative predictions of detractors, Native American language medium/immersion schooling development has resulted in leaders who are global in 

their contacts and extremely broad-minded and open in seeking solutions for their 

communities. They also learn to ‘‘wear many hats’’ as efforts such as these that 

begin small scale require leaders to be able to take over tasks that in other systems 

might involve hiring external specialist. 

Community Development 

Besides the primary leaders who have emerged from Native American language 

medium/immersion education efforts, a large number of others have emerged to take 

on important roles in the resulting education systems that grow from them. The 

first need is teachers who are highly fluent in the local Native American language. 

This obvious need leads to local parents and young people seeking out higher education and language skills to take on this responsibility. As programs grow, there 

are needs for curriculum developers, school secretaries, organization accountants 

and grant writers/fundraisers and other support positions all of which require a 

background in the language and culture. Again, this leads to local community employment and permanent employees versus the general situation in English medium 

school of employing newcomers who stay at a school for a few years before moving 

on. The need to plan for growth and address problems distinctive of the community 

builds confidence among program parent volunteers and paid workers relative to 

their own capabilities for community development. Individuals who worked in a 

school then move on to other positions in the community and apply the skills and 

108 

positive attitudes they developed at the school to move the community further 

ahead. 

Affects of Increased Sense of Positive Identity and Pride 

A typical experience of Native American language medium/immersion schools is 

that their initial plans and efforts are met with considerable resistance in their own 

communities. Generations of having the indigenous identity denigrated result in 

those very ideas being internalized within the community itself. Others worry that 

efforts spent on the disappearing language of earlier times would be time that could 

be better spent on mastering other skills. However, once these schools begin to 

produce results in terms of children speakers who demonstrate their language skills, 

especially with elders, a profound sense of pride begins to grow in the larger local 

indigenous community. That pride grows even stronger when the children from such 

schools become known for their academic and social strengths. It becomes impossible for the overall Native community to see their heritage as debilitating, and the 

local language and culture and the community strengthening values found within 

them begin to spread into other areas of community life, including the mainstream 

schools. All of this has an overriding positive effect on raising the belief of the community in themselves and their sense that their unique identity is a strength useful 

for dealing with the larger world, rather than a detriment. 

For individual student products of these school programs and for their families, 

these effects are multiplied. Where often the most successful students seek to leave 

their communities, products of these programs are highly oriented toward returning 

from college and contributing to them. Their ties to the growing local use of the traditional language and culture to develop the community and economy provide them 

with a natural place for them to begin their contributions back to the community. 

The use of the local language and culture in schooling also engenders skills in them 

for separating cultural features into categories of what is appropriately shared in 

a public venue and what is not. Such a skill in separating out what is appropriately 

public culture can be used in locally controlled economic development in Native 

American communities attractive to domestic and international tourists. In addition, 

the sensitivity to multiple languages and cultures engendered through participation 

in such schools produces individuals well prepared to work with foreign tourists who 

bring new income into the United States as a whole. 

Question 5. Maintaining living native languages takes an immense amount of 

time, energy and resources to design appropriate curricula and learning materials. 

It is similarly challenging to cultivate native language instructors and professionals 

who can successfully educate pupils in the native language. Moreover, piecing together annual budgets from a number of different funding sources can be difficult. 

Are more resources needed to support the immersion language programs? And if so, 

why? 

Answer. Native American language medium/immersion programs are definitely in 

need of additional funding. The types of resources and methods of resourcing also 

need to be carefully designed to meet the distinctive needs of these programs. 

Programs often begin with no, or very little, funds. There are certain benefits to 

this as it guarantees that the initial efforts are led by individuals with a strong vision and dedication to the distinctive goals of language revitalization. However, once 

a program has started and is on a positive path, it is crucial to provide appropriate 

funding for the program. While private foundations have a very important role in 

starting programs and providing supplementary support, the basic needs of programs are appropriately funded by government entities. 

A challenge in developing government funding is that law makers are accustomed 

to directing funding along certain pathways and for certain purposes. Sometimes 

those pathways are poorly prepared to administer funding to support Native American language schools. Sometimes, the funded purposes are not those most needed 

in operating a Native American language medium/immersion program. A further 

challenge is the lack of regular funding for standard needs (such as state block 

grants) of those immersion programs that are successful parallel to the regular 

funding that English medium schools obtain for their standard needs. 

Directing funding for Native American immersion schools to standard government 

entities rather than to those actually on the ground operating the programs can result in funds being misspent and even being redirected away from the intended programs. These programs require knowledge of languages and cultures beyond the 

normal expertise of staff of government and educational systems, and thus administrators who also handle other responsibilities can be poorly prepared to spend such 

funds properly. Furthermore, there is often turnover in such government and educational offices resulting in major disruptions in understanding of the distinctive 

features and needs of immersion programs. 

109 

The most successful Native American language revitalization efforts in the United 

States have been those led by small non-profit organizations that work with tribal, 

local, state and federal governments in developing, operating, and resourcing programs. The reason that these nonprofits are important is because they are highly 

focused on language revitalization and its specific needs and issues. As non-profits, 

they are also much more nimble in working on language and culture issues and yet 

they are very stable in terms of their staff and leadership. It is therefore useful to 

provide a means for federal funding to be directed toward such organizations with 

those organizations then working closely with government schools. 

Question 6. Language is closely tied to one’s identity and self-confidence, and in 

communities, language teaches and reinforces the traditional culture and values. Do 

you have evidence or data comparing the psychological well-being or academic 

achievement of immersion students versus non-immersion native students? 

Answer. One of the most common remarks that I have heard about children who 

attend Native American language immersion schools, be they in Hawaiian, Navajo, 

Ojibwe, Yup’ik or other language, is how impressed visitors are with the respectful 

behavior of the students. Teaching through a Native American language necessarily 

conveys with it the deeply held cultural values passed on by ancestors and elders. 

The schools are clean, with attentive children interested in contributing to their own 

communities and mankind in general. There have not been many studies of 

wellbeing specific to Native American language medium education but I am aware 

of one study by Dr. Shawn Kana’iaupuni. The Hawaiian cultural influence on education research study looked at the impact of culture-based educational strategies 

on middle and high school students in public and private schools. Hawaiian medium 

schools were included in this study. It was hypothesized that culturally relevant 

teaching and learning strategies have a positive impact on students’ socioemotional 

development and contribute to positive education outcomes (e.g., school engagement, 

academic performance). The results showed that the overall ‘‘well-being’’ (feelings of 

self-worth and engagement with schooling) of Native Hawaiian students was highest 

in schools where teachers implemented ‘‘intense’’ language and culture as found in 

Hawaiian medium schools and that positively related to both reading and math outcomes of these students. The researchers also concluded that culture-based strategies is seen as an issue of social justice in aligning what goes on in these things 

that we call ‘‘schools’’ and what goes on in communities and showing in fact that 

schools are an important and integral part of the community. (2009, Thomas, Scott 

& Heck, Ron) 

Question 7. In your work, have you noted whether native language proficiency and 

native culture familiarity have any impact on the self-esteem and resiliency of native immersion students? 

Answer. As I stated earlier, Native Hawaiian language medium/immersion schools 

have higher rates of high school graduation and college attendance than mainstream English medium schools. A larger percentage of children in these schools 

come from what would be considered disadvantaged backgrounds—over 70 percent 

student population at Nawahi School, for example. Studies have found that students 

from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to graduate from high school or attend college, but Nawahi School’s statistics are higher than the state’s average. 

The cultural teachings that form the basis of education through Hawaiian promote a mindset of resiliency. Students then experience first hand the successes of 

this form of education in spite of having a resource based many times smaller than 

that of mainstream English medium schools. 

Question 8. In your written testimony, you stated that the nonprofit organization 

which you represent is the oldest Native American language immersion program in 

the United States. What are some of the most important lessons you have learned 

as a pioneer in native language medium education? Do you think the number of Hawaiian immersion students would grow if more support was provided by the federal 

government? 

Answer. Native American peoples, be they American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or Native American Pacific Islanders, have a history as ‘‘involuntary 

minorities’’, that is groups forcibly incorporated into the United States. Furthermore, they are all indigenous peoples with cultures and traditional life styles highly 

different from those of the majority population of the United States. It is widely observed that throughout the world ‘‘involuntary minorities’’, especially involuntary indigenous minority peoples, have experienced very low-level educational and socioeconomic outcomes compared to the majority populations of their countries. Sometimes it is assumed that this low level of achievement is due to an incompatibility 

between the traditional culture and language of those peoples and modern development. Historical and comparative studies have shown that this assumption is false. 

110 

For example, several Native American peoples had higher literacy rates and also 

high socioeconomic outcomes previous to having their local education systems and 

economies fully incorporated into the United States. The Cherokees are the best 

known example with their highly successful school system producing literacy in two 

languages (Cherokee and English) at a higher level than surrounding Euro-American communities produced in one language (English). Native Hawaiians also have 

a long history of a strong education system through their own language producing 

high literacy and a strong socio-economic position. Various groups of Northwest 

American Indians were also very strong economically as they integrated aspects of 

Euro-American farming into their traditional salmon fishing economies. All of these 

systems, however, were destroyed as these groups were fully incorporated into the 

United States, during periods when certain philosophies and legislation relative to 

racial minorities had a huge negative impact on Native American peoples. 

The challenge for Native Americans is to maintain their identity while still participating in the larger national society of the United States and the ‘‘global village’’ 

where people throughout the world participate with each other economically and in 

aspects of popular culture. When an indigenous language and culture are excluded 

from education, or marginalized in it, young people who identify with that language 

and culture do not identify with the educational system. For those who have especially strong connections to the ancestral language and culture from the home or 

community, there is often a sense that education is intended to eliminate one’s identity. The history of Native American boarding school education and punishment for 

use of Native American languages and cultures in schools has reinforced such feelings in Native American communities. The manner in which even Native American 

language enrichment courses in mainstream English medium schools have been 

marginalized into the present times has confirmed for many young Native American 

students that their languages and cultures are considered inferior and academically 

worthless compared to English. 

Establishing schooling totally through the medium of Native American languages 

using the cultural heritage of those languages as the basis of education makes a 

bold statement that Native American languages and cultures are fully valued and 

equal to English within the framework of the American Constitution. This has a 

positive effect on the self-image of the students. 

Furthermore, the use of the target language is based in the local Native American 

culture rather than mainstream American culture. Many Native American peoples 

have their own traditional festivals and observances that are incorporated into these 

schools as central parts of learning, along with their own local flora and fauna and 

own distinctive literature. This results in a much more distinctive academic curriculum than found in mainstream English medium schools. 

As with the European, New Zealand, and Hawaiian examples, these schools have 

been making good progress in meeting their core goal of developing children speakers of the endangered target languages with a commitment to the cultures and communities associated with those languages. There have also been positive results in 

terms of academics and social outcomes. One of the oldest programs is that of the 

non-profit Piegan Institute of Montana founded in 1987. Using Blackfeet as the language of instruction in a small private school on the Blackfeet Reservation, the 

school graduates students from a total Blackfeet language program into ninth grade 

at the local English medium high school. Piegan students have consistently been 

some of the highest performing students in that high school. Contrary to fears 

among tribal leaders, these students have also gone on to college at a higher rate 

than their peers. Especially encouraging to the founders of the program has been 

products of the school taking on ceremonial responsibilities that require use of the 

language and which had been feared would be lost with the passage of Blackfeet 

speaking elders. The school, however, faces major funding challenges and challenges 

in obtaining Blackfeet speaking teachers and curriculum materials. 

Another early Native American language medium/immersion school is Tsehootsooi 

Dine Bi’olta Immersion School in Fort Defiance, Arizona on the Navajo Reservation. 

This is a public school founded in 1986 with a full K–8 program. There are pressures on the school from the broader society that do not exist in a private school 

such as the Piegan Institute. For example, the school is subject to Arizona state assessments beginning in grade 3 and must consider ‘‘highly qualified’’ status designed 

for English medium schools in hiring teachers. This has pushed the school to use 

more English in its program than is generally considered best international practice 

for language revitalization-based schooling, attention that is not expected to make 

a difference in ultimate English outcomes in high school, but expected to weaken 

indigenous language outcomes. Even with this pressure the school is 100 percent 

Navajo medium in K–2, with English introduced for the first time in grade 3. The 

school has produced English medium test results from its students as good as, or 

111 

better than, their peers in local English medium schools. The school has a large enrollment and plans to move into a college preparatory high school program similar 

to that of Nawahi School in Hawai’i. 

Niigaane Ojibwe Immersion Program at Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota 

Niigaane was founded in 2003 as an Ojibwe language immersion stream within 

Bug-O-Nay-Ge- Shig School, a Bureau of Indian Education School. The program 

added grades year by year to a full elementary school within a school. Challenges 

remain for resources in the development of curriculum and staff and teachers. 

These programs and schools would flourish with supportive policies and resources. 

*The attachments to this prepared statement have been retained in the Committee files* 

*Response to these same questions submitted to Sonta Hamilton Roach was not 

received before this hearing went to print* 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. LILLIAN SPARKS ROBINSON


618d1.eps
112 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

HON. LILLIAN SPARKS ROBINSON


618d2.eps
113 


618d3.eps
114 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

WILLIAM MENDOZA


618e1.eps
115 


618e2.eps
116 


618e3.eps 618e4.eps
117 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

WILLIAM MENDOZA

Æ 


618e5.eps