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

62–197 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–713

INDIAN EDUCATION: DID THE NO CHILD LEFT

BEHIND ACT LEAVE INDIAN STUDENTS BEHIND?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 17, 2010

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ALLISON C. BINNEY, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 17, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Johanns ............................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 5

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

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26

Floor statement ................................................................................................. 27

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

WITNESSES

Beaulieu, Dr. David, Professor of Education Policy and Director of the Electa 

Quinney Institute for American Indian Education, University of Wisconsin . 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Bowers, Mariah, Member, Yurok Tribe; Sophomore, Southern Oregon University ......................................................................................................................... 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

Moore, Keith, Director, Bureau of Indian Education, U.S. Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 6

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

Oatman-Wak Wak, Mary Jane, President-Elect, National Indian Education 

Association ............................................................................................................ 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Rose, Charles P., General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education .................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Smith, Hon. Chad, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation .......................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX

Bordeaux, Dr. Roger, Superintendent, United Auburn Indian Community 

School; Executive Director, Association of Community Tribal Schools Inc. 

(ACTS), prepared statement with attachments ................................................. 72

Fox, Dr. Sandra, Oglala Lakota, prepared statement .......................................... 85

Haskell Indian Nations University Higher Education Workforce Project, 

BIE—April 17–19, 2007, report .......................................................................... 113

Montana Indian Education Association, prepared statement .............................. 69

Montana Office of Public Instruction, prepared statement .................................. 65

O’Neill, Gloria, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC), prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 65

Reauthorization recommendations for ESEA....................................................... 91–109

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to: 

Charles P. Rose ................................................................................................. 189

Hon. Chad Smith .............................................................................................. 191

Standing Rock Sioux Nation Educational Enactment Draft ................................ 110

Washington State Tribal Leader’s Congress on Education, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 89

Wilson, Ryan, Oglala Lakota; President, National Alliance to Save Native 

Languages, prepared statement with attachment ............................................ 76

(1)

INDIAN EDUCATION: DID THE NO CHILD 

LEFT BEHIND ACT LEAVE INDIAN

STUDENTS BEHIND? 

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me call the Committee to order. 

This is an oversight hearing on Indian education entitled Did the 

No Child Left Behind Act Leave Indian Students Behind? 

Today, the Committee is going to hold a discussion on Indian 

education and the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

It expired in 2008 and Congress will soon consider the reauthorization of that law. 

So the purpose of today’s hearing is to ensure that the education 

of Native American students is made a priority in that new law. 

The state of education in Indian Country today is I believe at a crisis point. We have some charts to show that today less than half 

of all Indian students graduate from high school and only 13 percent receive a college degree. 

We are losing half of our Indian students before they graduate 

from high school. This is compared to 76 percent of their white 

counterparts who do graduate from high school. It is a very, very 

substantial difference. 

As you can see on chart two, this is also a significant issue in 

my home State of North Dakota; 40 percent of the American Indians graduate from high school in North Dakota, compared to 84 

percent of their white counterparts in my State. I venture to say 

that is likely the case in most States in our Country. 

[The information referred to follows:]

2

This statistic is ignored at our peril. We simply cannot ignore it. 

The Federal Government, I believe, has a trust responsibility to 

provide education to Indian students. We have signed treaties, 

made promises, and this is something that we have to deal with. 


617i1.eps 617i2.eps
3

Throughout our Government’s history, we have engaged with 

tribes and said that schools, teachers and education would be provided in return for the hundreds of millions of acres of what had 

been their tribal homelands. 

Now, I know there are so many factors that impact how well a 

student performs in school, but at the core is the curriculum that 

is taught and how well it reaches the students. Some of the major 

criticisms we have heard from tribes on the No Child Left Behind 

Act is that it had a disproportionately negative impact on high poverty schools. It was too rigid, required ‘‘teaching to the test,’’ and 

it didn’t allow flexibility in teaching. 

The tribes I have talked to about this are not seeking lower 

standards for Indian students. As all of us on the Committee know 

through our interactions at tribal schools and universities, Indian 

students are as intelligent, resourceful, creative as any students in 

this Country who are graduating and going on to college. But it 

seems to me that they are not given the same opportunities and 

not given the same tools with which to succeed in this education 

system. 

The one size fits all approach to educating Indian students just 

appears to me not to be working. We need more flexibility in the 

system so that tribes can address the needs of their students in a 

way that is relevant to them, to their culture, to their community, 

while still meeting or exceeding national standards. 

There are talented and dedicated teachers and administrators 

both in the BIA and the public system who work hard every day 

to provide a good education for their students. That is why we have 

to get the next education bill right and give tribes, students and 

parents the right resources to build the next generation of productive tribal citizens and tribal leaders. 

Today, we are going to hear from the Department of Education 

and the Department of Interior regarding their recommendations 

for the next reauthorization and how they plan to include tribal 

governments and tribes in that bill. 

I am encouraged at the level of outreach that has occurred so far 

by the Administration. I know there have been several tribal consultations already, and they have heard and received information 

from tribes on these priorities. 

We will also hear from our new Bureau of Indian Education Director today, Mr. Moore. I know that Keith Moore has just started 

work last week. We welcome you today to the Committee. I am 

pleased that he is here to provide testimony. 

Let me also say I fully understand, aside from the things I have 

just described, the issues of poverty, the issues of broken families 

and all the related issues that affect children also play a significant 

role in the statistics that I have just described. But it is heartbreaking to me to go to schools that are in disrepair, schools in 

which children are sitting at desks that are one inch apart, to 

schools in which there is overcrowding. 

And in so many other circumstances it means that a fourth grader or a third grader comes out of that circumstance, going to school 

in a building that has been condemned. And I have been to those 

buildings. That third or fourth grader is not going to compete on 

4

an even level with a young child that is going to a school with 15 

classmates in a modern, new school. 

So we need to get this right. We need to keep our promise, meet 

our trust responsibilities. That is why we are holding these hearings today. 

Let me ask my colleagues if they have any comments with which 

to open the hearing. I don’t know who was here first today. 

Senator Johanns? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will 

be very brief because I think you made the point. 

I just wanted to underscore that with one statistic from my 

State. I look at that 50 percent rate and it has got to be heartbreaking to everybody. But in fact during a recent school year, one 

of our schools graduated 12 students, while losing 43. It had a 22.6 

percent graduation rate. It doubled the next year, but is still performing below the national average. 

So I can’t compliment you enough, Mr. Chairman, for taking this 

issue on. I see the discrepancy that exists here and something just 

absolutely needs to be done with these kids not graduating. There 

is truly no hope. You just kind of wonder what happens next in 

their life. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thanks for the chance 

to say a word or two. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johanns, thank you very much. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to echo the remarks of Senator Johanns. I appreciate your 

having this hearing and I appreciate the witnesses coming today. 

Everybody in this room knows how critical education is. If we are 

going to break the cycle of poverty in Indian Country, we have got 

to have a good education system. And it amounts to a lot more 

than just No Child Left Behind. I can tell you that I have never 

said a good word about No Child Left Behind. Having teachers 

teach to tests, making teachers into bureaucrats, not teaching kids 

to think, all those are the kind of things that NCLB brings to the 

table. 

It did do one good thing, though. It did, in Montana, show the 

achievement gap of American Indian kids. And by the way, it is a 

very, very obvious gap and it applies to Native American kids 

across the State of Montana. 

So what do we have to do to be successful? We have to have good 

teachers. We have a hard time recruiting teachers in Indian Country. We have to figure out how to do that. We have to have good 

schools. I was at a school in Indian Country, I won’t say which one, 

not too long ago. It was a nice looking school, appeared to be a nice 

school. It had good kids, as good kids as anywhere in the Country. 

I walked into the bathroom and there was no toilet paper. It was 

5

dirty. It was dingy. It was crummy. And quite frankly, it was all 

of the above. 

And there was an administrator failing right there, I will tell you 

that. The person should have been looking for work that is all 

there is to that. 

But we also need something else. We need to have families support their students. Oftentimes, we look at this as being a Federal 

Government issue and it is. We have our trust responsibilities. But 

unless we have community support for schools, we are sunk. We 

have to figure out a way to get that as a critical component of our 

schools across the board, but especially in Indian Country because 

poverty is so rampant. 

I could go on and on about education and how important it is. 

We all know it. In Montana, we are somewhat lucky: 98 percent 

of Indian kids attend public schools, but a fair number of those 

kids also drop out. The top ranking person at the Department of 

Education is a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, Denise Juneau. 

Denise knows education across the board very well. She also knows 

the challenges in Indian Country. She is going to be a pleasure to 

work with to try to break this cycle of education not meeting the 

needs in Indian Country. 

I can’t stress enough that we need teachers. We need quality 

schools. We need clean schools. We need good administrators. We 

need counselors, social workers, mental health providers. The list 

goes on and on. And as important as any of those is we need parental involvement in these programs. It is critically important. 

I once again want to thank the Chairman for holding this meeting. I look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say and 

the questions that come afterwards. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

Senator Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

very important hearing. 

I would like to especially welcome the new Director of the Bureau of Indian Education, Keith Moore, from my home State of 

South Dakota. In fact, he most recently had a position from my 

alma mater, the University of South Dakota. It is good to know 

that someone with first-hand knowledge of the situation we face in 

South Dakota has been selected for this very important position. 

I can submit my full statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this very important hearing. I would like to especially welcome the new Director of the Bureau of Indian 

Education, Keith Moore, from my home state of South Dakota. It is good to know 

that someone with firsthand knowledge of the situation we face in South Dakota 

has been selected for this very important position. 

The education of our Indian students is a top priority for me and for the Tribes 

in South Dakota. I believe that education is the silver bullet to solving many of the 

problems that we face not just in Indian Country but across South Dakota and the 

6

Nation. We must do our best to provide our students with the best possible learning 

environment that includes safe schools, well-qualified teachers and more attention 

to the individual needs of Indian students. 

The ability of all students to succeed in school depends on many factors outside 

of the school building, including access to nutritious food, a safe and healthy home 

environment, access to mental health resources, and afterschool activities. I am 

committed to working with tribal communities on all of these issues. Two weeks 

ago, I sat down with educators from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and listened 

to the challenges that they face there. 

Unfortunately, many of our schools in Indian Country are not meeting their Adequate Yearly Progress benchmarks. I look forward to learning from our witnesses 

what might be done to enhance the strengths of our students and accurately measure their academic successes. I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing today.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson, thank you very much. 

Panel one today contains Mr. Charles Rose, General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Education; and Mr. Keith Moore, the Director 

of the Bureau of Indian Education at the U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

As I have indicated, Keith Moore is brand new to his job and 

been on the beat for one week, but we are nonetheless pleased you 

are here. Why don’t we begin with you, Mr. Moore, and then we 

will hear from Mr. Rose and ask questions. 

Mr. Moore, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH MOORE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, fellow Members of the Committee, it is an honor 

to be here. It is quite humbling actually to be here and serve in 

this capacity. 

As you said, my name is Keith Moore, the new Bureau of Indian 

Education Director and also Sicangu Oyate Lakota from the great 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. I just want to thank you for 

allowing us to be a part of the hearing today and to provide testimony on behalf of the Department of Interior on No Child Left Behind and how it has affected the schools that we fund and the students that we serve. 

Let me very briefly today tell you a little bit about who I am. I 

would like to take just a moment or two to do that. 

I grew up on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. My mother was 

native. My father was not native. I grew up on the reservation 

until I was eight years old and we left the reservation. Made a 

tough decision, my parents did, when I was a youngster. Some of 

my brothers, some of the issues that Senator Dorgan eloquently 

talked about, many of those issues my family personally faced. My 

family made a decision to move to a border community where my 

non-native family was from. I grew up in a border community 

called Lyman County in South Dakota in between Lower Brule/

Crow Creek and Rosebud Reservations. 

That was in 1975, and if you know your history, it was the middle of the American Indian Movement in South Dakota and it 

wasn’t very friendly to move to a border community during those 

years. But as I look back on them, they are very formative years. 

They molded me in a lot of ways, both good and bad, and I think 

I hopefully have overcome the bad in the sense of trying to be a 

7

level-headed individual that is working on issues on behalf of Indian students today across this Country. 

I grew up there in that border community, poured myself into 

athletics because it was a way to be a normal kid. I fit in through 

athletics. And once I figured that out, I really poured my energies 

into that. I earned my way to college on a basketball scholarship 

to Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

I finished up college and coached and taught throughout the 

State for a decade and then went back for a couple of advanced degrees. I became a school administrator and then really did some 

soul searching in wanting to really work on Indian issues in South 

Dakota, and was offered the position as the State Indian Education 

Director in South Dakota. 

I directed that office for a number of years. It was a great experience, before moving to Senator Johnson’s alma mater, the University of South Dakota, to be the Chief Diversity Officer to work on 

recruiting, retaining and building a framework of success for native 

students in South Dakota. 

I am married, going on 11 years, and have four little girls, which 

was the toughest part of moving to D.C., moving those little girls 

away from home. They are eight, six, four and two. 

So real quick, I just want to take a moment to introduce myself 

to you and again say it is an honor to be here today. It is an honor 

to serve on behalf of Indian students across this Country and I 

hope to make the Bureau a very responsive and well-oiled machine 

when we are talking about serving those youngsters across this 

Country. 

Real quickly to move into the challenges of No Child Left Behind 

and what we feel in the BIE that we have learned over the years 

with No Child Left Behind. 

First of all, as you know, all States had to develop a detailed 

State accountability workbook that was passed and okayed from 

the U.S. Department of Education back when No Child Left Behind 

started. That process was no different for the BIE. The BIE went 

through a negotiated rulemaking process and the Secretary of Interior at that time decided that the best course of action was to follow the State plans. So at that time, the BIE followed 23 different 

States, followed State standards, took State assessments and went 

that path. 

That is really complicated for the Bureau of Indian Education. 

States are able to follow one system with their standards and assessment. The BIE looks at 23 different standards and assessments 

in order to look at student achievement. 

It is very difficult to compare students. It is very difficult to take 

a look at your students apples to apples and see how those students are doing when you are talking about students all over the 

board with standards and assessments, different AYP cutoff scores, 

all of those sorts of things, not to mention that obviously State 

standards, State assessments didn’t take into account tribal input 

very well through that process. 

So as we take a look at those challenges and move forward and 

decide what the BIE should do moving forward, we are looking to 

respond to these issues with NCLB by initiating a process to deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 May 10, 2011 Jkt 062197 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\62197.TXT JACK
8

velop a single set of standards and assessment that would apply to 

all BIE schools. 

We feel that will obviously better meet the unique educational 

needs of Indian students across this Country and it will require 

consultation and working closely with tribes and educators. That 

must also accommodate tribes’ wishes to develop their own standards and assessments as well, if they wish to do that. So it is one 

thing that we really feel that we have to move forward with as we 

talk about reauthorization. 

But despite these many challenges, we do feel that we have seen 

some improvement over the last few years. From the 2007–2008 

school year to the 2008–2009 school year, we have seen an 8 percent increase in our schools in terms of meeting AYP. Now obviously we are not happy with where we are at. We know we need 

to improve even more beyond that. And a number of you gentlemen 

here and Committee Members expressed that in your statistics earlier. 

So as ESEA reauthorization is contemplated, we just hope that 

the unique position of the BIE should not be forgotten in the process. We want to be a part of that process. We want to work closely 

with the U.S. Department of Education through this ESEA reauthorization. It is important that BIE’s role is defined very well, in 

a manner consistent with the Administration’s priorities and policies of self-determination for our tribal groups across this Country. 

So in conclusion today, let me just say the reauthorization of 

ESEA represents a unique opportunity, I believe, for us to ensure 

that this Act works for American Indian and Alaska Native communities across this Country. The reauthorized ESEA can support 

the self-determination of Indian tribes and create an educational 

system that values tribal cultures and languages. 

That is a part that we really feel has been left out as we talk 

about NCLB is the respect paid to our tribal cultures, our languages, the unique needs that our students need inside standards, 

the values that we have as a people. All of those things are missing 

right now in NCLB and are vital for our students’ feeling valued 

and welcomed and comfortable in school systems. 

In closing, let me just say thank you again for providing the BIE, 

the Department of the Interior, the chance here today to testify. 

We are committed, again, to working with you folks here on the 

Committee, the U.S. Department of Education folks like Charlie 

Rose sitting next to me, and with the tribes and with the other departments across fences in order to meet the needs that it is going 

to take. 

So as reauthorization of ESEA moves forward and through Congress, we look forward to working with all parties in order to make 

a difference for our Indian students across this Country. 

So I am happy to answer questions at the end of this Committee 

hearing, and again thanks a ton, and I can’t tell you how honored 

I am to be here. As a kid that is growing up in Indian Country out 

in a rural State of this Country, and just as a youngster when you 

are growing up in those situations, you don’t imagine some day you 

are going to sit here in front of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and talk about Indian education across this Country. It 

gives me goose bumps to even say that. 

9

And let me lastly say also I want to thank Senator Johnson, obviously, from our great State, the years of service that he has given 

in not only Indian education, but Indian issues period across this 

Country. I can’t thank him enough as well. 

So thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH MOORE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of the Committee. My name is Keith Moore and I am the newly appointed Director of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on how the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has 

affected the schools we fund and the students we serve. The Administration is committed to providing high-quality educational opportunities for approximately 42,000 

students who are educated in BIE-funded elementary and secondary schools 

throughout the country. 

Background 

The BIE operates a Federal school system for Indian students. The BIE funds 183 

facilities on 64 reservations in 23 States, consisting of 121 grant schools and 3 contract schools controlled by tribes, and 59 schools directly operated by the BIE. In 

addition, the BIE operates two postsecondary institutions, Haskell Indian Nations 

University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, with student populations 

for the fall through the summer semesters for 2009/2010 of 2,405 and 1,818, respectively. The BIE also provides funds for 26 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) 

and two tribal technical colleges. 

Federal funding for the education of American Indian students comes from both 

the Department of the Interior and the Department of Education. The 183 elementary and secondary schools funded by BIE educate approximately 42,000 students, 

or approximately 7 percent of the total American Indian and Alaska Native student 

population in the United States. The great majority (over 90 percent) of American 

Indian and Alaska Native children are educated in public schools. 

In 2006, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs established the BIE. Formerly 

known as the Office of Indian Education Programs, the BIE was renamed and reorganized on August 29, 2006, to reflect its importance in the organizational structure 

of the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. The BIE is headed by a Director, who is responsible for the line direction and management of all education 

functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, the supervision of all 

program activities and the expenditure of funds appropriated for education functions. 

There have been several major legislative actions that affected the education of 

American Indians since the Snyder Act of 1921. First, the Indian Reorganization Act 

of 1934 supported the teaching of Indian history and culture in Bureau-funded 

schools (until then it had been Federal policy to acculturate and assimilate Indian 

people through a boarding school system). While this was the stated purpose, American Indian students attending Bureau schools continued to experience assimilationbased education for quite some time. Second, the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 93–638) provided authority for federally recognized tribes to contract with the Secretary to operate Bureau-funded schools. The 

Education Amendments Act of 1978 (P.L. 95–561) and further technical amendments (Public Laws 98–511, 99–99, and 100–297) provided funds directly to triballyoperated schools, empowered Indian school boards, encouraged local hiring of teachers and staff, and established a direct line of authority between the Education Director and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. The No Child Left Behind Act 

of 2001 (NCLB) (P.L. 107–110) brought additional requirements to the schools by 

holding them accountable for improving their students’ academic performance. 

As stated in Title 25 CFR Part 32.3, BIE’s mission is to provide quality education 

opportunities from early childhood through life in accordance with a tribe’s needs 

for cultural and economic well-being, in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian 

tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. 

Further, the BIE is to take into consideration the whole person by taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical, and cultural aspects of the individual within 

his or her family and tribal or village context. The BIE school system employs thouVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 May 10, 2011 Jkt 062197 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\62197.TXT JACK
10

sands of teachers, administrators, and support personnel, while many more work in 

tribal school systems. 

Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk stated in his February 25, 2010 testimony, ‘‘One 

of our top priorities is to improve Indian Education and provide quality educational 

opportunities’’ to Native American students. BIE is committed to taking active 

measures to improve learning conditions throughout Indian Country. Some of our 

initiatives include Safe and Secure Schools, High School Excellence, Strengthening 

and Sustaining the Postsecondary Program, the System of Support, and engaging 

in partnerships. 

In January of this past year, Secretaries Salazar and Duncan hosted a meeting 

with Indian education experts to discuss how to improve Indian education. Two of 

the major outcomes of that meeting were renewed focus on BIE and strengthened 

collaboration between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Education. Collaboration between the Departments has been especially strong, with the 

Department of the Interior participating in the Department of Education’s regional 

l consultations and several joint initiatives. 

Challenges of No Child Left Behind 

A key challenge for the BIE, like much of America, has been the implementation 

of NCLB. Educators have found many problems with NCLB. The accountability system labeled schools as failing even when their students were making real gains and 

it prescribed the same interventions for all schools that did not make adequate yearly progress. It allowed the lowest-performing schools to stagnate, and did not provide any incentives for success. And it ignored much of the wide variety of data that 

schools should consider when determining how to improve. These challenges apply 

across the country, and BIE schools are no exception. 

In compliance with NCLB, State education officials developed detailed State accountability plans for approval by the U.S. Department of Education. In its capacity 

of administering the BIE schools, the BIE also developed a Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook. Through a negotiated rulemaking process, the 

Secretary of the Interior determined that BIE-funded schools would use the State 

assessment systems and standards of the 23 States in which the schools were located. Unlike States, which use a single assessment system, BIE uses 23 different 

State assessments. This complex system has presented a major challenge for the 

BIE and BIE-funded schools. Other challenges often voiced by Indian educators, 

parents, and tribal leaders are that NCLB has diminished American Indian cultures 

and languages, and that NCLB does not address the unique needs of tribal communities, especially in rural areas. 

After thorough review of this policy and responding to issues raised by tribes, BIE 

is initiating the process to develop a single set of standards and assessments that 

would apply to all BIE schools and that will better meet the unique educational 

needs of Indian students. This will require consultation with tribes and educators, 

and must accommodate those tribes wishing to develop their own standards and assessments. 

Despite these many challenges, the BIE is making strides in improving Indian 

education. We have seen an increase of 8.09 percent in the number of BIE-funded 

schools meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) from school year 2007–2008 to 

2008–2009, but we are still far from achieving our goals. This Administration is 

deeply committed to moving things in the right direction. 

As ESEA reauthorization is contemplated, the unique position of BIE should not 

be forgotten. As a federally run school system operating throughout Indian country 

and in 23 states, BIE must perform many functions and roles, including that of LEA 

or SEA, depending on the particular provision of the Act. These functions are sometimes not clearly defined by the statute. It is important that BIE’s role is defined 

in a manner consistent with the Administration’s priorities and policies of self-determination. 

Conclusion 

Education in the United States is primarily a State and local responsibility. Historically, tribal communities have not been afforded appropriate control over education in their own communities. Outside interests, including the Federal Government, have historically imposed their will on tribal communities and defined the futures of Indian communities through their children. 

Reauthorization of ESEA represents a unique opportunity to ensure that the Act 

works for American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The reauthorized ESEA 

can support the self-determination of Indian tribes and create an educational system 

that values tribal cultures and languages. 

11

The BIE is partnering with tribal nations to create an education system that supports academic achievement, accountability, safe learning environments, student 

growth, tribal control, and the teaching of tribal cultures and languages. 

Thank you for providing the BIE this opportunity to testify. We are committed 

to working with this Committee, with the tribes and with the Department of Education as the reauthorization of ESEA moves forward through Congress. 

I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moore, thank you very much. I hope it never 

gets old for you to appear here. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. But I can tell you are excited about the new challenges. I think because you are brand new, I think it was helpful 

for our Committee to hear a little about your background, who you 

are, where you came from. I appreciate your doing that at the start 

of your testimony. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. Charles Rose, who is the General 

Counsel of the U.S. Department of Education. 

Mr. Rose, thank you and thanks for your work. We are anxious 

to hear your comments. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. ROSE, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, my name is Charles Rose and I have the privilege of serving as the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Education. 

On behalf of Secretary Duncan, I would like to thank Senator Dorgan and the Committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding one of our Nation’s most underserved student populations, 

American Indian and Alaska Native students. 

On a personal note, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to testify before a Senate Committee. I came here 13 months 

ago after confirmed by the Senate, and I was prior to coming here 

a lawyer in Chicago who represented school boards and municipalities across the State of Illinois. So it is a privilege for me to be here 

in front of you today, and it is equally a privilege to be here with 

Mr. Moore. 

One of the pleasures I have had in the last 13 months is meeting 

and coming to know Mr. Moore and it is an honor to be here with 

you today as well. 

Because this Committee is intimately familiar with the history 

between Indian peoples and the Federal Government, there is no 

need for me to recount that history in any great detail. Still, it is 

important to acknowledge that history in order to avoid repeating 

past mistakes, especially in the area of education. 

Over a century ago, the U.S. Government used education as a 

weapon in its war against tribes. It was a means to achieve a policy aimed at assimilating Indian children. The Federal Government 

often took Indian children from their homes and forced them into 

boarding schools, some of which were far from their homelands. 

These schools banned native languages, native dress, religious 

practices and many students experienced various forms of abuse. 

After decades of failed policy, the U.S. Government adopted a 

new policy of self-determination for tribes in the 1970s. This 

change in policy was based upon the recognition that the tribes, 

and not Washington, were in the best position to govern their own 

12

affairs. The Obama Administration has taken great strides to implement this policy and to honor government to government relationships with tribal nations. 

On November 5 of last year at the historic White House Tribal 

Nations Conference, President Obama reaffirmed the Federal Government’s commitment to tribal sovereignty. He promised ‘‘to develop an agenda that works for tribal communities because Washington can’t and shouldn’t dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country. Tribal nations do better when they make their own decisions.’’

Still, there is much work to be done with regard to tribal sovereignty, especially in the area of education. The last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left 

Behind, exposed the achievement gap, as Senator Tester mentioned 

in his opening statement, between Indian students and their middle class white counterparts. 

It provided us with statistically reliable evidence that Indian students perform at levels far below their peers on academic assessments. These statistics have made one thing clear, at least in the 

area of education. The Federal Government has failed to live up to 

its responsibilities to Indian children and this needs to change. 

Historically, the Department of Education has not engaged Indian Country in a meaningful way. However, I am pleased to report that under Secretary Duncan’s leadership, the Department’s 

focus on Indian education has increased dramatically. For example, 

on January 11, Secretary Duncan participated in a meeting with 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Indian education experts. In 

fact, Mr. Moore was at that meeting. 

Since that meeting, I have been working closely with Assistant 

Secretary for Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk and his team to combine and coordinate the Department’s resources and to maximize 

our impact on Indian education. And it has been an honor working 

with him as well as his team, and two of those individuals are 

there today, Wizipan Garriott and Del Laverdure. It has been a 

pleasure. Wizipan, by the way, has been with us at our tribal consultations representing the Department of Interior. 

In addition, in the past two months senior staff, including myself, 

Under Secretary Martha Kanter, Assistant Secretary Thelma 

Melendez, who has joined me here today, have participated in several regional consultations with tribal leaders across this Country. 

In fact, we have conducted four tribal consultations and we have 

two upcoming in the next month. 

During these consultations, we heard specific ideas from tribal 

officials about what works for Indian Country and this is what they 

said. Tribes want to collaborate with States about how Indian students are educated. Native languages and cultures are dying out 

and we must make an effort to preserve or restore them. Tribes 

generally lack the capacity to compete with States for competitive 

funding. There is little high quality reliable data on Indian students. 

Many schools that serve Indian students are dilapidated and 

present safety risks. Due to domestic violence, substance abuse and 

high unemployment rates, reservations are distressed communities 

that affect our Indian students learn. And most importantly, at 

every consultation, tribal leaders stressed the importance of follow 

13

up. They said consultations were important, but only as a first 

step. We want to be judged by our actions, not by our words. 

This is why we need to follow up on what we have heard. An 

ESEA reauthorization, as Mr. Moore has pointed out, provides us 

with the unique opportunity to take action. 

We focused on five broad areas for this reauthorization: one, raising standards and improving assessments; two, ensuring that our 

best teachers and leaders are in the schools where they are needed 

most; three, ensuring equity in opportunity for all students; four, 

raising the bar and rewarding excellence; and five, promoting innovation and continuous improvement. These goals are critically important to improving education for all students and particularly for 

Indian students. 

We also have plans for specifically addressing the needs for Indian students. For example, we are exploring ways to promote tribal sovereignty in the context of education. Our proposal would 

allow schools that serve Indian students to implement locally designed strategies to improve student achievement such as culturally based education and native language instruction. 

We are also exploring how to strengthen tribal education agencies. TEAs are really the executive branch departments of tribal 

governments that are responsible for education-related matters. 

Several tribal officials testified that strengthening TEAs may provide a mechanism for the Federal Government, tribes and States 

and even local school districts to combine resources and develop 

partnerships that would promote tribal sovereignty, increase capacity and improve accountability in schools with high percentages of 

Indian students. 

So in conclusion, as ESEA reauthorization moves forward, we 

will continue our dialogue with tribal leaders and refine the department’s proposals. We are looking forward to working with the Committee to achieve our goals for all Indian students. We are also 

looking forward to working with our Federal partners at the Department of the Interior. 

And thank you again for the privilege of appearing before you 

this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rose follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. ROSE, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION

Framework: From Assimilation to Self-Determination 

My name is Charles Rose, and I am the General Counsel at the U.S. Department 

of Education. On behalf of Secretary Duncan, I’d like to thank Senator Dorgan and 

the Committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding one of our Nation’s 

most underserved student populations: American Indian and Alaska Native students. 

Because this Committee is intimately familiar with the history between Indian 

peoples and the Federal Government, there is no need for me to recount that history 

in any great detail. Still, we must acknowledge this history to avoid repeating past 

mistakes, especially in the area of education. Over a century ago, the U.S. government used education as a weapon in its war against Tribes—it was a means to 

achieve a policy aimed at assimilating Indian children into the majority culture of 

the United States. The Federal Government often took Indian children from their 

homes, and forced them into boarding schools, some of which were far from their 

homelands. These schools banned Native language, dress, and religious practices, 

and many students experienced various forms of abuse. 

14

After decades of failed policy, the U.S. government adopted a new policy of selfdetermination for Tribes in the 1970s. This new policy direction was based upon the 

recognition that Tribes—and not Washington—were in the best position to govern 

their own affairs. Since then, Tribes and the Federal Government have made strides 

in implementing this policy and relationship. 

This Administration has taken great strides to implement a policy of Indian selfdetermination and strengthen and honor the government-to-government relationship with Tribal Nations. On November 5th of last year, at the historic White House 

Tribal Nations Conference, President Obama reaffirmed the Federal Government’s 

commitment to Tribal sovereignty: he promised ‘‘to develop an agenda that works 

for your communities because... Washington can’t—and shouldn’t—dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country. Tribal nations do better when they make their own 

decisions.’’

Educational Performance of Indian Students 

Despite these strides, there is still much work to be done with regard to Tribal 

sovereignty, especially in the area of education. Only about seven percent of Indian 

students attend schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education. The vast majority, more than 90 percent, attend traditional, school district-operated public schools. 

In these schools, there are few venues for collaboration between Tribes and States, 

even in the case of school district-operated public schools located on Tribal lands. 

And the Federal Government hasn’t done enough to help in this regard, especially 

when Congress last reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (ESEA) through the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB deserves credit 

for exposing the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their 

middle-class, white counterparts. It has provided us with statistically reliable evidence that Indian students perform at levels far below their peers on academic assessments in grades 3–8 and high school. 

For example, in 2007, Indian students attending public schools under the jurisdiction of States scored 11 points lower in math than the general student population 

on the fourth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress test. Unfortunately, when they reached the eighth grade, the achievement gap widened to 17 

points. Indian students attending schools funded or operated by the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education scored 33 points lower in math than their 

peers in fourth-grade and 38 points lower in eighth-grade. 

These statistics make one thing clear—at least in the area of education, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its responsibilities to Indian children. 

In addition, by narrowing the school curriculum, in other words, by building an 

accountability system based almost exclusively on math and reading, NCLB has had 

the unintended consequence of contributing to the erosion of Native languages and 

cultures. By some estimates, fewer than 150 Native languages—out of many hundreds that once existed—remain, and many of those are on the verge of extinction, 

and often, stories and oral histories are dying with the last speakers of these languages. 

What the Department Heard on Its Regional Consultations 

Historically, the Department has not engaged Indian Country in a meaningful 

way. We can avoid repeating past mistakes, however, with regular consultation and 

a meaningful partnership between the U.S. and Tribal nations. I am pleased to report that, under President Obama and Secretary Duncan’s leadership, our focus on 

Indian Country has increased dramatically. In 2009, Secretary Duncan and senior 

staff, including myself, held several listening sessions at Tribal schools in Montana, 

New Mexico and North Dakota. On January 11, 2010, Secretary Duncan, along with 

other senior officials, participated in a meeting with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, 

Senior Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs at the Domestic Policy Council, 

Kimberly Teehee and Indian education experts regarding ways in which to improve 

education for Indian students. In March, Secretary Duncan held a teleconference 

with Tribal leaders from across the country, specifically on reauthorization of the 

ESEA. 

Further, in just the past two months, we have held several regional consultations 

with Tribal leaders across the country. On April 16, Assistant Secretary Thelma 

Melendez and Senior Advisor Greg Darnieder were at the Cook Inlet Tribal Council 

in Anchorage, Alaska, visiting schools and seeking feedback from Tribal officials. On 

April 19, Assistant Deputy Secretaries Jim Shelton and Kevin Jennings, and I held 

a consultation with Tribal officials in Shawnee, Oklahoma. On April 28, Deputy Assistant Secretaries Carl Harris and Frank Chong, and I were on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, and held a consultation at Pine Ridge High School—a 

BIE-operated school. Finally, on May 3, Under Secretary Martha Kanter, Deputy 

15

Assistant Secretary Ricardo Soto, and Deputy General Counsel Nia Phillips were on 

the Espanola reservation in New Mexico and held a consultation at the Santa Clara 

Day School—a BIE-funded school. 

I am also pleased to report that the Department of Education and the Department 

of the Interior have been collaborating with one another since Secretary Duncan and 

Secretary Salazar had their historic meeting regarding Indian education on January 

11. Specifically, I have been working closely with Assistant Secretary EchoHawk 

and his staff to combine and coordinate the Departments’ resources, and to maximize our impact on Indian education. It has been an honor working with him. 

All of these efforts are part of the Department’s commitment to renew our engagement with Indian Country, and we made a real effort to meet Tribal leaders on their 

lands. During these consultations, we’ve heard specific ideas from Tribal officials 

about what works for Indian Country. There were several common themes we heard 

at consultations, including that Tribes:

• Want to collaborate with States about how Indian students are educated. Many 

Tribal leaders testified the best way to promote Tribal-State collaboration would 

be to elevate and fund Tribal Education Agencies.

• Want States and Tribes to have the flexibility to consider Native languages as 

foreign languages.

• Believe that language immersion programs are the best way to increase fluency 

in Native languages and that we should increase support for these programs.

• Generally lack the capacity to compete with States or school districts for competitive funding.

• Want increased coordination and collaboration among Tribes, States, and the 

Federal Government—to fully address the needs of Indian students. In particular, we heard about the importance of close collaboration between the Department of Education and the Department of the Interior—to which we are 

fully committed.

We also heard that:

• Due to high mobility, small numbers, and the fragmentation of the education 

system for Indian students among school district-operated, BIE-operated, and 

Tribal schools, there is a lack of high-quality, reliable data on Indian students 

in the U.S.

• Many schools located on reservations are in dilapidated condition—some of 

them are a century old, and have never been renovated.

• Due to violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and high unemployment rates on reservations, Indian students face additional educational challenges at school.

• Teacher recruitment and retention is a tremendous challenge for schools on reservations. That is why Tribal leaders recommended that ESEA reauthorization 

should increase existing support for ‘‘grow your own’’ teacher programs that 

train Tribal citizens to teach in their own schools.

• Finally, at every consultation, Tribal leaders emphasized the importance of follow-up. One Tribal leader even said ‘‘consultation’’ had become a ‘‘bad word’’ in 

Indian Country because to ‘‘consult’’ only meant to ‘‘confer,’’ and did not require 

true collaboration or partnership.

Current State of Indian Education 

This is why we need to follow up on what we heard, and reauthorization of the 

ESEA provides us with a unique opportunity to take action. Reauthorization can be 

the vehicle that allows us to ensure that States, school districts, and the BIE are 

meeting the needs of Indian students and preparing them to graduate from high 

school prepared for college and careers. 

There are approximately 644,000 Indian students enrolled in K–12 schools 

throughout the U.S., and they represent just over 1 percent of all public school students. In five States, however, they account for more than 10 percent of total enrollment, and over 30 percent of Indian students are in schools where they are the majority of the student body. They also disproportionately attend schools that are poor 

and remote: nearly 60 percent of Indian students attend schools where more than 

half of students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch, and almost 50 

percent attend schools in remote areas. 

As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of Indian students attend regular public 

schools, while about 7 percent attend schools funded by the BIE. Under the ESEA, 

the Department provides support both to public schools serving Indian students and 

to BIE schools, including through programs specifically targeted at the unique eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 May 10, 2011 Jkt 062197 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\62197.TXT JACK
16

cational and culturally related academic needs of Indian students. A significant portion of this support comes through the Title I program, which provides $14.5 billion 

to high-poverty schools in order to ensure that all students have the opportunity to 

meet high standards. 

The ESEA also authorizes the Indian Education Program, currently funded at $127 million, to help meet the specific needs of Indian students. This program provides formula grants to school districts, BIE schools, and Tribes, as well as competitive grants for demonstration projects and pre-service training for Tribal individuals 

to become teachers or school leaders. Services provided by districts under the Indian 

Education Program must be designed with special regard for the particular language and cultural needs of Indian students, and can include a variety of specific 

activities. Other ESEA programs of particular importance to schools that serve Indian students include the Rural Education Achievement Program, which provides 

$175 million to small, rural school districts and rural, low-income districts, and the 

Impact Aid Program ($1.3 billion), which assists districts that are affected by Federal activities, such as those on Indian reservations. 

Goals for ESEA Reauthorization 

We have five broad goals for this reauthorization: (1) preparing college- and career-ready students, through raising standards, improving assessments, and helping 

States and districts provide a complete, well-rounded education; (2) great teachers 

and leaders in every school, through improving teacher and leader effectiveness, ensuring that our best teachers and leaders are in the schools where they are most 

needed, including schools that serve Indian students, and strengthening teacher and 

leader preparation and recruitment; (3) equity and opportunity for all students, 

through rigorous and fair accountability at all levels, meeting the needs of diverse 

learners, and greater resource equity; (4) raising the bar and rewarding excellence, 

through incentives such as Race to the Top, supporting effective public school choice, 

and promoting a culture of college readiness and success; and (5) promoting innovation and continuous improvement, through programs such as the Investing in Innovation Fund (which supports, recognizes, and rewards local innovations) and supporting student success by providing comprehensive services. These goals are critically important to improving education for all students, and especially for Indian 

students. 

We also have goals and plans for addressing the needs of schools that serve Indian students. We know that Federal funding is crucial for these schools, especially 

since they are generally small and remote. Our proposal would continue 

foundational formula funding in Title I and Title II-A, along with formula funding 

in the Rural Education, Indian Education, and English Learner Education programs, among others. 

For most schools serving Indian students, we want to promote Tribal sovereignty 

by allowing these schools to implement locally designed strategies to improve student achievement, such as culturally based education and Native language instruction. We want to give grantees more flexibility under the Indian Education Program 

to carry out Native language restoration and immersion programs, and we want to 

make it easier for Tribes to apply for grants under this program when districts 

choose not to. 

But we also know that many schools with high percentages of Indian students are 

among the lowest-performing. For example, ninety percent of Montana’s schools in 

‘‘restructuring’’ status under ESEA’s Title I accountability system are Indian 

schools, and nearly half of all BIE schools are in restructuring, having failed to 

make adequate yearly progress for at least five consecutive years. Our reauthorization proposal and fiscal year 2011 budget focus significant attention and support on 

persistently low-performing schools, with $900 million in the School Turnaround 

Grants program to support the implementation of one of four school turnaround 

models in these schools—with the choice of which model left to the school district. 

The BIE would receive its share of these funds to turn around its lowest-performing 

schools. 

Our proposal will also address teacher and leader recruitment and retention, especially for schools, like those in Indian communities, where they are needed most. 

The Administration’s proposal includes $405 million for programs that create or expand high-quality pathways into teaching, along with programs that recruit, prepare, and retain effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders. These programs will be focused on preparing teachers and leaders to work in high-need areas. 

Finally, in order to further the Administration’s policy of self-determination for 

Tribes, and to further Tribal-State collaboration, the Department is exploring options to strengthen Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs) through ESEA reauthorization. TEAs are executive branch departments of sovereign Tribal governments that 

17

are responsible for education-related matters (TEAs are not schools, and generally 

don’t deliver educational services directly to students). Several Tribal officials have 

testified that strengthening TEAs may provide a mechanism for the Federal Government, TEAs, and SEAs to combine and coordinate Federal, Tribal, and State resources, and develop partnerships that would promote Tribal sovereignty, increase 

capacity, and improve accountability in schools with high percentages of Indian students. Part of strengthening TEAs must include the provision of targeted technical 

assistance, as well as providing TEAs with data about Indian students—as we heard 

during our consultations; there currently is a lack of such data. 

Conclusion 

As ESEA reauthorization moves forward, we expect to continue our dialogue with 

Tribal leaders and refine the Department’s proposal. We’re looking forward to working with the Committee to achieve our goals for all Indian students. Thank you and 

I would be happy to respond to any questions that you have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rose, thank you very much. 

I think the statements that both of you have given us are important in setting out the Administration’s interests and their notion 

of a direction here to address these issues. 

Let me call on my colleagues for questions, starting with, in 

order of appearance, Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you very much. 

And thank you for your testimony. 

If I could focus on one area of ESEA. I am going to ask your help 

in trying to figure out how this area impacts Indian Country and 

schools in Indian Country, and that is turnaround policy. The Administration has set out some methods by which a school that isn’t 

getting the job done would be turned around, I guess, and that is 

where the terminology comes from. They talk about eliminating 

personnel, moving students to another school, changing to a charter school. They talk about reassigning principals. In fact, that just 

happened in a community that I have lived in. 

It just occurs to me as I think about these policies, they don’t 

make any sense on a reservation. For one thing, I would love to 

think that there is an endless line of people who are anxious to 

sign up and teach, but typically it is recruiting that is a challenge. 

So help me think through that. What is wrong with this? And I 

will just give you my bias. I agree with Senator Tester. I think this 

Federal policy is so misguided, this whole notion of federalizing K 

through 12 education. The very junior partner in funding, being the 

Federal Government, is trying to dictate to literally the smallest 

school in the Nation how they are going to run their programs. 

So you know where my bias is. Talk me through this. 

Mr. Rose, let’s start with you and then I would like to hear from 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. ROSE. Okay. Thank you, Senator. 

As you know, our School Improvement Grant Program is one of 

our most prominent initiatives that we are pursuing in order to 

turn around the lowest-performing schools in this Country. And at 

the heart of the program is the objective to ultimately close the 

achievement gap by providing the students in these low-performing 

schools with educational opportunities that they would not have 

otherwise had but for this program. 

As you mentioned, the Student Improvement Grant Program 

that we have initiated at the Department of Education has four 

models. And one of those models is closing the school. Another of 

18

those models might be contracting with a service provider such as 

a charter school to come in and operate that school. Another model 

we call the transformation model, which does require a change in 

principal. And then the fourth is the turnaround model, which requires a change in staff of up to 50 percent in addition to the 

change in the principal. 

Again, at the heart of each one of those models is providing better opportunities for our students in these low-performing schools. 

And it is our belief that one of the key factors that is involved in 

increasing those opportunities is, one, addressing the notion of 

leadership, which is why two of those models require a change in 

leadership. And it is also, second, addressing the overall quality 

and effectiveness of the teaching staff, which is why one of those 

models requires a change in the teaching staff. 

But third, the transformation model, which is perhaps a model 

that is most applicable in the setting that we are talking about 

here, goes beyond that and goes to the actual programs, and really 

requires the adults in these schools and these school districts to reassess the programs that they are providing to these students and 

look at models that will provide a higher quality educational program. 

So that is the thrust of what we are trying to do. And like I mentioned, I do think that in terms of our policy, the transformation 

model is a model that could or is or should be useful in this context. 

The Department of Interior, like many of the States, has submitted a proposal for the School Improvement Grant Program and 

we are in the process of evaluating that, and hopefully that will be 

approved and then the Department of the Interior can work with 

the BIE schools in order to allocate that money to the schools that 

need it to implement those programs. 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Moore, I am just ticked right out of time 

here, and I don’t want to impinge on others’ time, but maybe there 

will be an opportunity in response to another question to offer your 

thoughts. Because again, my concern is these models don’t seem to 

be relevant to many of the problems we are facing, not just in Indian Country, but in other school systems also. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you both for being here once again. We have a 

former teacher and school administrator. We have a former legal 

counsel who used to work for school boards. You guys have got a 

great pedigree. 

Mr. Moore has been married 11 years, has four kids. You have 

been busy in your own right, and that is pretty cool. 

I want to talk about what I used to do in a previous life. I was 

on the school board and then I was a teacher at one point in time, 

both areas that you guys know a little bit about. And I just want 

to lay out a scenario and how do we solve it. 

I am a music teacher. I just graduated from college. I am looking 

for a job. And I have an opportunity to go to a school where the 

kids are going to be great. They have a tremendous art program 

19

in their background. It is an Indian school, but there is so much 

violence in the town I don’t want my kids to be a part of that. 

So kind of the same thing that you potentially maybe moved up 

your community for, Mr. Moore. I don’t want to put words in your 

mouth. 

How do we recruit teachers in those kind of conditions? What can 

we do? 

Mr. Rose, you talked about the Federal Government has failed to 

live up to their responsibilities. I don’t think there is any doubt 

about that. How do we fix it? How do we get the most basic thing, 

other than the student, a good teacher in the classroom, which is 

one of the things you talked about? 

You can go first, Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. I would love to respond. Great question, Senator. 

Let me say I am also 10 years older than my wife, so we knew 

we had to hurry. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOORE. She is 33. I am 43. So time was ticking on me. 

But I think you bring up a very relevant question. That is a 

tough issue to deal with, finding youngsters that want to go into 

rural communities that are very culturally different and very tough 

to serve in terms of the circumstances that may be in those communities on reservations. 

Let me just use a model that I think we are trying to work on. 

My previous university, the University of South Dakota, the School 

of Education, the dean there is Rick Melmer. We had just developed a model there we had written for a South Dakota Partnership 

for Teacher Quality Grant. It was specifically written to recruit 

students into the teacher education program that were going to be 

educated, and all of their field experience was going to be back in 

rural, hard to serve settings, in order to recruit them on the front 

end. 

So when we recruited students from high school to go into the 

field of education, we were already promoting this program of 

wanting to find teachers to go back into hard to serve schools and 

communities and showing them what a difference that quality 

teachers and leaders make in those schools, offering up different 

types of scholarship programs, paying for a dorm room or food service, whatever it may be, just to be able to pay off part of their tuition fees and so forth in order to recruit them into a program. 

We have seen a great response in terms of recruiting students 

and selling that program. I think those kind of programs, working 

with tribal colleges on different types of programs to recruit teachers and leaders, again I think it goes back to what the Department 

of Education is trying to do with policy, which is be creative and 

be innovative. 

I know in Indian Country we have been struggling with these 

issues in education for hundreds of years. And so it is going to take 

a new model and a new focus. It is those kinds of programs that 

can make a difference in convincing young people to go into the 

field to serve schools and communities. 

Senator TESTER. And before I let you respond to the question, 

Mr. Rose, so what you are saying is in South Dakota it did make 

20

a difference? You got more people that were willing to go into Indian Country? 

Mr. MOORE. Right, and we are in the forefront of that program, 

but we are seeing a great response. 

Senator TESTER. Can it be replicated nationally? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Do you plan on doing that? 

Mr. MOORE. I think it is a model that needs to be presented nationally. 

Senator TESTER. Keep us informed. 

Mr. Rose, do you want to answer the question? 

Mr. ROSE. Sure. I will be brief. In our ESEA reauthorization proposal, one of the five objectives is improving the overall quality of 

teachers and leaders in this Country. However, let me just mention 

two things specifically. 

In our tribal consultations, one of the proposals that we have 

heard is that in order to improve the overall quality of American 

Indian education, we need more Native American teachers in classrooms in front of Native American students. One way in which to 

do that, which I think Mr. Moore is talking about as well, are these 

so-called grow your own teacher programs. Those are programs 

that we support, we want to see more of, and we will work with 

the Department of the Interior to see if we can, with our partners 

there, expand those programs. 

Second, quickly, is that our ESEA proposal does include $405 

million for Teacher and Leader Pathways programs, which again 

are designed to prepare effective teachers and principals, but can 

also be used along these lines that you are suggesting. 

So I think those are two ways in which we an work together to 

address this problem. 

Senator TESTER. Do you have any statistics to tell me how many 

teachers the grow your own teachers has brought into difficult to 

teach areas? 

Mr. ROSE. Off the top of my head, I don’t have the statistics, but 

I would be happy to go back and see what I can provide to you at 

the department. 

Senator TESTER. I agree with you, and I am hearing DOE and 

the DOI saying the same thing. If there are ways you can expand 

this program to work across the word, I think it is smart. I also 

think it is very smart recruiting kids right out of high school. I 

think that is where you get them. 

Anyway, thank you very much for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you. 

Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. 

I didn’t make it here for openings, but put my opening in the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. I very much appreciate your holding this hearing. I think the focus, when we say did the No Child Left Behind 

21

Act leave Indian students behind, I don’t think there is any doubt 

in terms of how we answer that question. It has left Native American students behind. I don’t think there is any doubt about it. 

I wanted to ask both of you about what Mr. Rose brought up in 

terms of these models. You were responding to Senator Johanns’ 

question of how you are going to bring the change about in these 

schools, which I think all of us up here feel there needs to be dramatic change. Two of the models is changing the leadership. 

My first question really is, have you tested this before? Has this 

ever been utilized in BIE schools? Have you seen a good result? 

What makes you think if you change the leadership you are going 

to be able to find the right kind of leadership that is going to be 

culturally sensitive and understand what is really going on in these 

schools? So that is the first question. 

And then secondly, we all know that teachers, and Senator Tester focused on this, are really the key. What in the past, if there 

have been success stories, have we been able to track the kind of 

teachers that then will produce the good results with native students? 

Mr. Moore, do you want to start out? 

Mr. MOORE. One, I do think we have to, especially in rural settings, consider it is a lot more difficult, obviously, in a rural setting 

than in an inner city even to fill the chair once the chair is vacated. 

So I think it is two-tiered. 

I think, one, we should work hard to provide technical assistance 

and professional development to the current administration that is 

there and leadership. But at the same time, in many instances, we 

see a real revolving door in administration where on one reservation an administrator may be relieved of their duties and they end 

up over here at reservation B, and then they are relieved of their 

duties there and they are over at C and D and E, and they may 

end up back at A again 10 years later. We see the revolving door 

of what would be deemed not very effective leadership. 

Senator UDALL. That is really unacceptable. If you have made 

the conclusion that this person is not a good leader in one school, 

what makes you think they are going to be a good leader in another? 

Mr. MOORE. But the point is that it is difficult to find quality individuals. That is where I think grow your own can really assist 

and help when you are recruiting in Indian Country for folks to become teachers and leaders and administrators in a rural setting 

and on the forefront really working to fill the pipeline with folks 

that want to fill those positions, and then working hard there to 

really teach them and educate them about what it is going to be 

like culturally and all of those things to serve in those schools and 

communities. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Rose, please? 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you. Before I respond to your question, I just 

want to share with you, Senator, one of the pleasures of the last 

few months has been that I am a member of the Board of Trustees 

for the Udall Foundation as the Department of Education’s Director. That has been a real pleasure and a real privilege to serve on 

that. 

22

Senator UDALL. And there is a lot going on there with native 

leadership also in a number of other contexts. 

Mr. ROSE. Right. 

Senator UDALL. Hopefully, there can be some cross-pollination 

here. 

Mr. ROSE. I hope so. We are working with Terry Bracy and Ellen 

Wheeler and others. 

As a former management lawyer or school board lawyer in Illinois, leadership, in my mind, is the key. Yes, in terms of the models that we have promulgated under the School Improvement 

Grants, finding good leaders is perhaps a challenge, but it is a 

challenge that we must rise to and meet. 

I am not aware specifically about change of leadership in BIE 

schools, but obviously that is one of the things that we need to pursue, working closely with the Department of the Interior. 

As far as other schools across this Country, there is evidence in 

areas like Chicago, L.A. and New York, and we can provide some 

of this to you as a supplement to my testimony here, that changing 

leadership has resulted in positive student growth in these schools. 

As difficult as it is, changing leadership is often vital to making 

that change. I will provide that to you. 

Senator UDALL. Okay. Thank you. 

The tenor of what you say is very important. We just need to get 

it working on the ground to have the reality of native students 

doing better, and I hope you are both committed to that and going 

to make that happen. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

In our state of New Mexico, we have 3 tribal colleges (Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, Navajo Technical College, and the Institute of American Indian 

Arts) and 45 tribal schools, 27 of which are solely BIE operated. In fact, 24 percent 

of the Nation’s tribal schools are in New Mexico. 

Tribal education is crucial to sustain the culture and traditions of our Native peoples. A critical part of this is encouraging the survival of Native languages, through 

such avenues as the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act. 

As Indian children grow, we must provide the safest, healthiest, and best education 

possible and honor our Trust agreements. 

However, I am concerned that this responsibility is not being met. Too many tribal schools have severe safety and code violations, suicide and dropout rates are unacceptably high. Native students are simply not learning in environments that allow 

them to reach their full potential. 

American Indian youth have to endure unacceptable disparities in services and 

outcomes and face social barriers that make completing school much, much harder. 

Seventy-six percent of White students graduate from high school, but only 57 percent of American Indians do. 

I am also concerned that there is no system in place that support school health 

programs in BIE schools the way there is in most public schools. 

I realize that there are many challenges in providing the best education for our 

Native youth, from attracting and retaining qualified teachers and administrators, 

to transporting our children in safe vehicles over better roads regardless of weather 

conditions, maintaining old school buildings and accessing broadband and other 

technologies. 

Today we’re focusing on how to improve the reauthorization of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act to address some of these issues. I look forward to the 

testimony of our witnesses and hope that they will identify the best ways to improve 

these conditions. These children deserve more. Thank you.

23

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall, thank you very much. 

I am going to call on Senator Johnson and then Senator Murkowski, and then we will have four additional witnesses. One of 

them will be by the Internet for the second panel today. 

Senator Johnson? 

Senator JOHNSON. I am impressed with the need for more quality 

teachers. 

Mr. Moore, I was home on the Pine Ridge Reservation just last 

weekend and it struck me how many Teach for America faculty 

there were, which is both good news and bad news. The good news 

is they are talented teachers and capable. The bad news is they are 

short term and they tend not to be Native American. 

Where do the tribal colleges and universities fit into this scheme 

for providing more teachers? And has it for the most part been successful? 

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thanks for the question. 

I think historically we have seen waves where we do a good job 

of recruiting teachers, native teachers and leaders. There are different periods if you look in history where different grant programs 

come in and we do a nice job of recruiting a good cadre of folks that 

become teachers and leaders. And then when those dollars go 

away, we see the shortage for 10, 20 years, and then something 

may come back and we will see the pipeline fill again. 

I think we need to find more consistent measures and consistent 

ways to recruit native youngsters into the field of education and 

really adequately develop programs that do that. I think that is an 

issue. So I think at times we see success, but then there are times 

that we don’t have success in terms of filling those chairs. 

I also would, if you don’t mind, comment on Teach for America. 

When I was State Indian Education Director, that program was 

really growing in South Dakota. And I do think one thing that 

Teach for America does do well is they do nice training on the front 

end for their teachers of trying to culturally prepare them for the 

situations that they are stepping into. 

At the same time, I know some folks call it a band-aid measure 

because they are maybe only around for two or three years, but you 

are talking about some of the best and brightest youngsters in this 

Country that go in and really understand the curriculum; the materials to teach it. They have a solid understanding of it. 

And so it is a tough one. I ask myself, do you want Teach for 

America or do you not want Teach for America? If you do not want 

Teach for America, you may be filling that classroom with a warm 

body in many instances. We struggle to find people right now to 

apply for jobs in Indian Country on reservations. We have about 

70 youngsters right now serving on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge 

Reservations in Teach for America and I think they are making a 

difference in terms of what young people are learning. 

So we have to be careful in the work that we do here, whether 

we support these programs ongoing, or how do we change direction 

and find more teachers that are going to stay for a long-term basis. 

But right now it is tough to say that Teach for America isn’t making a difference in youngsters’ lives in terms of serving and educating youngsters in those areas. So I just wanted to comment on 

that real quick. 

24

Senator JOHNSON. Again, what role do you see for tribal colleges 

and universities for the provision of teachers? 

Mr. MOORE. If I didn’t answer that, I was going to say I think 

we need to develop more consistent measures of how we recruit 

and train teachers. I think there are times, again, that we do a 

nice job of that and then maybe we feel like we have had a nice 

group that have been educated and are in the pipeline and serving, 

and then maybe the focus becomes somewhere else because there 

are so many needs on reservations. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Rose, what steps has the Department of 

Education taken to coordinate with the BIE? 

Mr. ROSE. Senator, before I answer that question, I just want to 

say in terms of the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and 

Universities, Maggie George recently joined the Department as the 

Executive Director of that program. And front and center on her 

agenda, as well as ours generally at the Department, is trying to 

use that position in coordination with the BIE to improve the overall quality of teachers and get qualified teachers into our BIE 

schools. And I think that is a tremendous opportunity to do that. 

What are we doing in terms of coordinating with the BIE? Number one is the consultations. BIE has been with us every step of 

the way and I can’t thank them enough. Second is, we do hold regular meetings and conference calls with our BIE colleagues in order 

to coordinate. Number three, we have outside of the tribal consultations and outside of these meetings visited tribes and other education leaders in this Country in order to ascertain what the proposals are to improve our system of education for American Indians. 

So at the top, Secretary Salazar and Secretary Duncan have been 

very, very supportive of our interagency collaboration. So those are 

what we are doing to make that commitment a reality. 

Senator JOHNSON. My time is expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

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

hearing. 

Gentlemen, the Committee has had a series of listening sessions 

to hear from tribes about their priorities. As we look to reauthorization of the ESEA, one of those that has come from that is a focus 

on cultural and language-related curriculum. We have some successes in Alaska. One that I have visited in the not too distant past 

was the Yu’pik Immersion Program in Bethel, Alaska. It really 

goes to the core of what makes our native students so successful 

in achieving their educational success. They know who they are. 

They have a sense of pride in who they are. They are not hiding, 

living in shame. 

It is something that I think we look to. And as we try to determine what is it that it going to make that connect between the student and academic success, where is that relevancy? I think we see 

it so much when we are able to engage our young people in their 

native cultural languages. 

25

I have introduced a bill, Mr. Chairman. It is called the School Accountability Improvement Act. I serve on the HELP Committee. I 

have chosen to focus on certain areas that relate to Alaska Native 

students and rural schools. I would actually like, Mr. Chairman, to 

include in the Committee’s record my Floor statement when I introduced that legislation as a part of the Committee record. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I also have an opening statement that I 

would like to include as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But again, I think that is so key as we look 

to those ways that, again, we ensure that relevancy. 

Mr. Rose, I want to ask you about the teacher turnover. We 

talked a little bit about retention. We know that the turnover rate 

in the schools that serve our Indian children is so incredibly high. 

On the HELP Committee, we have been focused on the Secretary’s 

blueprint and how we turn these schools around. And those of us 

who come from rural States are more than a little bit concerned 

about the restructuring status in the four proposed turnaround 

models. 

The concern that I have is that under these four models, firing 

the principal and at least 50 percent of the teachers is required as 

that first step in this turnaround process. For us in Alaska, part 

of our problem is we can’t get the administrators to the school. We 

can’t get the teachers to the school. 

It is not just because we face a shortage of teachers. In far too 

many of our communities, there are other factors at play. You are 

in a village that is small. You are teaching multiple subjects. You 

are in a village that does not have running water, sewer. Your 

housing conditions are not acceptable. It is very, very difficult for 

a multitude of other reasons. 

So the concern that we have is if this is your first step in turning 

a school around, we are not going to get any of these lower-performing schools or these schools that need help, the help that we 

need. How will we get a principal out to a school? 

When I took the Secretary of Education out, not this one, but 

Secretary Paige, the principal was living in the broom closet. How 

am I going to get another principal to go out to Savoonga if he or 

she knows that they are going to have no housing? 

So how do we work through this? Because I am very concerned 

as we move forward with ESEA, we are going to have situations 

where it is children in our villages up north; it is children on our 

reservations where we are not going to be able to get those key administrators, those key teachers to come in. How do we address 

this? 

Mr. ROSE. Well, Senator, in our tribal consultations, just to address the first issue in terms of language and culture, that has 

been one of the preeminent issues that has arisen. Once I respond 

to your question, I just want to share with you a quote from one 

of our consultations on that issue that really has resonated with us 

at the Department. 

As you know from the Secretary’s testimony before the HELP 

Committee and what I have said here, the core of our turnaround 

strategy is ensuring that the adults that are in front of our children are in fact the highest quality adults as possible in terms of 

26

the leading and teaching students that are otherwise in low-performing schools. 

We recognize the challenges that our models present in rural 

areas and particularly in areas like Alaska. I think as the Secretary has also expressed, we will continue to work with Congress 

and the Committees in order to address those concerns. 

I also want to say that sometimes, as difficult as it may be, I am 

also speaking from my experience as a school board lawyer before 

I took this position, a change in leadership is necessary. Again, if 

that is going to happen, we, the folks that are involved in pursuing 

those changes, need to work with those school districts, with those 

individuals to ensure that there are high quality principals in those 

schools. And that is part of a larger systemic issue, I think, facing 

public education, but we are committed to working through this 

and trying to address and resolve some of these concerns. 

Let me just share with you briefly this quote. During our consultation in Anchorage, Alaska, one of the tribal leaders said in 

connection with the language and culture issue, and I think this 

is what really has resonated with us is the following quote: ‘‘I feel 

that the native language should be taught and I also feel that it 

is a beautiful jewel, the native language, to wear. If I wear it, it 

will shine. But if I put it away in a jewelry box, what is the use 

of it being there?’’

And that spirit has really resonated with us as we continue to 

work with Indian Country on our ESEA proposals and also work 

with Congress on our proposals. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that, a beautiful quote. I am 

going to have to get that from you. But as it relates to how we deal 

with these schools where it is very difficult to get the teachers and 

the staff, I would hope that you would work with us in these areas 

where there are other factors that are at play that so complicate 

it. It looks good on paper, but we have to make sure that it translates. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement and Floor statement of Senator

Murkowski follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, I am pleased to join you today to discuss the impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act on Indian students as well as tribal recommendations as the Senate considers reauthorization of NCLB. 

We must recognize that American Indian and Alaska Native students face many 

more challenges than students on Main Street, America. The lack of law enforcement creates an unsafe situation for too many Alaska Native and American Indian 

children. The lack of running water and sewer in Alaska Native villages and some 

reservation communities presents health challenges that no other community in the 

country faces. 

Mr. Chairman, I have stated many times, in my home State of Alaska, we have 

many unique challenges in providing Native peoples with a high-quality, appropriate education. It is a challenge to recruit teachers to places where the culture 

is so different from their own, there is no running water, nor law enforcement, limited access to health care, and costs are high. It is a challenge for students to stay 

motivated about their education when there is a lack of opportunity for good jobs 

in their home communities. Instead of academic success, hopelessness breeds substance abuse, and youth suicide. It is also a challenge to ensure that local communities value the education that is being provided in the school when some educators 

are willing to trade Native language and culture for teaching to the test in order 

to make AYP. 

27

Despite this stark reality, I know hope exists. The Ayaprun Yupik Immersion 

School in Bethel, Alaska is one example. The immersion school addresses the core 

of what makes Native students successful in achieving educational success—knowing and valuing who they are. For too long, through generation after generation, the 

history of Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians has included 

hurt and shame. We must do our part to ensure that history stops with this generation of students. 

Part of our job is to make sure that federal education law embraces local communities’ desire to revitalize their culture and language. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other states, Native Americans are working hard to keep their indigenous languages and cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and research supports them, that 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when 

their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any 

child, but particularly true for these groups of Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, as ESEA is reauthorized, we must work to ensure that flexibility 

is provided for Native language immersion programs, that elders are allowed into 

classrooms to guide the young people, and that teachers and principals have guidance in incorporating appropriate learning styles, culture, and Native ways of knowing into their curriculum. We must continue to disaggregate the proficiency data so 

that the light continues to shine on Native students’ achievement. And we must ensure that all of ESEA works for our nation’s indigenous peoples—not just the Indian 

title of the law. 

Thank for you for holding this hearing today, and directing attention to a very 

important issue. I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony. 

FLOOR STATEMENT—SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ‘‘School Accountability Improvements Act.’’

As you know, the 2001 re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, made significant 

changes to Federal requirements for schools, school districts, and states. Many of 

these changes have been good, and were necessary. 

Because of NCLB, there is more national attention being paid to ensuring that 

schools, districts, and states are held accountable for the achievement of students 

with disabilities, those who are economically disadvantaged, and minority students. 

In my own state of Alaska this has meant, for example, that our more urban school 

districts are paying more attention than ever to Alaska Native students’ needs. 

People across the nation are also more aware that a teacher’s knowledge of the 

subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are the most important 

factors in ensuring a child’s achievement in school. 

Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data than ever 

about the achievement of individual students, subgroups of students, and schools. 

With that data, changes are being made to school policies and procedures and more 

students are getting the help they need to succeed in schools. 

While these are just a few of the positive effects of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is difficult to write one law 

that will work well for both New York City and Nuiqsut, Alaska. 

My bill, the ‘‘School Accountability Improvements Act’’ is meant to address six 

issues that are of particular concern in Alaska and in other states around the nation. 

First, my legislation would give flexibility to states regarding NCLB’s ‘‘Highly 

Qualified Teacher’’ requirements. In very small, rural schools, it is common for one 

teacher to teach multiple core academic subjects in the middle and high school 

grades. NCLB requires that this teacher be ‘‘Highly Qualified’’ in each of those subjects. 

While it is vital that teachers know the subjects they teach, it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in 

every single subject. It is almost impossible for tiny, remote school districts to find 

and hire such teachers. Yet, students deserve to have teachers who know the subjects they teach. 

My legislation would provide flexibility by allowing instruction to be provided by 

Highly Qualified teachers by distance delivery if they are assisted by teachers on 

site who are Highly Qualified in a different subject. This provision is offered as a 

compromise in those limited situations. 

Second, my legislation would give credit to schools, rather than punish them, if 

students are improving but have not yet reached the state’s proficiency goals by reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 May 10, 2011 Jkt 062197 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\62197.TXT JACK
28

quiring the U.S. Department of Education to allow states to determine schools’ success based on individual students’ growth in proficiency. While it can be useful to 

teachers and administrators to know how one group of third graders compares to 

the next year’s class, it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents 

to know how each child is progressing—is the child proficient, on track to be proficient, or falling behind? Many states now have the robust data systems that will 

allow them to track this information; NCLB should allow them to use the statistical 

model that will be most useful. 

My bill also improves NCLB’s requirements for school choice and tutoring. No 

Child Left Behind gave parents an opportunity to move their children out of dysfunctional schools. I support that. But the law requires school districts offer school 

choice, and to set aside funds to pay for transportation, in Year Two of Improvement 

Status. Schools don’t have to tutor the students until the following year. Mr. President, this is backwards logic. Schools should be given the opportunity to help students learn first before transporting them all over town. I think most parents agree, 

and that is one reason why we’re seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choose to 

transfer their children to another school. My bill would require schools to offer tutoring first before providing school choice. 

Mr. President, NCLB also requires schools to tutor and offer choice to students 

who are doing well at their neighborhood school. Schools should not be forced to set 

aside desperately needed funds to serve students who don’t need those services. My 

bill would require schools to provide tutoring and choice only to those students who 

are not proficient. In addition, it would allow school districts to provide tutoring to 

students even if the district is in Improvement Status. While school districts may 

need improvement overall, those same districts employ teachers who are fully capable of providing effective tutoring. 

Mr. President, many educators and parents also have concerns about NCLB’s requirements for Corrective Action and Restructuring. These are very significant requirements that can include firing staff and closing schools that don’t meet the law’s 

AYP requirements. They are even more significant if the actions are not based on 

reliable information. 

As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on state standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Some question whether or not the tests 

we are giving these two groups of students are valid and reliable. Yet, NCLB requires districts and states to impose significant corrective actions or restructure a 

school completely if a school or district does not make AYP for any subgroup repeatedly. For truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate. 

But Mr. President, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, 

turning its governance over to another entity, or other drastic measures if the students are learning but have not yet met the state’s proficiency benchmarks? We 

can’t. 

That is why my bill would not allow a school or school district to be restructured 

if the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone and the school 

can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on 

track to be proficient in a reasonable amount of time. Schools that are improving 

student learning should not be dismantled based on potentially invalid test results. 

Mr. President, in Alaska, Hawaii, and several other states, Native Americans are 

working hard to keep their indigenous languages and cultures alive. Teachers will 

tell you, and research supports them, that Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and 

American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but particularly true for 

these groups of Americans. 

Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated indigenous language programs into their curriculum. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether or not the students 

have learned the state standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what 

a student knows in a language they don’t speak well. Research also tells us that 

students who are learning in a full language immersion program do not test well 

initially, but by 7th grade they do as well or better on state tests and they can 

speak two languages. 

My legislation would allow schools with Native American language programs in 

states where there is no assessment in that language to calculate Adequate Yearly 

Progress for third graders by participation rate only. It would then allow the school 

to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 

4 through 7. 

Finally, Mr. President, I know as a parent how important it is to my boys that 

their father and I have always been involved in their education. NCLB recognizes, 

29

in many ways, how important parents are in a child’s education, but improvements 

can still be made. My bill would amend Title II of NCLB—which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals—to allow (but 

not mandate) more parental involvement in our schools. This section of my bill 

would allow parent-teacher associations and organizations to be members of federally funded partnerships formed to improve low-performing schools and to provide 

training to teachers and principals to improve parental engagement and school-parent communication. 

I can tell you that as wonderful as our nation’s teachers are, very few of them 

graduate from college having had a course in how to effectively communicate with 

parents. Teachers are very busy people, and when a parent shows up at the classroom door and says, ‘‘Hi, I’m here to help’’ teachers often don’t know how to react. 

Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents who may be working two 

jobs, or who have a different cultural background or language. In my view, parents 

should be a part of improving their children’s schools, and have insights into how 

communication between school and home can be improved. 

Mr. President, I know that these six issues are not the only issues that my colleagues, Alaskans, and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I 

have been talking with Alaskans about NCLB since I came to the Senate, and I look 

forward to working hard on the reauthorization of the law this year. 

Thank you, Mr. President.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. 

I am going to be submitting questions to you because I want to 

have the next panel, and we are expecting at some point here a series of votes on the Floor of the Senate, so I want to make sure 

I get the testimony from the next panel. 

I really appreciate the testimony that both of you have given 

today. If this is in fact your first testimony before a Senate Committee, you have both done very, very well and I think it is very 

productive for us. So thank you very much. 

We will dismiss both of you and ask that we have the Honorable 

Chad Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma 

to come forward. We have an Indian youth, Ms. Mariah Bowers 

from the Yurok Tribe in Klamath, California. She will be appearing 

via Skype. 

We have Ms. Mary Jane Oatman-Wak Wak, who is the President-Elect of the National Indian Education Association. And we 

have Mr. David Beaulieu from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

So let me begin with Mr. Chad Smith. Mr. Smith, welcome. You 

are the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. You 

have heard the previous testimony and we welcome you here as the 

start of the second panel. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHAD SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, 

CHEROKEE NATION 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We have several recommendations regarding the reauthorization 

bill to address the challenges and specific needs of Indian Country 

by including the focus on native history, culture and language; to 

allow the tribes greater access to education formal funding and 

flexibility to self-determine their educational future; and lifting the 

moratorium on the grades one through eight at Sequoyh High 

School and some of the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. 

Basically, after the American Civil War, the Cherokee Nation 

had fought two-thirds for the north and one-third for the south. It 

created 4,000 widows and orphans. We built an orphanage. 

30

At Oklahoma Statehood in 1907, the Federal Government took 

over and our boarding school became an Indian training orphanage. 

It evolved through the Depression, because many of our families 

could not afford to raise their children because of the Depression. 

In fact, my dad graduated from high school at Sequoyh Indian 

Training School in 1940. 

In 1985, the Cherokee Nation contracted back from Bureau of Indian Affairs. Ten years ago, we wanted to become a Leadership 

Academy. In fact, in 1999, we had a capacity of 350. We had enrollment of 205. It was known as a school of last resort. If you got 

kicked out someplace else, you came to Sequoyh. 

To build that Leadership Academy, we understood that the product was singular, to create leadership, where every child could 

make sound decisions to lead themselves, lead their families, to 

lead their communities, their nation and their country. 

Today, we have an enrollment of 400. We have 83 on a waiting 

list. In the last five years, we have a host of State championship 

titles in girls basketball and boys basketball; championships in 

cross country, softball, and football. In fact, one of the success stories is here in Nathan Stanley, who graduated two years ago from 

Sequoyh. He will be, if he will go, the starting quarterback at Ole 

Miss next year. 

Other athletes that we have been able to graduate include Angel 

Goodrich, who will be starting guard at Kansas basketball; the 

Hammer sisters at Mercer. We actually have students now at the 

Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy and West Point. As of this 

date, in the last five years, we have now had 32 Gates scholars. 

So the success there is basically students from us wanting to 

make it a Leadership Academy. The Cherokee Nation having contracted it, and creating a focus allows us to create an environment 

that is healthy and happy and wholesome. For example, it is an 

open campus. We get an incident report each year, every month actually. This last two months, our greatest incidence of discipline 

was for improper use of cell phones, which is a great blessing for 

us. 

What you see here is part of the investments we are making over 

the next few years in academics, including robotics training. There 

we compete with the State. We are investing in math, science, 

music and art. So it has become a school of choice. 

Critical to the growth of the school is that we are now funded 

through the Bureau of Indian Affairs in grades 9 through 12. With 

tribal funds, we added the seventh and eighth grades so we could 

prepare the kids to acclimate to our all-Indian school. 

We have actually begun an immersion school which when the 

children go into the school at pre-K, they speak no English. It has 

been a great success. In fact, we now have 80 children. We added 

one grade per year. We have 80 children in immersion school, and 

when they are in the second grade, they become literate in our language, not only fluent. This is a graduating class from the immersion school as kindergartners. 

This is sort of fascinating. We have had to redevelop the entire 

curriculum for teaching Cherokee. We have had our literate language since 1822 when Sequoyh developed it. In the last decade, 

we have lost a great sense of literacy. In fact, in 1828, we were 90 

31

percent literate in our language. And so we have had to use every 

technique and trial and error we could. 

And so with our language, we are developing the curriculum and 

we need more work with not only translation, but grammar and 

syntax and verb conjugation. But we have had great assistance 

from the private community with Apple. Andy Kemp is here from 

Apple. He has helped us with the iPhone and the iPad to help us 

develop translations and books for children. 

In fact, our children can type back and forth to each other in the 

second grade being literate in the Cherokee language. We introduce 

English literacy later in the fourth grade. 

With the Chairman’s permission, I would like to have staff come 

and show you this iPad with our language in it, with stories about 

President Obama and President Bush. 

Basically, what we believe in Indian Country is critical. It has allowed the tribes the self-determination to create this success. Every 

school is different. We are so happy that we have had the opportunity to attend. 

And just as a short footnote to follow up some of the questions 

the panelists have responded to. In 1973, I graduated from the 

University of Georgia in a cohort called the Indian Teacher Training Program. There were 15 Indian folks like myself, highly intensive with counseling and such. We were interned on a reservation 

one semester and back in the classroom in Georgia the next semester. It was a very, very effective program. So to add to the earlier 

testimony, that program was very successful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, that is a very inspiring story and I 

almost wanted to keep that iPad. They are very hard to find, as 

you know, but you are very lucky to have one. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for sharing that with us, and especially what you are doing with the youth and education system. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHAD SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION

Chairman Dorgan and Vice Chair Barrasso, on behalf of the Cherokee Nation, I 

thank you for hosting this discussion on the No Child Left Behind Act and the subsequent effect it has had on students in Indian Country. My name is Chad Smith 

and I am the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation is the 

second largest American Indian nation in the United States, with approximately 

280,000 citizens. The Cherokee Nation Tribal government is seated in Tahlequah, 

Oklahoma with a territorial jurisdiction spanning 14 counties in northeast Oklahoma. 

We have a 100 year plan and believe the vision or ‘‘designed purpose’’ of the Cherokee Nation is to become a happy and healthy people. Our strategy is to become 

economically self-reliant, revitalize our language as the vessel of cultural intelligence and develop cohesive place and interest communities. We execute our strategy with leadership. We acquire leadership through education. 

Education has always been a major priority to the Cherokee people. The history 

of our tribe is adorned with many great scholars and intellectual minds. One of the 

first governmental acts after the Trail of Tears was an appropriation by the Cherokee Nation to set up numerous day schools in the Cherokee Nation decades before 

the formation of the state of Oklahoma. The Cherokee Female Seminary was the 

first institute of higher learning for women west of the Mississippi, established in 

1851. Today we are continuing this portion of our legacy through the success of our 

education programs at Sequoyah Schools and our Cherokee Nation Immersion 

School. Sequoyah Schools, an Indian boarding school, originated in 1871 when the 

Cherokee National Council passed an act setting up an orphan asylum to take care 

32

of the many orphans who came out of the Civil War. In 1914, the Cherokee National 

Council authorized Chief Rogers to sell and convey the property of the Cherokee Orphan Training School, including 40 acres of land and all the buildings, to the United 

State Department of Interior for $5,000. In 1925, the name of the institution was 

changed to Sequoyah Orphan training School in honor of Sequoyah, the Cherokee 

citizen who developed the Cherokee Syllabary. 

The Cherokee Nation resumed operation of Sequoyah in 1985 and added 7th and 

8th grades in 2006 when it became known as Sequoyah Schools. From a school with 

one building and 40 acres of land, Sequoyah Schools has grown into a modern institution covering more than 90 acres and a dozen major buildings nestled on a beautiful campus five miles southwest of the Cherokee Nation capital city of Tahlequah, 

Oklahoma. It is regionally and state accredited for grades 7–12 and currently enrolls 400 students representing 42 tribes and 14 different states. Students are eligible to attend if they are members of a federally recognized Indian tribe or one-fourth 

blood descendants of such members. 

The purpose of Sequoyah is singular: to develop leadership so our graduates can 

lead themselves with sound decisions, and lead their families, communities, Nation 

and Country to be happy and healthy people. 

It is an honor to be accepted to Sequoyah Schools. To be considered, students 

must have a 2.25 grade point average, three letters of reference, and no incident 

reports at their previous school. School administration feels that setting a standard 

for entrance requirements motivates students at an early age to perform their best 

in order to work towards attending Sequoyah Schools. It creates an expectation of 

success. This has been attested to by many elementary and junior high principals 

from surrounding school districts. Sequoyah Schools offers an academic curriculum 

that focuses on preparing students for college success. The majority of graduates 

from the School go on to higher education. 

Many students have earned scholarships as a result of their academic success and 

their heavy involvement in community service and volunteering. Some of the recent 

success stories include students being accepted to West Point, The Air Force Academy, The Naval Academy, Dartmouth and Mercer. 

For several years, there has been a moratorium on expansion of grade levels at 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools. This moratorium has chilled growth at Sequoyah 

High School, since no funding is allowed for 1st through 8th grade. Sequoyah 

Schools has become the primary school of choice in Northeastern, Oklahoma for Indian students. Students at Sequoyah consistently perform at higher levels than 

their peers in the Oklahoma public school system. Over 25 percent of Sequoyah seniors are enrolled in concurrent college courses. Excellence in academics and extracurricular activities has elevated Sequoyah as a leader in Indian education. 

Sequoyah is continually producing record numbers of Gates Millennium Scholarships as well as many state athletic titles. Within the last five years we have had 

32 Gates Scholars. 

Sequoyah Schools has enjoyed many successes in the area of extra and co-curricular areas. Student athletes have advanced in every sporting arena consistently 

on an annual basis. Team leadership, self-motivation, commitment, and cohesiveness valued above individual talent. The school also offers Robotics, Drama and 

Speech, Junior Achievement (a class designed to allow students to become entrepreneurs), and many other beneficial classes, clubs, and organizations. 

One of the reasons for success at Sequoyah and why my daughter attends is the 

sense of family, community and security. Each month I get a report of disciplinary 

incidents, last month the most significant number of infractions was 4 abuses of cell 

phones. 

The Cherokee Nation believes that teaching success begins at birth and that in 

order for our young Native American students to have the greatest likelihood to succeed that we need every opportunity to have a positive impact at the beginning. In 

order to build a continuum, from cradle to career, we have recently begun a Cherokee Language School beginning with preschool age students that not only focuses 

on the Cherokee language but covers all the core academic areas as well. 

In 2001, Tsalagi Tsunadeloquasdi was begun as a Language Preservation program. Twenty-six students and four staff members paved the way to revitalizing the 

language with our young people. Today we have over 80 students with our first 

class now entering the 5th grade this fall. Our students have excelled in the areas 

of technology and communication skills. The students in the school are being taught 

all of the core academic subject areas and are moving yearly towards higher standards. As a result of this program many adults have also been inspired to make a 

stronger commitment towards working to become more proficient in the Cherokee 

language. The mission of Tsalagi Tsunadeloquasdi is to promote the revitalization 

and usage of the Cherokee language while educating children in a safe and cultural 

33

environment. The Immersion School provides a culturally relevant foundation for 

education as well as prepping students to move on to Sequoyah Schools. 

The implementation of NCLB/ESEA at Sequoyah Schools has had both positive 

and negative impacts on our school and others. Many of the positive outcomes can 

be attributed to the increased accountability mandates. On the other hand holding 

everyone to general teaching and testing standards discourages creativity and critical thinking skills. Administrators often hold teachers accountable for test scores 

and many teachers in turn teach specifically narrow their focus and teach to the 

test objectives leaving many other beneficial skills and objectives out. 

We have identified from our language and cultural intelligence twelve attributes 

of Cherokee leadership and we are striving to align our curriculum, activities, teaching and learning to achieve for each student these attributes: respectful, determined, integrity, lead by example, communicate, confidence, cooperative, responsible, teach others, patience, humility and strength. 

The NCLB Act specifically has increased our accountability through standardized 

testing, highly qualified teacher requirements, specific teaching objectives in the 

core academic subject areas, and higher levels of transparency. Also as result general teaching and testing standards has discouraged creativity and the importance 

of teaching critical thinking skills. School Administrators are forced to hold teachers 

accountable for test scores and many teachers in turn specifically narrow their focus 

and teach to the test objectives leaving many other beneficial skills and objectives 

out. For this reason, criticisms of NCLB have often centered on why a high test 

score is more valuable than a well-rounded education that may include learning outcomes that are often not required by the common core areas. 

The Cherokee Nation feels that adjustments need to be included in the reauthorization of NCLB to better address the needs of Indian students. The Nation would 

specifically like to see less emphasis on testing and more flexibility in establishing 

our own measurables. We feel that a more diverse curriculum will better fit the 

needs of our students by including increased focus on Native Culture and Language. 

Culturally relevant education is successful with Indian students because there are 

certain inherent qualities that are interwoven that have helped us to face adversity, 

adapt, survive, prosper, and excel for generations. Our younger children, Immersion 

students included, are also forced to take tests in English while many students in 

rural areas are English Language Learners (ELL), meaning they arrive at school 

knowing little or no English which causes them to test poorly. We would like Uniform Standards that include Tribes as active participants in uniform standards development. If assessment is tied to standardized testing, tribes need to be heard so 

curriculum is relevant to native students. American Indian Language and History 

should be included in the standards. 

The Cherokee Nation believes that Johnson O’Malley (JOM) and similar programs 

should be utilized to supplement NCLB initiatives with updated formulas and funding to account for increased numbers of native students. Currently, the Nation receives funding for 19,000 students, but has over 22,000 students in the program. 

In years past, JOM funding has been omitted completely by the presidential budget 

request. The Cherokee Nation requests implementation of an updated funding formulary that will take into account the increased numbers of American Indian students, as well as proportional increases in funding to accommodate the increased 

numbers. 

Teacher Quality should be defined in a way that captures tribal concerns for 

teacher development and certification. The blueprint sets forth the modified requirement for ‘‘effective’’ teachers, mandating that states define effectiveness based on 

student performance. No Child Left Behind standards that require a Bachelor’s Degree or its equivalent have eliminated the ability for many teachers in rural areas 

and tribal communities to achieve state certification. Tribes should be involved in 

the process of defining requirements for ‘‘effective’’ teachers, as the needs for teachers in tribal communities will differ from metropolitan areas. The definition of ‘‘effective’’ should take into consideration the unique barriers facing rural and tribal 

communities, and should allow creative solutions that encourage teacher development and student performance, while increasing accessibility for tribal teachers to 

enter the classroom. 

Programmatic changes necessary to smooth the way for certification and classroom teaching should be implemented to addressed when defining ‘‘Highly Qualified’’ status. Access to technology and additional tribal specific grants are needed 

for tribes to assist their citizenry bridge between those having and those not having 

access to technology and internet within Indian Country. We request appropriate 

funding for carrying out all mandates of the reauthorization of ESEA. 

It is imperative that tribes are enabled to function in a governmental capacity, 

on par with state and local authorities in developing education systems. The CherVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 May 10, 2011 Jkt 062197 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\62197.TXT JACK
34

okee Nation has the necessary expertise to address the unique needs of Native 

American students as evidenced by the success of our schools. Active tribal input 

into the development of standards, curricula, and protocol is absolutely necessary 

if the United States wishes to see successful, culturally relevant education for Native students. Furthermore, Indian education is not a one-agency issue. Tribes need 

inter-agency collaboration to adequately plan for the future of Indian education. 

In closing I would like to thank the Committee for conducting this hearing on an 

issue that is of utmost importance to the Cherokee Nation and Indian Country as 

a whole. Indian education is a labor intensive issue that requires continual solidarity between tribal, state, local, and the federal government. The Cherokee Nation 

is optimistic that, as we move forward, the fruits of our labors and the inclusion 

of tribal concerns will lead to effective education policy that addresses the specific 

needs of American Indian students. Should you require further information, I invite 

you to contact the Cherokee Nation Washington Office.


617a1.eps
35


617a2.eps 617a3.eps
36


617a4.eps 617a5.eps
37


617a6.eps
38

The CHAIRMAN. Next, we will hear from Ms. Mary Jane OatmanWak Wak, who is the President-Elect of the National Indian Education Association here in Washington, D.C. 

You may proceed. Thank you for being with us. 


617a7.eps 617a8.eps
39

STATEMENT OF MARY JANE OATMAN–WAK WAK, PRESIDENT–

ELECT, NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

Ms. OATMAN-WAK WAK. [Greeting in native language]. Thank 

you for the opportunity to be able to present to you on behalf of 

the National Indian Education Association, the oldest and largest 

Indian education non-profit in the Country. 

I don’t really feel the need to give you the background on the organization. You are all very familiar with NIEA and the work that 

we do. But I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman 

Dorgan for your ongoing relationship and for your great staff members and a special shout out to Denise Desiderio for maintaining 

direct contact with our organization and for allowing the opportunity for the rest of you and your staffers to be able to interface 

at high levels at NIEA to drive forward education reform for Indian 

Country. 

As stated, I am Mary Jane Oatman-Wak Wak. I am an enrolled 

member of the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho and serve in the capacity 

or in the counterpart for Keith Moore’s former position in South 

Dakota. I am in leadership and oversee the Indian education programs for the Idaho State Department of Education, which allows 

the opportunity to serve as a liaison for all of the Idaho tribes and 

provide support systems, technical assistance to public, charter and 

Bureau-funded schools within the State of Idaho. 

I have two beautiful young sons, eight years old and two years 

old, and so I am fully vested in the innovative approaches that we 

take for education not only as a product of public schools within 

the State of Idaho, but because of my responsibility as a parent 

and hopefully future grandparent as well, of our children that will 

be going through these schools. 

We all concurred, and there was a general consensus that Indian 

children were left behind with the No Child Left Behind Act. However, like Senator Tester brought up, the great things that were 

highlighted through that was shining the light on those dark corners where Indian children were hiding and where through a lack 

of disaggregated data, they were allowed to hide. 

When we talk about turnaround policies that were brought up 

earlier, I would like to highlight one of the practices, and I was 

very grateful to hear Charlie Rose with the Department of Education bring up the approach. I guess it reiterates that the Department of Education is also listening to the priorities that National 

Indian Education brings forward. 

Since 2005, NIEA has been in the field, has been holding our 

own field hearings to talk with our Indian constituencies, our members, our youth that are in these schools, about the problems, not 

so we can focus on those deficits, but so we can collaborate and provide different models and approaches for that kind of turnaround. 

One of those falls right in line with the first component of 

strengthening tribal education through ESEA, through the policy of 

respecting Indian self-determination and tribal sovereignty is just 

that, tribal sovereignty. The protection of natural resources 

throughout Indian Country is the mainstay of tribal governance. 

And throughout Indian Country, you will hear unanimously that 

we feel our greatest natural resource is our native children. 

40

Through allowing and authorizing and appropriating funds for 

support for tribal education departments as well as tribal education 

authorities, we feel that we will be able to move forward in that 

direction of providing the support, as well as the investment by and 

through Indian Country for that education reform and turnaround. 

The sustainability of Indian Country depends upon a well educated tribal citizenry of our children, so we feel it is imperative 

that the more effective government to government relations do 

occur in regards to the education of Indian children. 

There was also something that was brought up as well earlier 

about the ban of native languages. That is also another one of the 

priorities of the National Indian Education Association that we desire to see strengthened, not only through the policy language, but 

as well the funding and support for the revitalization of native languages within our communities. 

Charles Rose cited that through those past federal policies that 

there was a ban on native languages, and so we feel that there is 

a moral obligation from this Country to help restore those native 

languages, because it was those Federal policies that directly had 

the impact in the language loss throughout Indian Country. 

We also have as one of our priorities, and just to backtrack just 

a little bit, through the authorization of tribal education departments and tribal education authorities, prime opportunity to provide innovative models for potential research to look at what those 

outcomes are to see if they are worth extending. One of those is the 

authorization for TEDs and tribal education authorities to be able 

to act as a State education agency or authority. 

Through that model, we really feel that we will be able to, again, 

not only have that tribal community investment with education reform, but also it works at strengthening tribal sovereignty as a 

whole. 

Now, many of our tribes throughout the Nation are prepared to 

scale up projects where they have assessment systems in place, but 

far too many of our Indian nations throughout the Country are not 

at that point yet. So we feel that this would be a critical time to 

reauthorize, to provide that language and support so that we can 

find out what those proven effective practices are throughout Indian Country regarding the elevation of tribes and tribal education 

departments as a State education agency. 

One of the other areas that I would really like to briefly touch 

upon, as I see the clock ticking away, is that we have also brought 

forward on many occasions the elevation of an Assistant Secretary 

of Indian Education at the U.S. Department of Education. 

Chairman Dorgan, as well as Senator Tester, you might recall 

that NIEA was here in February. We were here during the heart 

of the largest historic blizzard ever in this beautiful town. And 

NIEA was here. And I know that that spoke volumes to our congressional leaders to see that we are very passionate about the 

work and the advocacy that we do for Indian Country. 

The reason I bring up that point is during our meeting with 

Charles Rose, that question was brought forward to him. And so 

it gives a lot of great optimism for NIEA to hear not only through 

the levels of consultation between the Department of Education 

and Department of Interior, that those communications are taking 

41

1Please see NIEA’s Preliminary Report on NCLB in Indian Country; 2007–2009 Briefing papers on the Reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA; and NIEA’s 2007 Testimony on the Reauthorization 

of NCLB in Indian Country for more detailed descriptions of these concerns. All are available 

at www.niea.org

place at that level, but Mr. Rose also spoke to the fact that the Department of Education is exploring the elevation of that Title VII 

Director to a position of, or elevating it back to an Assistant Secretary position. 

Again, I would just like to take the opportunity to provide some 

closing remarks to you, Senator Dorgan, again for your support for 

Indian education and native students as the current and future 

leaders of Indian Country. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oatman-Wak Wak follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY JANE OATMAN-WAK WAK, PRESIDENT-ELECT, 

NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Chairman Dorgan and Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on 

behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony about the No Child Left Behind Act (ESEA) and Native students. 

Founded in 1970, NIEA is the largest Native education organization in the nation 

representing American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian educators, tribal 

leaders, school administrators, teachers, elders, parents, and students. NIEA is 

dedicated to advocating for the unique educational and culturally-related academic 

needs of Native students and to ensuring that the Federal Government upholds its 

unique trust responsibility to these students and their communities. 

In examining the lessons learned from the last decade of NCLB, it is important 

to focus on the task before us. The task of making certain that the reauthorization 

of ESEA recognizes and supports the unique cultural, social, and linguistic needs 

of Native students in ways that ensure that no Native child is ever left behind. 

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and Native Students 

Since 2005, NIEA has been actively preparing for the reauthorization of NCLB, 

including conducting 11 field hearings with over 120 witnesses in Native communities across the country and the development of NIEA’s Preliminary Report on 

NCLB in Indian Country and its NCLB Policy Recommendations. NIEA continued 

to conduct numerous listening sessions and meetings with Native students, educators, school administrators, Native parents, and tribal leaders to learn about the 

challenges Native people encountered under NCLB. 

What emerged through this extensive dialogue was an appreciation for the goal 

of Title VII of NCLB to meet the unique cultural and educational needs of Native 

children. However, it was clear that many areas of concern existed about how 

NCLB/ESEA was unable to fully address the educational needs of Native students 

and communities, along with ideas about how NCLB/ESEA could and should be improved. 1 These areas of improvement included the need to: 

• improve and expand the ability of Title VII to address the unique cultural and 

educational needs of Native children.

• increase flexibility and Native control over the selection and implementation of 

programs and services supporting the learning of Native students.

• improve consultation, collaboration, and cooperation among tribes, states, and 

the Federal Government.

• strengthen support for instruction in Native languages.

• improve support and development of effective teachers of Native students.

• improve opportunities for the maximum participation of parents, families, and 

tribes and Native communities in the education of Native children.

• improve and develop appropriate systems of assessment and measurement of 

academic progress.

• support the development and collection of comprehensive data and research 

about the education of Native children.

• increase funding for NCLB (ESEA), especially Title VII.

42

2Testimony of David Beaulieu, Ph.D., then President of the National Indian Education Association, before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Indian Education on June 16, 2005. 

Available from NIEA. 3 In understanding tribal sovereignty, it is important to understand that Native Americans are 

not a minority, ethnic, or diverse population, nor are they a racial group. Judicial decrees, federal statutes, executive orders and most importantly treaties distinguish American Indians and 

other Native Americans from any other group of people in the United States. Native Americans 

have a unique political status; they are a political classification, not a racial one, with unique 

guarantees in the United States constitution affirming their inherent right to sovereignty and 

self-determination. Unfortunately this political anomaly is misunderstood by federal officials 

who often times treat Indian education as a special interest constituency group. 4 ‘‘Native American’’ is defined in the Native American Languages Act (NALA) as ‘‘an Indian, 

Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander.’’ P.L. 101–477 (October 30, 1990). 

Also clear was the deeply held commitment of Native communities for ensuring 

that Native students receive the highest quality education through instruction and 

methods that reflect an understanding and affirmation of their unique strengths 

and needs as Native people. While high standards and expectations for achievement, 

accountability of schools for the results of the education they provide, and access 

to rigorous curriculum are key components of this vision of high quality education, 

Native Ways of Knowing, or knowledge that is unique to Native tribes and cultures, 

are equally critical cornerstones for providing the kind of relevant and high quality 

instruction and education that ensures Native students attain the same level of academic achievement as students nationwide. 

In addition, Native parents, communities, educators, and tribes also spoke about 

the need to see the education of Native children beyond the context and content of 

schools. As stated in NIEA’s 2005 testimony before this Committee, 2 there is a need 

‘‘to focus comprehensively on the needs of Native Children in light of the long and 

growing health and overall needs of Native children. Mental health issues including 

high levels of substance abuse, suicide rates, poor housing and health conditions all 

impact the capacity of Native children to learn and schools to be responsive to their 

principal education purposes. The future of Indian tribes and Native communities 

is not only dependent upon effective and meaningful educational programs but also 

upon healthy self confident and reliant young people growing and developing in 

strong families and communities. We must comprehensively develop strategies that 

engage families, communities, and tribes in every aspect of the care and education 

of Native children and young people.’’

Based on this extensive input from Native communities, educators, parents, and 

tribes, NIEA has developed a set of recommendations to address the shortcomings 

of NCLB and to improve the ability of ESEA to meet the needs of Native students. 

Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

Strengthen Native American and Tribal Control of Education 

ESEA should reflect the modern federal policy of respecting tribal sovereignty and 

the self-determination 3 of Native peoples, and the protection of Native American 4

languages. Greater Native American control over the education of Native American 

students will lead to better results and healthier Native American communities. 

Over 90 percent of Native American children attend public schools throughout the 

nation. Native American students, who attend these schools often reside in economically deprived areas and are impacted by general programs for disadvantaged students, including Title I grants used for school improvement, state assessments, Pell 

grants to assist in accessing higher education, and funding to support English language acquisition. 

However, Native American students have unique educational needs that can only 

be met through increased Native American sovereignty and self-determination in 

the education of these students.

• Restore the position of Director of Indian Education, now a Title VII grant manager position, to Assistant Secretary for Indian Education, with authority to engage in various titles of the ESEA that touch Native education. The Assistant 

Secretary of Indian Education also should be authorized to facilitate ED and 

DOI collaboration and implement the role of Tribal Education Departments and 

Agencies (TEDs/TEAs) within various titles.

• Respect the sovereign status of Indian tribes by elevating the authority of Tribal Education Departments and Agencies (throughout various titles in ESEA 

that touch Indian Country, giving TEDs the same access to federal funding and 

education planning resources as State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local 

Education Agencies (LEAs). As mandated in many treaties and as authorized 

43

in several federal statutes, the education of Indian children is an important role 

of Indian tribes. Tribal Education Departments (TED) provide tribes with the 

opportunities to become actively involved in the education of their children. Despite this authorization and several other prior statutes, federal funds have 

never been appropriated for TEDs. The use of TEDs would increase tribal accountability and responsibility for their students and would ensure that tribes 

exercise their commitment to improve the education of their youngest members.

• Require federal agencies and states to collaborate with Indian tribes to ensure 

adequate planning and support for Native learners and Native education providers. Require Department of Education (ED) and Department of the Interior 

(DOI) cooperation that opens greater ED financial and technical support for 

DOI Indian schools, including the opportunity for alternative measurement assessments and the development of tribal measurements of academic progress.

• Support and fund programs and practices that ensure the maximum participation of Native parents, families, and tribal communities. Resources should be 

specifically designated to tribal communities to support parent and family involvement in schools, including evening activities, funding for transportation, 

and support groups for parents of children with disabilities.

• Support the development and collection of comprehensive data and research 

about the education of Native children, including improved data collection and 

sharing of data with tribes. Specific resources should be allocated to conduct 

Native driven and Native focused research on culturally and linguistically based 

education and best practices in order to determine research supported ways to 

improve Native student achievement and how to develop and determine appropriate academic measures of school success. In addition, there should be resources to support data collection about the migratory nature of Native students, Native students with disabilities, and assist with the need for proper enrollment and placement of Indian students. This should include targeted efforts 

at building capacity in Native education systems to develop, implement, collect 

and analyze systematic data on the educational status and needs of Native students. Support for partnerships between Native educational school systems and 

the Departments of Education and Interior that would support initiatives focused on Native education program services and program accountability. 

Ensure Consultation and Collaboration 

A unique government-to-government relationship exists between federally-recognized Indian tribes and the Federal Government. This relationship is grounded in 

numerous treaties, statutes, and executive orders as well as political, legal, moral, 

and ethical principles. This relationship is not based upon race, but rather is derived from the legal status of tribal governments. The Federal Government has enacted various regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian 

tribes. An integral element of this government-to-government relationship is that 

consultation occurs with Indian tribes. President Obama recently re-affirmed this 

relationship with an Executive Memorandum, which requires each federal agency 

to develop a plan to implement consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments as required by Executive Order 13175. 

Therefore, the reauthorization of the ESEA must:

• Include specific language requiring the Department of Education to consult with 

tribal governments. Whenever the Department of Education consults with 

States or local education agencies, tribes should also be specifically included.

• Engage in meaningful consultation with Native American tribes and communities as outlined by President’s Obama’s promise to tribal leaders. This can be 

accomplished through the following recommendations:

1. Tribes should define, in coordination with Department of Education officials, where consultation is expected and important.

2. Tribes and the Department of Education should agree on a consistent consultation schedule, including agreeing on locations and time considerations 

for consultations.

3. The Department of Education must give advance notification of consultation hearings and coordinate topic areas with tribes. Recently Secretary 

Duncan announced pending consultation hearings throughout Indian Country; it is not too late for the Department of Education to include tribal 

stakeholders in the planning of these hearings.

44

5Part A of Title VII deals specifically with the education of American Indians and Parts B 

and C address the educational needs of Native Hawaiian and Alaskan Native students. 6Title VII of the ESEA incorporates the Indian Education Act of 1972. 

7Demmert, W. G. & Towner, J. C. (2003). A Review of the Research Literature on the Influences of Culturally Based Education on the Academic Performance of Native American Students. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland OR. 8The Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind in Indian Country: Hearing before the U.S. 

House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (testimony of Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, President-Elect, National Indian Education Association). 

4. Tribes must have an opportunity to call for consultation on matters that 

are of high concern rather than the Department of Education holding exclusive authority to call for consultations.

5. Tribes should control who speaks for them and what the ED considers to 

be the official tribal view.

6. The Department of Education should disclose what weight is being given 

to tribal views and report back to tribes in a timely manner.

7. The Department of Education should justify its promulgation of rules, regulations and policy when they are advanced in opposition to tribal views acquired through consultation.

8. The Department of Education should take advantage of existing tribal 

gatherings where a critical mass of elected tribal leadership will be present 

to build consultation venues, one such venue should be the annual NIEA 

convention.

• Establish a tribal advisory committee to advise the Secretary of the Interior on 

policy issues and budget development for the BIE school system. There has 

never been a formal, established mechanism for tribally-operated schools to 

raise issues and provide substantive advice to the Secretary on an on-going 

basis—especially on development of the budget request for programs serving 

BIE schools. Since the schools in the BIE system are the sole responsibility of 

the Federal Government, the Secretary of the Interior should be consulting 

closely and regularly with representatives selected by the tribes and the tribal 

school boards who operate those schools to learn directly from them about their 

needs and hear ideas about how to fill those needs.

Support Instruction of Native American Languages and Culturally Based Education 

NIEA supports and appreciates the commitment to immersion schools, Native language instruction, and culture in the education of Native American students expressed in the A Blueprint for Reform: Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act.

Both the Blueprint and Title VII of ESEA 5 recognize that Native children have 

unique educational needs due to their cultures and backgrounds. The purpose of 

Title VII 6 of ESEA is to provide culturally based educational approaches for Native 

students and to support the Native language. These approaches have been proven 

to increase student performance and success as well as awareness and knowledge 

of student cultures and histories. In general, these approaches include recognizing 

and utilizing Native languages as a first or second language, pedagogy that incorporates traditional cultural characteristics, and involves teaching strategies that are 

harmonious with the native culture knowledge and contemporary ways of knowing 

and learning. It also includes curricula based upon Native culture and language 

that utilizes legends, oral histories, songs and fundamental beliefs and values of the 

community. In addition, it involves parents, elders and cultural experts as well as 

other community members’ participation in educating Native children utilizing the 

social and political mores of the community. 7

Current research demonstrates that culture and language can be successfully integrated into the classroom in a manner that would provide Native students with 

instruction in the core subject areas based upon cultural values and beliefs. Math, 

reading, language arts, history, science, physical education, music, cultural arts and 

other subjects may be taught in curricula instilled in Native traditional and cultural 

concepts and knowledge. The National Science Foundation funded Native Science 

Connections Research Project at Northern Arizona University, is a research model 

that successfully integrated native language, culture and traditions into BIA funded 

schools’ science elementary curriculum. On-going analysis of data revealed increased 

student mastery of science and math concepts, deeper levels of student engagement 

in science and math and increased student achievement in math and science. 8

45

NIEA believes ESEA should reflect the policy mandates of the Native American 

Languages Act (NALA), which encourages Native American languages as a medium 

of instruction to increase overall Native student achievement.

• Title I should (1) include schools using a Native language as the medium of instruction similar to those of Puerto Rico; (2) Allow for alternative measurement 

assessments, AYP standards, and teacher qualifications relative to the teaching 

of Native American students based in unique linguistic, cultural, and political 

status considerations. Include federal assistance and recognition of meeting 

tribal AYP standards as an alternative to meeting state AYP standards for 

schools enrolling Native American students; (3) authorize the credentialing of 

Native language teachers under the definition of highly qualified and upon recommendation by a tribal government or other Native governing entity; (4) accommodate limited Native language proficient students in Native language medium schools (Sec. 1111) similar to Limited English Proficient (LEP) accommodations.

• Authorize a formula grant program in Title VII to support immersion schools, 

including tribally-operated, private, and Bureau-funded schools.

• Establish a Part D in Title VII that authorizes early childhood immersion infant–kindergarten learning centers.

• Title III amendments should include provisions and funding to support Native 

language instruction and remove barriers to full fledged instruction in Native 

languages, acknowledging that most Native learners enter school with limited 

English proficiency, even if they are English only speakers.

• Restore Culturally Based Education Technical Assistance and Resource Centers, 

technical assistance centers that would provide regional support to Title VII 

programs, advance Culturally Based Education (CBE) best practices, and promote teaching strategies that integrate Native traditional and cultural concepts 

into curricula.

• Give preference to Tribal Colleges and Universities and the Hawaiian Language 

College in receiving funding to develop Native American language resources and 

skills for community members, which would provide greater support for learning and using Native American languages in local schools, similar to the support for district language needs of young immigrant school community members.

Improve Support for Teachers of Native Students 

NIEA supports Administration efforts to increase the number of effective teachers 

and principals, including an initiative to increase the number of teachers for low income and minority students. 

More than any other community in America, Indian Country suffers from a paucity of highly skilled teachers. Regardless of success in other schools or academic 

credentials, highly effective teachers do not necessarily see their success as educators transfer to tribal settings. For this reason and a host of cultural differences, 

specialized training for teachers and other education practitioners serving Native 

American students is critically important and should be a part of any ED initiative 

to elevate and strengthen quality of instruction. 

Teaching in schools serving Native American students needs to be incentivized 

through a combination of quality housing, financial compensation, loan forgiveness, 

upward mobility, and professional development. Currently with the vast majority of 

Bureau funded and public schools on tribal lands classified as failing or in need of 

improvement there is little incentive for highly qualified teachers to work in these 

schools. Combined with extreme and persistent poverty, ongoing social problems, 

lack of housing, isolated rural settings, and dangerously poor facilities, the majority 

of schools serving Native American students are at a deep disadvantage in recruiting and retaining a critical mass of highly qualified teachers. 

NIEA believes ESEA should authorize greater support of teachers of Native students, utilizing the particular expertise of the tribal colleges, universities, the Hawaiian Language College and the School of Hawaiian Knowledge. Tribal Colleges 

and Universities should be the primary training campuses for both Indian educators 

and non-Indians who are working with Native learners.

• Require set asides for the training, recruitment and retention of teachers of Native students. This should include a Tribal Priority Allocation under the proposed initiative to increase the number of teachers for low income and minority 

students within the Department f Education to ensure that Indian Country is 

fully vested in this initiative and receives a fair apportionment of the requested 

3.9 billion.

46

• Support Tribal Colleges and Universities, the Hawaiian Language College, and 

the School of Hawaiian Knowledge should to be supported through Title II and 

VII provisions so that they can play a central role in developing a critical mass 

of educators for Native learners.

• Authorize a tribal ‘‘Teacher Preparation Initiative’’ geared towards educators 

who are working in schools serving Native American students and educators 

who are interested in working at schools serving Native American students. 

This should also include provisions for improved and appropriate teacher evaluation systems and support for more effective career advancement systems. 

Adequate Funding for Native Education Under ESEA 

When NCLB was enacted, Congress promised to provide the resources necessary 

to meet its many requirements, provide school improvement funds to schools that 

failed AYP, provide increased resources especially for disadvantaged students and 

to help close achievement gaps by improving teacher quality, student achievement, 

and program accountability. However, NCLB was never funded at the authorized 

levels. 

Title VII, especially, provides critical support for culturally based education approaches for Native students and addresses the unique educational and cultural 

needs of Native students. It is well documented that Native students thrive academically in environments that support their cultural identities while introducing 

different ideas. Title VII has produced many success stories but increased funding 

is needed in this area to bridge the achievement gap for Native students. 

Therefore, NIEA supports the:

• Adequate funding of Title I programs.

• Adequate funding for the following programs within Title VII: Indian Education, Alaska Native Education Equity, and Education for Native Hawaiians.

• Improved oversight of the allocation and use of Title VII resources so they cannot be supplanted to meet the shortfalls in other Titles of ESEA or of public 

school budgets.

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of NIEA thank you and the Committee for the tremendous efforts on behalf of Native communities. With your support we are hopeful that 

the reauthorization of ESEA will help ensure that Native students receive the high 

quality education that they need and deserve. 

Chairman Dorgan, we especially thank you for your personal commitment in 

championing the cause for all Native Americans, but especially for your unwavering 

dedication to improving the education and well being of Native children. We extend 

our best wishes as you move on to new endeavors. We will greatly miss your leadership and friendship.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate that. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. David Beaulieu from Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin. 

Dr. Beaulieu? 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID BEAULIEU, PROFESSOR OF

EDUCATION POLICY AND DIRECTOR OF THE ELECTA

QUINNEY INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION, 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 

Dr. BEAULIEU. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my 

name is David Beaulieu. I am an enrollee of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe from the White Earth Indian Reservation, and I currently serve as a Professor of Education Policy and Director of the 

Electa Quinney Institute for American Indian Education at the 

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 

I have testified before this Committee before in former positions 

a number of times as Director of the Office of Indian Education 

during President Clinton’s second term when we worked on the Executive Order for American Indian Education, and as President of 

47

the National Indian Education Association in 2005 as we began to 

understand and try to figure out a response to our constituencies’ 

significant concern about NCLB and what was occurring in Indian 

Country. 

I appreciate the invitation to testify on NCLB and the education 

of American Indians. 

I believe we need a new approach. Any comparison of the intentions of Congress as stated in the Indian Education Act and a 

broader intention of NCLB to make a significant difference with 

the current statistics describing the performance of State and Federal school systems with American Indians would strongly indicate 

that what is in place is not working. 

We may have actually lost ground with what is essentially one 

entire school generation of American Indian learners from elementary through high school in the nine years since NCLB has been 

passed in 2001. Though education achievement issues have received a focus through NCLB with the emphasis on testing, the 

larger issue for Indian communities is the extent to which the student constituents of schools, both State schools and Federal 

schools, reject schooling altogether. 

An education leader and a very old friend from Rosebud, Lionel 

Bordeaux, just told me and reported that approximately 75 percent 

of all the students that entered the ninth grade in the local high 

school did not graduate this year. The same was true last year. 

And that is a statistic that is believed to be representative of other 

similar areas and school systems. 

In answer to the question posed by the Committee, NCLB has 

left Indian students behind. I believe NCLB has left Indian students behind essentially because the Indian Education Act, Title 

VII within NCLB, has been left behind. That is a pearl within an 

oyster. The provisions affecting Congress’ intentions, as well as the 

strategies for the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives is stated in Title VII, have been de-emphasized or disregarded 

by the Department of Education, the Bureau of Indian Education, 

State education authorities and local education agencies in lieu of 

the operating principles or purposes of NCLB. 

There are a number of areas I would suggest that we need to 

take a look at and consider. I think we need to align the purposes 

of Title VII in the Indian Education Act with Title I. There is an 

incongruence between the purposes and requirements of Title VII 

and the basic program requirements and consequently the implementation of NCLB by State public schools and the BIE for Federal 

and tribal schools for American Indian students. This incongruence 

is significant and needs to be changed so that NCLB works in the 

best interests of American Indian students. 

The Indian Education Act requires a comprehensive plan for 

meeting the needs of American Indian students by local education 

agencies based on a comprehensive local assessment of needs of 

those students, the actual needs of the students, which we don’t 

ever really see. These comprehensive plans must be consistent with 

State and local education plans submitted under NCLB. 

There is no articulation of that intention to have these comprehensive plans related to State and local plans as required in 

48

NCLB in Title I. Consequently, it is not considered anything anybody wishes to accomplish. 

I think we need to enable tribal governance in education. There 

is a statement in the Indian Education Act which tribal governments actually cheered when it occurred with the passage of 

NCLB, that says it is the policy of the United States to fulfill the 

Federal Government’s unique and continuing trustee relationship 

with Indian people for their education. It includes education for the 

first time as an aspect of the trustee relationship written into statute. 

The current input and advice structures that do exist within 

NCLB for Indian parents and tribal governments for the education 

of American Indians are extremely ineffective, so limited in scope 

and in character, that school authorities rarely pay attention to 

them. I believe the Federal trustee relationship must become a viable and active relationship for tribal governments, which includes 

tribal authority determines the context and conditions for the education of American Indian students under a Federal framework. 

I believe we also need to consider incorporating Federal native 

language policy into NCLB. There is existing incongruence with 

Congress’ intention regarding the preservation and maintenance of 

native languages with our education statutes and I think we need 

to bring the principles and purposes of the Native Languages Act 

and the Esther Martinez Native Languages Act into NCLB and 

consider the way in which those policies could be made to work 

with our education statutes. 

Lastly, I think we need to very significantly focus on coordinated 

programs to focus on the well-being of Indian children and youth 

in Indian communities. I think this is vital and I think it must be 

a part of the way in which we plan for education improvement. 

Lastly, I think we need a new Indian Education Act, one which 

brings the purposes of the existing Indian Education Act fully to 

the forefront of the purposes of ESEA and NCLB; an Indian Education Act which recognizes tribal government authority in the context of the Federal trustee relationship for the education of American Indians. 

We need a system of education which makes sense to American 

Indian people and Indian students who all desire to be actively engaged in creating their own future, while maintaining their continuity with their unique language and cultural heritage. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beaulieu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID BEAULIEU, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION POLICY

AND DIRECTOR OF THE ELECTA QUINNEY INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN INDIAN

EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

My name is Dr. David Beaulieu. I am a Minnesota Chippewa Tribe—White Earth 

enrollee. I currently serve as a Professor of Education Policy and Director of the 

Electa Quinney Institute for American Indian Education at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. It is my pleasure to testify before this committee concerning Indian Education and the No Child Left behind Act considering the question: Did the 

No Child Left Behind Act Leave Indian Children Behind. 

I have testified before this Committee in the past concerning Indian education as 

Director of the Office of Indian Education in the U.S. Department of Education during President Clinton’s second term and the implementation of the President’s Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education and as President of 

49

the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) in 2005. It was in 2005 that the 

American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian constituents of NIEA became 

increasingly concerned about the implementation of NCLB, Title VII. NIEA determined to conduct hearings on NCLB in Indian Country in 11 different Native American communities from Northern Wisconsin to Hawaii to better understand and represent the views of NIEA constituents which are the constituents of Title VII. The 

Report NCLB in Indian Country is available on line at NIEA. 

NIEA Hearings: NCLB in Indian Country 

Despite the variety of locations at which hearings were held on NCLB by the 

NIEA and the number of witnesses who testified, the overall nature of testimony 

showed remarkable consistency in viewpoint. What emerged from the testimony 

were strongly held positive views about the public purposes of education for Native 

peoples against which NCLB and Native education was positioned. Witnesses 

strongly believe that a public education with broad public purposes focused not only 

for the world of work but for citizenship that was also reflective and supportive of 

their unique cultural and historical experience would provide well educated and contributing tribal citizens to the local tribal community as well as the broader community. In that regard the American Indian witnesses who testified were not that different than other American citizens. 

Those who testified strongly supported the need to hold schools accountable for 

results but were very concerned about the negative impacts of NCLB upon the education of Native American students. Many of the views were similar to a growing 

chorus of negative views such as the impact upon the breath of the curriculum given 

the focus on testing, the inappropriate use of AYP, particularly in American Indian 

communities where the mobility rates of students were very high. Some comments 

were very specific to the Indian Education Act within NCLB itself in terms of 

NCLB’s negative impact upon Native language and cultural programs in schools and 

the development of instructional and curricular approaches believed to be effective 

and meaningful for accomplishing and enriching the education programs for Native 

American students as well as the required input of parents in the development and 

approval of Indian education programs. 

Significant to what was happening tribal leaders, Indian parents and educators 

focused attention on the realization of the extent to which changes were occurring 

that did not reflect much less consider their voice. Since then there has been a growing strong voice for increasing tribal government involvement beyond school operations to include determining the context and conditions for the education of American Indian students within the jurisdictions of tribal governments as well as influencing the federal interest for the education of American Indian students in other 

areas within the states. The development of a broader role for tribal government 

to determine the context and conditions for the public education of American Indian 

students seems apparent. 

Witnesses were very concerned that Indian education programmatic effort uniquely supported by formula grant programs in Title VII. These efforts that were supported by a relatively small approximate $300 per student were being supplanted 

by efforts that were clearly allowable in Title I. In many cases the Indian education 

formula grant was becoming a Title I program with little focus on it purposes as 

stated in statute. The NIEA Report NCLB in Indian Country is located on the NIEA 

web site’s education issues page http://niea.org/issues/policy.php. 

New Approach Needed 

Any comparison of the intentions of Congress as stated in the Indian Education 

Act and the broader intention of NCLB to make a significant difference with the 

current statistics that describe the performance of the State and Federal school systems with American students would strongly indicate that what is in place is not 

working. We may have actually lost ground with what is essentially one entire 

school generation of American Indian learners from elementary through high school 

in the 9 years since NCLB passed in 2001. 

As early as 2003 the Council of Chief State School Officer (CCSSO) representing 

the state school officers with large American Indian student populations began to 

meet first in Denver to express concern and consider ideas on how to approach what 

was a significant and growing issues to them concerning the education of American 

Indians in their states, particularly within reservation area state public schools. An 

education leader and old friend from Rosebud, Lionel Bordeaux, reported that approximately 75 percent of all students that entered the 9th grade did not complete 

high school this past year. Such a statistic is believed to be representative for other 

areas. Though educational achievement issues have received focus through NCLB 

with its emphasis on testing, the larger issue for American Indian communities is 

50

the extent to which the student constituents of schools reject schooling all together. 

There is a belief that the operational reality of NCLB in schools contributes high 

dropout rates. 

I would like to offer my insights concerning issues with the Indian Education Act 

and its implementation within NCLB for the purpose of suggesting a new framework for considering changes that would strengthen the ability of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act and the Indian Education Act to accomplish the intentions Congress regarding improving the effectiveness, and meaningfulness as well 

as the quality of educational programs for American Indians. 

In answer to the question posed by this hearing it is my view that the No Child 

Left behind Act has left Indian students behind. I believe NCLB left Indian students 

behind essentially because the Indian Education Act within NCLB has been ‘‘left behind’’. The provisions affecting Congress’ policy intentions for education of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives have been de-emphasized or disregarded by the Department of Education, the Bureau of Indian Education, and state education authorities. 

Issues and Needs 

1. Alignment of Title VII purposes with Title I: The NCLB has a number of issues 

which are structural in character with the relationship of Title VII with in NCLB. 

The implementation of the intentions of Congress for the education of American Indians as indentified by the purposes of the Indian Education Act have no identifiable linkage within the basic program requirements in Title I. There must be an 

alignment of the required comprehensive Indian education plans required in Title 

VII with the requirements for state and local education plans by states and the BIE.

2. Enable tribal education governance: The advice and input structures put into 

place for American Indian parents and tribal governments within statute are impotent to the task of creating positive local education change. What is available, however, is of limited scope, advisory and often not paid any attention. The avenues 

available to express a parental and tribal government voice are essentially irrelevant for generating local positive education change within the existing federal education framework provided by NCLB. The federal trustee relationship must become 

a viable and active relationship for tribal governments which includes tribal authority to determine the context and conditions for the education of American Indian 

students under a federal framework for all school systems within a tribal jurisdiction and for the federal interest for the education of American Indians in state 

school systems elsewhere. Create a tribal-state compact or agreement for the education of American Indians under a federal framework which allows the context and 

conditions of the education American Indian students consistent with comprehensive 

education plans. For proposes of ESEA this would include BIE acting as a ‘‘state’’ 

for purposes of education.

3. Incorporate federal Native language policy into NCLB: There exists incongruence with federal laws related to protecting and preserving Native American languages such as the Native American Languages Act and the Ester Martinez Native 

Language Preservation Act with the NCLB. Theses efforts include support for a 

number of Native language immersion schools and programs operating in state public schools and BIE funded schools. School time is prime time that can be spent in 

the learning of a Native language. Title VII supports native language and culture 

programs; other areas of NCLB particularly Title I and Title III need to reference 

to the Federal Government’s support for the preservation and maintenance of Native American Languages as well as accommodating the needs of Native language 

immersion efforts with regard to allowing assessments in the language of instruction in the early years for student in Native language medium school based programs.

4. Coordinated tribal government focus on the wellbeing of Native children and 

youth: There is a need to significantly improve the well being of American Indian 

children and youth in concert with revitalized efforts to improve the education of 

American Indian students. These concerns are inseparably linked and require a coordinated response of tribal government as suggested with all school systems, state 

and BIE within a tribal jurisdiction. The need is to recognize schools as more then 

places of schooling put as places of community. Efforts generally allowable in NCLB 

such as Promise Neighborhoods, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Successful, 

Safe and Healthy Students efforts need to become models for school development 

utilizing a coordinated tribal education involvement along with coordinated human 

service delivery efforts focused on school communities. 

51

Expansion of Recommendations 

1. Alignment of Comprehensive Indian Education Plans (Title VII) With State and 

Local Education Plans (Title I) 

Since the passage of NCLB there has been a growing incongruence between the 

purposes of Title VII and the general operating principles and consequently the implementation of NCLB by state public schools and the BIE for federal and tribal 

schools for American Indian students. This incongruence is significant and needs to 

be changed so that NCLB works in the interests of American Indian students. 

The broad purpose of Title VII (section 7101) is stated as follows ‘‘It is the policy 

of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government’s unique and continuing trust 

relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian 

children. The Federal Government will continue to work with local educational 

agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities toward the goal of ensuring that programs that serve Indian children are of the 

highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic 

needs of these children. 

The Indian Education Act not only seeks to assist schools to improve the achievement of Indian students in academic subjects and in ways that uniquely involve culturally based educational approaches and the expansion of educational opportunities; it also seeks to ensure that schools with Indian students reflect the cultural 

heritage of those students directly. 

The goal of improving the academic achievement of American Indian students is 

not the sole responsibility of Title VII and is shared by the other titles of NCLB; 

consequently it is vital that the expression of purposes for the education of American Indian students have a vital influential connection with the basic program requirements of NCLB. Looking to the Indian education Act there exist language to 

address that need but it is not paid any attention. 

The Indian education Act is not only comprehensive in its scope in terms of what 

programs can be offered through funds but most importantly it also intends to be 

the statutory vehicle that focuses reform of schools as it affects Indian students 

uniquely through the required development of a comprehensive program design required of schools that engages other federal efforts within NCLB particularly Title 

I and state resources and as well as efforts offered specifically through the Indian 

Education Act to meet the comprehensive needs of Indian students. 

The recognition that education is an aspect of the trustee relationship of the Federal Government to American Indian tribes, included for the first time in NCLB; 

the propose of meeting the unique educational and culturally related academic 

needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students as a distinct concern and 

through teaching and educational approaches appropriate to the accomplishment of 

required standards; the requirement for a comprehensive plan for meeting the education needs of American Indian students by a local education agency based on comprehensive local assessment and prioritization of the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of the American Indian and Alaska Native students; 

the requirement for a description of how the best available talents and resources, 

including individuals from the Indian community will be used to meet the needs of 

Indian students, finds no voice in the statute except in Title VII and despite the 

fact that Title VII programs are in nearly every State public school with American 

Indian students and all BIA funded school in the country both the States and the 

BIA in reliance of the operating principals and state and local plans of NCLB increasing disregard or do not pay attention to the principles and purposes of Title 

VII. 

The formula grant program which contains the requirement for local education 

agencies to develop comprehensive education plans for the education of American 

Indian students is currently funded at approximately $300 per eligible student in 

a local LEA. Those funds are used entirely to offer programs for Indian students 

within schools for the purpose of meeting the unique education and culturally related needs of American Indian students. 

It is impossible and unreasonable to consider that the approximate $300 available 

through the formula grant program should be the sole basis for meeting the educational needs of American Indian students and improving the education ability of 

schools with American Indian students to meet those needs through a comprehensive program design. It is also impossible and unreasonable to assume that $300 

per student is sufficient to accomplish the development of a comprehensive plan as 

required in the statute and as it should be accomplished to meet the educational 

needs of American Indian students as defined in the statute. 

52

There is a linkage in Title VII to the rest of NCLB in the section that requires 

that comprehensive plans be consistent with the State and local plans submitted 

under NCLB including academic content and student academic achievement goals 

for American Indian students, and benchmarks for attaining such goals, that are 

based on the challenging State academic content and student academic achievement 

standards adopted under Title I for all children how Federal, State, and local programs, especially programs carried out under Title I, will meet the needs of American Indian students; the professional development opportunities that will be provided, as needed, to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are 

new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children; and that 

all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted have been properly trained 

to carry out such programs and describes how the local educational agency will periodically assess the progress of all Indian children enrolled in the schools of the local 

educational agency, including Indian children who do not participate in programs 

assisted under this subpart, in meeting the goals described in paragraph. The requirement that comprehensive plans be consistent with state and local plans does 

not mean that they must be the same. They can be aligned and incorporated within 

state and local plans. 

Though these requirements are in Title VII there is no comparable language in 

the basic program requirements of NCLB for state and local plans which would provide the guiding light for the long term development of educational programs for 

American Indian students nor is there a viable mechanism to accomplish an American Indian State and local education plan. This needs to change. 

2. Tribal Government Involvement 

The statement ‘‘It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government’s unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children’’ in Title VII requires greater definition and viability in the ESEA. The current input and advice structures in ESEA 

for Indian parents and tribal governments for the education of American Indians 

are extremely ineffective, so limited in scope and advisory that school authorities 

rarely pay attention to them. 

Parent advisory committees have little impact on the long term development of 

school education programs and tribal government involvement in Impact Aid is limited to complaining that policies and procedures for parent advisory input have not 

been developed. The NCLB recognizes the ability of tribes to seek a waiver of AYP 

and develop their own standards, use state standards or use BIE developed standards for BIE funded schools but support for this was withdrawn as the BIE moved 

BIE funded schools to the state standards and assessment systems where the school 

was located. 

Nonetheless alternative definitions of AYP are allowable for tribal governments 

in the case of tribal schools and tribal governments could potentially develop these 

alternative standards and assessments systems including developing state and local 

education plans which are incorporated into state and local education plans required 

by NCLB consistent for all schools within a tribal jurisdiction, federal and state. 

The current political legal structure of Indian education, the relationship of state, 

federal and tribal governments in the education of American Indians was put in 

place with the original Johnson O’Malley program that withdrew significant federal 

involvement in the education of American Indians in favor of increased state public 

school involvement under certain conditions. The Federal Government attempted to 

see that the unique needs of Indian students were met in these state schools initially in state contracts for JOM and funds provided the state for this specific purpose. Minnesota’s original contract with the Federal Government had language 

where the state agreed to meet the unique needs of Indian students, ensure that 

Indian students were not denied that provided other students and to maintain 

schools in distinctly Indian villages for Indian students. 

It can be argued that the Indian Education Act of 1972 that passed approximately 

35 years after the negotiation of the JOM contracts was an attempt to continue to 

have states uniquely focus on the needs of American Indian students in state public 

schools irrespective of location. 

It is this arena of the interrelationships of federal, state and tribal government 

involvement in Indian education that needs to be impacted in a positive manner for 

Indian education. This arena is among the most complex imaginable with each government providing schools for Indian students often in the same community with 

overlapping programs, regulations and services that have little coordination or common purpose and with very little or no coordinated effort. 

Issues concerning the complexity of the intergovernmental arena with Indian education were identified as the first JOM contracts were being negotiated in the 1930s 

53

though recent attention was focused through the Education Commission of the 

States Indian education Project in 1980 and President Clinton’s executive order 

which specifically required the development of ideas that would improve inter-governmental cooperation in Indian education. 

We have tried everything within the current intergovernmental framework and 

we have particularly since 1972 grown significantly in our knowledge of Indian education and what works, but we have not impacted the performance of schools. We 

could say that we have outgrown the intergovernmental ‘‘suit of pants’’ we have 

worn and need something larger and brand new. 

We have as it were, out grown the current intergovernmental framework of federal, state and tribal government relationships. Tribal government needs a greater 

role which expands from limited school operations to include a role in determining 

the education conditions and context for the education of American Indian students 

in all school types within a tribal jurisdiction. 

In nearly every area of intergovernmental relationships between state and tribal 

governments there has developed some form of negotiated contract or agreement except in the area of education. These intergovernmental relationships range from 

compacts for gaming, the collection and distribution of sales taxes, hunting and fishing rights and enforcement, including cross deputation of sheriff’s deputies, police 

and game wardens but hasn’t so far included education. 

Tribal government consultations exist with federal agencies particularly the Interior and Education, but tribal governments within their tribal jurisdictions, currently do not have a framework for negotiating the specific conditions and contexts 

for the education of American Indian students in BIE schools or state schools consistent with the requirements for state and local education plans and comprehensive 

education plans required in NCLB. 

Within the jurisdiction of tribal governments it makes sense that the political 

legal ‘‘center stage’’ needs to be tribal government and authority in education where 

the context and conditions for the education of American Indians could be negotiated with state governments and the BIE under a federal framework as discussed. 

Other tribal governments collectively could develop similar plans and agreements 

with states for what essentially represents the federal interest in the education of 

American Indians where the state government and its education authority would 

provide the political legal ‘‘center stage’’ such as in urban areas. In each situation 

I believe it is important to maintain Indian parent involvement and input. 

The requirements for the development of state education and local education 

plans in Title I, the development of comprehensive education plans should be a 

major aspect of the negotiation of tribal governments with state governments as 

well as the BIE under a federal framework for this purpose. 

Moving in this direction further allows for the development of congruent tribal 

education ordinances and programs in a number of areas that affect the well being 

Indian children, their families and communities. 

3. Improve the Well Being of Indian Children and Youth 

Improving the education of American Indians students requires more than just a 

consideration of what we can do to positively impact education programs. It requires 

that we consider the whole range of needs of Indian children and youth that impact 

on their well being and focus on these holistically at a local level. 

As President of NIEA, I initiated the Native American Children’s agenda to focus 

interest and concern of the well being of Indian children and youth as well as its 

relationship to education performance and progress. I thought then that a significant aspect of this agenda needed to be locally conceived and coordinated and that 

schools simply because Indian young people and their families were present for significant periods of time could be instrumental as places to coordinate services and 

to build the community of the school away from the school building through providing coordinated services among members of the community of school. 

Issues which impact the well being of Indian children and youth have a direct impact upon their ability to participate and respond educationally within schools. Educational issues and issues of wellbeing are linked and require a coordinated response of tribal government as suggested with all school systems within a tribal jurisdiction. 

The need is to recognize schools as more than places of schooling but as places 

of community. Efforts generally allowable in NCLB competitively such as Promise 

Neighborhoods, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Successful, Safe and Healthy 

Students efforts need to become models for school development utilizing coordinated 

tribal education involvement along with coordinated human service delivery efforts 

focused on state and school communities. Because exiting programs are competitive 

with very little opportunity for Indian reservation communities to participate to the 

54

extent needed providing tribal governments with planning and coordination funds 

through any number of possible authorities including ESEA grants to bring together 

available community services as provided by existing state, federal and tribal agencies and focused in school communities similar to the purposes of these other programs may have significant promise. 

Schools, the one place today where children and their families are most represented can be more than a place just for education but also a community and community building and developing place. As the community is involved so the community develops and grows and the well being of children is enhanced. 

4. Incorporate Federal Native Language Policy Into NCLB 

There is policy incongruence between federal Native language policy and the implementation of NCLB. The federal policy focused on revitalizing and maintaining 

Native languages needs to find a viable functional reference within NCLB so that 

federal education policy enables rather than stunts existing school based efforts 

such as immersion schools and programs, language nests and other such efforts in 

state and BIE schools. The Native American languages such as the Native American 

Languages Act and the Ester Martinez Native Language Preservation Act with the 

NCLB should be referenced in alignment with Title I, Title III, and Title VII so that 

federal language efforts supported by the Federal Government in State and BIE 

schools are supported with education requirements appropriate to their purpose. 

Summary 

We need a new Indian Education Act within ESEA, one which brings the purposes of the existing Indian education act fully to the forefront of the purposes of 

ESEA now NCLB, an Indian education act which recognizes tribal government authority in the context of the federal trustee relationship for the education of American Indians. We need a system of education which makes sense to American Indian 

people and Indian students who all desire to be actively engage in creating their 

own future while maintaining a continuity of their unique language cultural and 

historical experience. 

All school systems that provide education need to be focused on a vision that 

places Indian children and youth at the center of it attention. American Indian students need to see a personal future that connects to the education mission of the 

schools they attend. It is vital to their improved achievement, continued education 

and to a future their uniquely their own.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Beaulieu, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and your service and previous experience as 

the Director of Indian Education. 

We have Ms. Mariah Bowers from Klamath, California, the 

Yurok Tribe. She has actually been on Skype, but is now off of 

Skype. She has been able to see this hearing, and if we are able 

here to have her back. I think the audience perhaps cannot see. 

Could you turn it so the audience can see it as well? You can 

turn it a little more. That is right, so that the audience might see 

who we are talking about. 

Mariah Bowers is an Indian youth from Klamath California. 

Mariah, you have been listening to the testimony here. You are 

joining us via Skype technology. Why don’t you proceed? You have 

prepared some thoughts, I understand, for us and I would like you 

to proceed. Thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF MARIAH BOWERS, MEMBER, YUROK TRIBE; 

SOPHOMORE, SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY 

Ms. BOWERS. Good afternoon, Chairman Dorgan and Members of 

the Committee. [Greeting in native language]. My name is Mariah 

Bowers and I am Yurok. I am 18 years old and a college sophomore 

at Southern Oregon University. Thank you for inviting me to testify about my experience as a Native American student in the No 

Child Left Behind Act era. 

55

Between kindergarten and my freshman year of high school, I attended public schools in Oregon where I never did very well in 

school. However, that changed with my chance at the Klamath 

River Early College of the Redwoods School. This school is located 

on the Yurok Reservation in Northern California. At KRECR, I 

thrived and I am now a successful college sophomore because of the 

education I received there. 

During my freshman year of high school, I started having problems in school. At that time, I was with my family in Eugene, Oregon where I attended Churchill High School. My class schedule 

was divided into blue and white days. On blue days, I had math, 

reading, humanities and science, and on white days I had art, P.E. 

and a free period. I had perfect attendance and always did my 

homework. 

As the year progressed, I began to not understand the material 

in the harder classes. I would ask questions during class. I spent 

time studying, but I still struggled with the material. Also, I felt 

isolated like I was the only student who didn’t understand the material. My teachers weren’t very helpful. They didn’t have time to 

meet with me. They barely knew who I was. They didn’t seem to 

care about me and they seemed more concerned about teaching to 

the test and getting through the curriculum. 

By the end of mid-terms, I was on the verge of flunking out of 

school, even though I did my homework and had perfect attendance. I got bad grades. I realized that now part of the problem was 

I didn’t understand what was going to be on the tests. 

Soon, I stopped going to school on the hard days because I was 

too nervous and anxious and I felt lost. I started getting into trouble and hanging out with other kids who weren’t going to school. 

My mom got really concerned and enrolled me into Klamath River 

Early College of the Redwoods on the Yurok Reservation. 

I loved going to school at Klamath River Early College. The 

school is attended by Yuroks, non-Natives and Native American 

students from other tribes. It teaches grades nine through 12 and 

has a partnership with the College of the Redwoods to enable students to graduate with A.A. degrees. It uses Yurok language and 

culture to teach all subjects. The class size ranges from 12 to 20 

students. 

The biggest difference between the public school and KRECR was 

how I was tested and how I was taught. At KRECR, test standards 

were described in a book that was given to each student. In order 

to advance, the student could obtain proficient, emerging or advanced grades. The book laid out what students had to do to get 

good grades. This worked well for me because I knew exactly what 

I had to do to get an advanced grade and it made me more accountable. 

The teachers were available and I felt that they cared about me. 

The curriculum used to meet the academic standards required the 

same amount of work as I had done in the public schools and it 

was just as academically challenging. We learned math, science, 

history and reading in a way that related to my life. For example, 

we learned the history of Yurok people and about the ecosystems 

of the Yurok Reservation that supported traditional foods I had 

grown up eating, such as salmon and acorns. 

56

The school offered Yurok language classes which is how I learned 

to introduce myself in Yurok. We learned Yurok songs and made 

flash cards to learn the vocabulary. Yurok culture is taught in each 

class, but specifically every Wednesday afternoon we did a cultural 

activity. 

On my first cultural day, we started the process of making Indian baskets. The tribal Fisheries Department took us up the 

Klamath River to pick the roots and plants required to make the 

baskets. The next week, an elder came into the school to teach the 

girls how to make the Indian baskets. I was glad I paid attention 

to geometry in class because we used the math skills to make the 

baskets. 

At KRECR, in every classroom an elder from the community 

would sit in the class. They did not teach, but they were just there 

to sit in. The elders helped the students behave because no one 

wanted to get in trouble in front of the elders. 

Also, the school uses the process of settling up to resolve disputes 

between students, teachers and administrators. Settling up requires that people who are in an argument meet with a neutral 

third party and the person in the wrong has to pay the injured 

party. Usually in the public schools, students are suspended if they 

get into a fight with a student or a teacher. Settling up allows kids 

to stay in school and hold them accountable for their actions. 

At KRECR, we also met our tribal leaders. The Yurok Tribal 

Council helped us find internships with the tribe and local businesses. We used the tribal facilities and computers. It was good for 

us to have a relationship with our political leaders because they 

are our role models. 

At KRECR, I understood while school and education is so important. Through all of these activities, I learned standards for life, 

not just math or science or how to take standardized tests. I 

learned how to be a Yurok. I learned how to be a good friend, student and professional. 

Learning about my culture gave me and the other students something to believe in and something to do. The reservation is rural 

and most kids are poor, so there aren’t many activities and a lot 

of the kids turned to drugs and alcohol. This school taught us 

about our people and to be proud of our heritage and culture. 

I did very well at KRECR. My grades went up and I learned a 

lot about who I am, my community and traditional academics. I 

graduated from KRECR in June of 2009 with one year of college 

credits finished. I got a scholarship to Southern Oregon University 

where I am currently a sophomore. I was lucky to have a family 

that cared about me and I had access to a school that had the tools 

I needed to succeed. All children deserve to have a good education 

experience like I had. 

For Native American students, a good education means they 

grow up understanding who they are, where they are from, and 

how to be successful in life. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bowers follows:]

57

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIAH BOWERS, MEMBER, YUROK TRIBE; SOPHOMORE, 

SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan and members of the committee. My name is 

Mariah Bowers. I am 19 years old and a college sophomore at Southern Oregon University. I am an Alaska Native and was adopted into a Yurok family when I was 

a baby. Thank you for inviting me to testify about my experience as a Native American student in the era of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Between kindergarten and my freshman year of high school I attended public 

schools in Oregon, where I never did well in school. However, that changed when 

I transferred to the Klamath River Early College of the Redwoods Charter School 

(KRECRC), a culture based charter school operated by the Yurok tribe and community, located on the Yurok Reservation in Northern California. At KRECRC I 

thrived, and I am now a successful college sophomore ultimately because of the education I received there. Today I will discuss my experiences in public and charter 

schools. I will also make recommendations about how we can improve the educational process of Native American students. 

A. Public School 

During my freshman year of high school I started having problems in school. At 

that time, I lived with my family in a rural area outside of Eugene, Oregon where 

I attended Churchill High School. Every morning I had to catch the school bus at 

7 a.m. to be on time for 8 a.m. classes. My class schedule was divided into blue and 

white days; on blue days I had math, reading, humanities, and science, and on 

white days I had art, PE, and a free period. I had perfect attendance and always 

did my homework for all my classes. But as the year progressed, I began to not understand the material in the hard classes, like math, and science. I would ask questions during class, I spent time studying, but I still struggled with the material. 

Also, I felt isolated, like I was the only student who didn’t understand the material. 

My teachers weren’t very helpful. They refused to meet with me and barely knew 

who I was. I asked them about my grades but they didn’t know what I had in the 

class. They didn’t seem interested in my success as a student. 

By the end of mid-terms I was on the verge of flunking out of school. I did not 

perform well on my mid terms exams. Again, I tried to arrange meetings with my 

teachers to figure out why I was struggling, but they didn’t have time and wouldn’t 

meet with me. Instead, they told me to do extra credit to pass their classes. I did 

the extra credit, which improved my grades to Cs, but I still didn’t understand the 

material. 

Reflecting back I realize that part of the problem was I didn’t understand what 

was going to be on the tests. Even though I did the homework and went to class, 

I didn’t know what I was expected to learn or what I was going to be tested on. 

Nobody told me! It was never clear to me what I was expected to know. I grew more 

and more frustrated because even though I went to class and did the work—I still 

didn’t perform well on the tests. I became more anxious and nervous about my 

classes and going to school. The teachers seemed more concerned about ‘‘teaching 

to the tests’’ and getting through all of the curriculum that would be on the test 

as opposed to actually teaching the students and making sure the students understood the material. 

By the middle of my freshman year, I understood less and less of the material 

and my grades began to suffer even more. I stopped going to school on the hard days 

because I was too nervous and anxious and I felt isolated. With extra time on my 

hands, I started getting into trouble and hanging out with other kids who weren’t 

going to school. My mom got very concerned and pulled me out of school. Since most 

of our family lives on the Yurok Reservation in Northern California they suggested 

I try going to the Klamath River Early College of the Redwoods Charter School 

(KRECRC) located on the Yurok Reservation that focuses on Yurok culture and language as the foundation to learn other subjects. My family suggested I just try it 

on a temporary basis to see if I liked it better then public school. So I temporarily 

moved to the Yurok Reservation to attend the school. 

B. Charter School 

I loved going to school at KRECRC and I ended up graduating from the school 

three years later. The school is attended by Yuroks, non-natives, and Native Americans from other tribes. It has grades 9 through 12 and has a partnership with the 

Early College of the Redwoods to enable students to graduate with AA degrees. It 

uses Yurok language and culture as the foundation to teach all subjects. The class 

sizes range from 12 to 20 students. I did well at this school, finally! Honestly, if 

58

it wasn’t for this school, the teachers, staff, elders, and students, I wouldn’t be in 

College today. 

1. Standards, Teachers, and Elders 

The biggest differences between the public school and KRECRC were how I was 

tested and how I was taught. First, the testing standards were completely different. 

At KRECRC test standards were described in a book that was given to each student. Students could obtain ‘‘proficient,’’ ‘‘emerging’’ or ‘‘advance’’ as grades. The 

book laid out what type of student product was required for each grade. This worked 

well for me because I knew exactly what I had to do to get an advanced grade. I 

understood what was expected of me and I never had to guess like I did in the public school. The teachers gave me materials to master, the testing standards were 

clear, and I knew what I needed to do to get good grades. This made me more accountable—I knew what I had to do to get a good grade. In the public school, I 

didn’t know what was expected and I didn’t know what was going to be tested, so 

it was hard for me to get good grades. But at KRECRC, I knew exactly what to 

expect and how to perform well on tests. 

The curriculum used to meet the academic standards required the same amount 

of work as I had done in the public school and it was just as academically challenging; only now I knew what was expected of me. The curriculum was also interesting because we learned math, science, history, and reading in a way that related 

to my life. For example, we learned the history of the Yurok people and we learned 

about the ecosystems on the Yurok Reservation and how they supported traditional 

foods that I had grown up eating, such as salmon and acorns. 

The teachers also worked with me to determine how I was going to meet the academic standards. This worked well because I knew what I needed to do to get good 

grades. The teachers were very involved in my classes and were very accessible. 

They always knew what my grades were and how I was progressing. They also 

knew the areas where I was struggling and offered extra instruction. They were 

kind and understanding. They knew who I was and were willing to work with me. 

This helped me feel less nervous about the hard subjects. It helped me feel like I 

could learn. 

Also at KRECRC, in every classroom an elder from the community would sit in 

the class. The elders were community members or sometimes students’ family members. They didn’t teach but were there to ‘‘sit in.’’ The elders helped the students 

behave because no one wanted to get in trouble in front of the elders. Most of the 

students understood that the elders came in from town to spend time with the students and they were community leaders—both demanded respect so the kids paid 

attention to the teachers and were polite. The presence of elders controlled behavior—even when the elders feel asleep in class, proving that geometry is boring at 

any age! 

2. Culture 

Yurok language and culture was part of every day at KRECRC. We went to school 

to become contributing members of the Yurok community. Learning our culture became an incentive for me and other students to come to school. 

The school offers Yurok language classes which is how I learned how to introduce 

myself in Yurok. We learned Yurok songs and made flash cards to learn vocabulary. 

Yurok culture is taught in each class, but specifically, every Wednesday afternoon 

we did a cultural activity. Students looked forward to this throughout the entire 

week. For the culture activity, boys and girls are separated into groups and community leaders and elders taught each group. 

On my first culture day, we started the process of making Indian baskets. The 

Tribal Fisheries Department took us up the Klamath River to pick the roots and 

plants required to make baskets. We spent the day picking the roots and plants and 

preparing them to make baskets. The next week a community leader came to the 

school to teach us girls how to make an Indian basket. 

Meanwhile the boys were learning how to make eel hooks to catch eels, a very 

popular traditional food, and later they went ‘‘eeling.’’ After the boys caught the 

eels, the elders taught us girls how to prepare them and we cooked the eels for the 

school lunch. The following month the boys learned how to make a canoe. Everyone 

loves these activities because we learn how to be Yuroks. 

Also, the school uses the Yurok process of ‘‘settling up’’ to resolve disputes between students, teachers, and administrators. ‘‘Settling up’’ requires the people who 

are in the argument to meet with a neutral third party, discuss and determine who 

is in the wrong, and that person has to pay the injured party. After the payment 

is made, the parties can’t hold grudges or speak of the event again. The school uses 

this process to resolve all disputes that may arise, from student-to-student bad 

59

mouthing to student-to-teacher behavioral problems. The process has been very effective in managing student behavior. The students respect this process because the 

community has used it for several generations. 

Usually, in the public school that serves the Yurok Reservation, students are suspended if they get in a fight with a student or teacher. If you get suspended, you 

have free time, and in most cases, kids will start drinking or doing drugs and a lot 

of times you get in trouble with the law before you make it back to school. The public school offers no guidance about how a student should behave. Instead they just 

push you through the system. As a result, kids feel unattached to the school and 

they don’t learn there. 

In contrast, the settling up process allows kids to stay in school and it makes 

them accountable for their actions—they have to pay if they harmed someone and 

they have to talk with that person about why they did something harmful. It also 

provides guidance about how a person should behave. 

3. Tribal Control 

At KRECRC we also met our tribal leaders. The Yurok Tribal Council helped find 

internships with the Tribe and local businesses. They helped us develop resumes 

and served as references for jobs. We were able to use the Tribe’s facilitates and 

technology for school activities. The Tribal newspaper frequently reported about the 

school’s activities and accomplishments. It was good for us to have a relationship 

with our political leaders because they are our role models; it gave us something 

to work toward. 

After a few weeks of school at KRECRC I understood why school is so important; 

through all of these activities I learned standards for life—not just math or science 

class or standardized tests as was my experience in public school—I learned how 

to be a Yurok. I learned how to be a good friend, student, and professional. Learning 

about my culture gave me, and the other students, something to believe in and 

something to do. There are a lot of drugs and alcohol on the Yurok Reservation. The 

Reservation is rural and most kids live in poverty so there aren’t many activities 

available. Sometimes kids turn to drugs and alcohol because they have nothing better to do. But we are proud of our culture and traditions and we want to learn more 

about it. The school taught us who we are and to be proud of our heritage and culture. We identify with our culture. Teaching culture in the school and involving the 

community gave us a reason to go to school; to learn how to be Yurok. 

I did very well at KRECRC. My grades went up and I learned a lot about who 

I am, my community and traditional academics. I graduated from KRECRC in June 

of 2009. I got a diversity scholarship to Southern Oregon University, where I am 

currently a sophomore. 

C. Recommendations 

I was lucky. I have a family that cares about me and I had access to a school 

that had the tools I needed to succeed. All children deserve to have a good educational experience like I had. For Native American students a good education 

means they grow up understanding who they are, where they are from, and how 

to be successful in college and as professionals. 

Based on my experiences I recommend the Committee do four things in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to improve Native 

American education:

• First, give students a clear understanding of academic standards. If we are moving toward national standards, make those standards clear to students and provide the students with tools to meet those standards.

• Second, increase the role of tribal governments and communities in education, 

in all schools serving tribal students. We respect our tribal leaders and elders. 

We want to learn from them. Put them in our classrooms. Plus, the tribal government has resources that will help us succeed. The schools need help; they 

can’t provide us with all the resources we need and the tribal governments 

working with tribal education departments/agencies can help.

• Third, incorporate language and culture into curriculum, standards, and assessments. In order to be ready for college or careers we have to understand where 

we come from and our culture. We get excited to learn about our culture. Our 

excitement motivates us to learn other subjects and it gives us a reason to come 

to school.

• Fourth, make curriculum, standards, and tests flexible enough to provide a well 

rounded education that prepares Native American students to be tribal leaders, 

professionals, mothers, fathers, and community members.

60

Conclusion 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on these very important issues. I hope that 

my comments today will help the committee create a better educational experience 

for all Native American students.

The CHAIRMAN. Mariah, thank you very much. We are inspired 

by your story, and congratulations to you for finishing your first 

year and being enrolled and having hope for the future, and investing in yourself. We really appreciate that. 

Actually, your testimony was better than the technology because 

your image was wavering in and out, but we could hear your voice 

just fine. So thank you very much. Stay with us, if you will, just 

for a few moments. 

Let me ask a couple of questions and then I will call on my colleague Senator Udall as well. 

Let me ask Mr. Smith, if I might, you stressed the language immersion program. Tell us again what noticeable difference have you 

seen in the academic performance of students that participated in 

the immersion program for language? 

Mr. SMITH. We have had the immersion class, one class each 

year, so we started out with pre–K, next year first, second, third. 

We are up to the fourth grade. What we find is that kids not only 

speak Cherokee and think Cherokee and act Cherokee, but their 

composure, their collection, their ability to communicate with other 

folks in English and other languages is tremendously improved. 

They just have a confidence that you can tell that they have a 

sense of solid identity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there evidence in their grades and I should 

say, all portions of their academic experience? 

Mr. SMITH. We are at that juncture now where we are learning 

English literacy. So the testing mechanisms are not fully perfected. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Ms. Oatman-Wak Wak, you talked about recommending Congress support and fund programs that ensure maximum participation of parents and families and so on, community members, in 

education. I think that there is nothing more important than having parents involved in education. I have always felt that the three 

things that are essential for education to work well are, number 

one, a teacher that knows how to teach; a child that wants to learn; 

and a parent involved in that child’s education. If those three 

things are present, almost inevitably it works. 

But I think what we find so often, and it is not just on Indian 

reservations or with Indian education, it is across the Country, we 

find so often that a couple of those things are present, but not the 

parent involvement. And the lack of parent involvement is just devastating. 

So when you talk about these things, I agree with you. What 

kind of incentives do you think Congress can develop with respect 

to parent involvement? 

Ms. OATMAN-WAK WAK. I appreciate that question, Chairman 

Dorgan. We do know that parental involvement, not just in native 

communities, but all communities, is an issue. However, within Indian Country, it is a lot of those traumatic experiences and those 

past Federal policies that kind of worked to decreasing of valuing 

education throughout Indian Country. 

61

We are seeing that change. It is changing. We are on the impetus 

of that change where educational attainment is becoming a high 

priority within Indian Country. We still have a ways to go. We still 

actually have a long ways to go to get that Indian parent involvement. 

We do have some of those parameters like within the Federal Impact Aid Program which requires Indian policies and procedures for 

school districts on-reservation that are receiving the impact aid dollars due to a large presence of those Federal lands. 

However, many times we experience that it is just a process. It 

is let’s develop an Indian parent committee so that they can sign 

up on these Indian policies and procedures. We need stronger correlation and strengthening the language within those different titles. 

So for Title VIII for impact aid, instead of stating that local education authorities should or may, we need to strengthen that language, shall and must collaborate with Indian tribes. And through 

that language, we will also strengthen the role of Indian parent 

committees under impact aid or the parent committees under Title 

VII that are required under those different titles. 

It is the soft language that is killing us, quite honestly, in that 

the local education authorities know that they are not required to 

do so. It is just more of a suggestion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mariah, I am going to ask you a question before your image disappears on us again. Let me ask your self-assessment. Go back 

four years. You described your sense of what was going on in your 

life about four years ago, flunking out, not doing well. Your selfassessment of you four years ago versus now and what made the 

difference, do you think? 

Ms. BOWERS. Like with my education? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, okay, I mean, you described a period where 

you felt like you couldn’t do the work. You weren’t motivated. You 

didn’t care very much because things weren’t working in your life. 

You kind of described to me a period where you kind of felt hopeless. All of a sudden, you come here to us and say, you know what? 

I am feeling really good about things. I have just gotten through 

my first year of college. I am in a place that I care about. 

So, is that a pretty good assessment of what has happened to 

you? And what was it that triggered it, do you think? 

Ms. BOWERS. I think because I was living off of the reservation 

while I was going to school in Eugene, Oregon, and I was kind of 

discouraged because I kind of had a feeling of I didn’t really know 

who I was or where I came from. And when people would ask me, 

they would always mistake me for being Asian or Mexican. Not a 

lot of people know that Native American people were still living 

and doing things. 

I kind of felt like I was falling into this statistic of the students 

who aren’t going to graduate and who fail out of school and this 

and that. And I kind of became discouraged, not only with school, 

but just knowing that I wasn’t going anywhere with my life. 

And moving back home with having my cousins going to school 

with me and friends from when I lived on the reservation, with 

people who looked just like me and are doing the same things, it 

62

motivated me because I wasn’t an outsider and I wasn’t a nobody. 

I was actually just one of every other one of the students who was 

at the school. And then I became more motivated and I became 

more motivated to be more of the statistics of those kids who graduate and the kids who go to college, and the kids who don’t fall into 

the drugs and alcohol. I wanted to be the better statistic than the 

not as good statistic. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mariah, what do you want to be? 

Ms. BOWERS. I think I am going to major in criminal justice and 

I want to be maybe like a probation officer for youth, or something. 

I am not really sure. I am still working it out. 

The CHAIRMAN. But there is no doubt in your mind you can be 

what you want to be. Is that correct? 

Ms. BOWERS. Yes. I can be whatever I want to be as long as I 

try and work hard, do the homework, go to class. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good for you. The only limits on you and your 

life are the limits you put on yourself. And there are a lot of barriers, but I am talking about limits now. You can get over the barriers, but your life is going to be in many ways a set of opportunities that are defined by the limits you describe for yourself. 

And really, there aren’t many limits if you put your mind to it. 

You have just discovered that, changing environment, all of a sudden deciding I am not failing, I am succeeding. Big difference. 

Ms. BOWERS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are good to be with us. I thank you very 

much for being willing to spend a little time with us. 

Let me call on Senator Udall for his comments. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. 

Mariah, just to follow up on what Senator Dorgan asked about, 

you were saying what allowed you to do better was being surrounded by other native students. And it seems like that gave you 

an inspiration. Were there teachers? Were there other things that 

inspired you to learn? 

Ms. BOWERS. Yes, there were teachers. 

Senator UDALL. Was there a favorite teacher or somebody there 

that took you under their wing and really tried to give you advice 

and lead you down the right path? 

Ms. BOWERS. I wouldn’t say a favorite teacher, but having the elders come into the school and sit there was really motivating. One 

of the elders who came most of the days was actually my great 

uncle. And so it actually really excited me because he was there 

and he was always telling me to behave and to not always look at 

the boys and to just focus on school. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BOWERS. So having him sit there and be behind me, it kind 

of made him seem like he was always standing behind me, supporting me. And he was there probably three times all of the week. 

So I think that was really good. 

And we also had people come over from the tribe who would just 

come in and just make sure that we were on task, big people like 

Tribal Council people or the tribal Chairperson or something. So 

knowing that they would come in and give us the support that we 

needed, it made me feel really good because they were really important people for the tribe, for them to come over and to say that 

63

we were doing a good job and just to keep it up and stay motivated. 

That is what really helped me. 

And the teachers, I don’t really have a favorite teacher. They 

were all really supportive and helpful. I don’t have a least favorite 

teacher, so they were there for me. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for your testimony. I think 

you have given us a good example of the kinds of things that can 

help native students to achieve and to really move forward. 

I agree with Chairman Dorgan that if you really put your mind 

to it, you are going to get everything done that you want to do in 

your dreams. So thank you for being with us today. 

Ms. BOWERS. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. You bet. 

A question to the panel. You watched the previous panel and the 

individuals talking about how they were going to turn around the 

schools. Do you have any thoughts on their testimony? Do you disagree with anything? Do you think their approach is a solid one? 

Is there anything that stands out from that testimony you would 

like to comment on? 

Dr. BEAULIEU. Senator, there is one thing that comes to mind at 

the moment. One is that longevity is important. I was involved 

during the 1990s in the school evaluation monitoring teams with 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs in those days where we visited 

schools. 

The single most important factor for improving test scores was 

the longevity of a principal, a school leader who had a vision and 

a plan for the education of that school community. It matters that 

there are people that are hanging in there working on plans and 

so forth, and we need to sustain that leadership, not constantly 

move them from place to place and changing an already bad situation. People come and go fast enough already. 

I think that sort of speaks to also the need for broader vision 

within the local community for what is education, and to engage 

parents, tribal governments and others in what is that vision and 

how do we all work together on it. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mary Jane? 

Ms. OATMAN-WAK WAK. It was mentioned earlier about the need 

for highly effective teachers, highly effective leaders. There is no 

doubt about that. But one of the other scenarios and one of the 

other caveats that has not been brought up in this forum today or 

during the hearing is I guess the lack of sustainable school board 

models within Indian Country, through our bureau schools as well 

as through our public schools, is the role and the lack of assistance 

or support for school boards. 

They are the governing bodies over these schools, and yet there 

is a disconnect between their role and the lack of student achievement within those schools. It is always the fingerpointing on the 

principal, or in the case here, that we have seen throughout Indian 

Country. And I have heard it throughout my work as the Coordinator of Indian Education at the State. Is it is the Indian kids, or 

it is the ineffective teacher, or it is the principal? 

And so I think that we need to also really look at and assess the 

role that school boards have not only with their fiduciary responVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 May 10, 2011 Jkt 062197 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\62197.TXT JACK
64

sibilities over schools, but the role that they can play in student 

achievement and governance of the schools, because they are the 

ones that are working to help retain the superintendents, that are 

assisting in getting the teacher contracts, as well as the principal 

contracts. 

And so for a more holistic approach, we need to also look at addressing the governance of the schools through school boards. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chief Smith, if you have a brief comment? I have run out of time. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. Thank you for the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall, thank you very much. 

This is the first hearing and the opening hearing to lead us to 

work on this education issue in a more focused way. As you know, 

we have worked on Indian healthcare improvement in this Congress and have that now signed into law. We are very, very close 

to getting done, hopefully in a matter of days in the Senate, the 

Tribal Law Enforcement Act that we have introduced. Senator 

Udall and I and others have worked very hard on that. We are very 

close. That is going to get done, I believe. So those are two big 

issues. 

And now we turn to education and begin the work on trying to 

determine how to address specific Indian education needs within 

the context of other authorization bills that are going to be passed, 

including No Child Left Behind and its modifications. 

So let me thank the three of you for being willing to be with us 

today and to provide testimony. We are going to keep this hearing 

record open for two weeks, and we would invite anyone from not 

only the National Indian Education Association that wishes to provide supplemental information, but anyone else who wishes to submit formal comments for our record. We will accept them for two 

weeks from today’s date. 

I thank all of you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(65)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MONTANA OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Title III—Native American Languages and Students Identified As Limited 

English Proficient 

The current NCLB reorganization of bilingual education to English language acquisition has a confining and restrictive effect on Native American Languages in 

schools. That is not the Title III population we serve in Montana. The majority of 

Title III students served in Montana are American Indian, which do not fit well 

with current definitions, processes, procedures, and methods by the Office of English 

Language Acquisition that administers the Title III programs. Their current focus 

is new immigrant language issues. 

Our children served through Title III are subjected to assessments designed to determine progress for English learners moving from no English to English literate. 

Recommend:

• Native American Language programming be moved from Title III to Title VII 

with appropriate funding to implement native language revitalization efforts in 

schools.

• The Native American Language Act and the Esther Martinez Native American 

Languages Preservation Act of 2006 should be reflected in NCLB assessment, 

programming, and policy.

Title VIII—Impact Aid and Turnaround Process 

The 8003 Indian Lands component of Impact Aid requires tribal review of eligible 

‘‘federally impacted students’’. Impact Aid creates a connection between Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) and schools where the counts are verified, parent s submit demographic information and land descriptions, and parent committees approve 

(informally or formally), the Indian Policies and Procedures to schools. This section 

ought to formalize a role to address tribal community participation, but it seldom 

does. Tribal government and school boards would benefit from increased communication. 

Impact Aid dollars are a significant contribution to a school, but without tribal 

or SEA monitoring roles, they rarely receive scrutiny as they are absorbed into a 

school’s general fund. Some of the schools who struggle the most with academic 

achievement the greatest receive such funding. 

Recommend: Impact Aid consultation be a formal process with annual tribal signature. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLORIA O’NEILL, PRESIDENT/CEO, COOK INLET TRIBAL

COUNCIL (CITC) 

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee, I am 

grateful for the opportunity to present this testimony to you. 

My name is Gloria O’Neill and I am the President and CEO of Cook Inlet Tribal 

Council (CITC), an Alaska Native tribal organization which serves as the primary 

education and workforce development center for Native people in Anchorage. As I 

have explained before to the Committee, CITC has been designated its tribal authority through Cook Inlet Region Inc., organized through the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act and recognized under Section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act. CITC builds human capacity by partnering with individual Alaska Native people to establish and achieve both educational and employment goals that result in lasting, positive change for our people, their families, and 

their communities. 

I will address these comments specifically to the effect of No Child Left Behind 

and our recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

66

Education Act, incorporating by reference my comments to this Committee on 

March 31, 2010 (attached hereto). 

Over the past decade, as CITC has implemented innovative programs in partnership with the Anchorage School District, Alaska Native student performance has 

lagged behind other students’ performance, in a state with one of the lowest performance rates overall. The Alaska experience tracks with American Indian experience elsewhere in the United States, with the added issue that all Alaska Native 

students receive their education only from the state and local school districts. 

Recommendations 

1. As explained below, CITC recommends that the ESEA maintains and expands 

the flexibility and creativity for bold innovative partnerships between tribal and state 

organizations to leverage federal funding offered through the Alaska Native Equity 

Program (ANEP), the main source of federal funds available for Alaska Native education in Alaska. This program allows the creativity to develop strengths-based, culturally appropriate flexible programs that promote the learning and success of Alaska Native and American Indian students through effective schools, comprehensive 

services and family supports.

2. In order to ensure that all Alaska Native and American Indian students are 

well-served under the recommendations submitted by the National Indian Education Association and other experts, the reauthorization should use the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act definition of tribe (25 USC 450b: Indian tribe ‘‘ means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 

Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], which is recognized as eligible for the special 

programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.’’

3. The Blueprint suggests expanding eligibility to school districts and public charters under the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs. CITC does not agree 

with expanding Alaska Native targeted funding to school districts without partnership with Alaska Native tribes or tribal organizations. School districts and charters 

already receive Department of Education funding.

4. ESEA must ensure that academic intervention and case management for student success are high priorities for funding; other supportive services and cultural 

activities are also critical to student success and should be well-funded as part of 

a continuum of service.

5. ESEA should remove the 5 percent cap on administrative costs and allow indirect recovery at the rate negotiated with the tribe or tribal organization’s cognizant 

agency.

6. ESEA should lower 50 percent match requirements, and permit use of non-federal public funds for match.

Finally, CITC recommends that the Department of Education take full advantage 

of opportunities to reduce administrative burden and to coordinate with other agencies working with American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations offered through such statutory structures as P.L. 102–477. While the current 

efforts of the DOI and Department of Education to coordinate about Indian education are important steps, the 477 mechanism allows tribes and tribal organizations to combine sources of funding to best serve our people. 

1. Maintain and Increase Flexibility Under the Alaska Native Education

Equity Act 

With the exception of limited Johnson O’Malley funding, there is no Bureau of Indian Education funding in Alaska. However, federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education support Alaska Native education through the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), also known as the Alaska Native Education Equity Act. 

These funds, alone, provide critical resources for creative solutions to the problems 

of Alaska Native student performance. Funds go to school districts, tribes and tribal 

organizations across the state, and to the University of Alaska, to assist with individual and systemic change. For example, CITC’s education pipelines through the 

Partners for Success program is an innovative and comprehensive program dedicated to growing college and career-ready graduates from kindergarten through 

twelfth grade. As is clear from the research, in order for our at-risk students to succeed, intervention must occur early, both within and outside the classroom, and continue throughout the school years with both academic and other wrap-around services. 

67

Efforts to reform the existing educational system in Alaska are not working, and 

graduation rates for Alaska Native/American Indian (AN/AI) students are discouraging:

• During the 2006–2007 school year, AN/AI students in Anchorage had the lowest 

graduation rate of all No Child Left Behind disaggregated subcategories at 

42.72 percent.

• In 2007–2008, AN/AI Anchorage students’ graduation rates dropped to 33.26 

percent—a decrease of more than 22 percent.

• In 2008–2009, their graduation rate increased again to 48 percent, while the 

overall graduation rate for the Anchorage School District reached 70 percent.

• In-migrating students become lost in schools that are often larger than their entire home village.

• Academic success is hampered by a high level of homelessness and family instability among Alaska Native students, who move to Anchorage from the village 

to stay with relatives.

Due to Alaska’s historical idiosyncrasies, for the past 25 years the State of Alaska 

has been responsible for Alaska Native education. Given the challenges of teaching 

in small, extremely remote villages accessible only by boat or airplane as well as 

in the larger communities, Native children have been severely neglected and the result has been the shocking disparities noted above. Recently, the State has failed 

to insure that each school district’s curriculum Is aligned to state standards, as well 

as other limitations including inadequate consideration of pre–K and other intensive 

early learning initiatives, not addressing the specific strengths and weaknesses of 

each chronically underperforming district and a failure to address high teacher 

turnover and teacher inexperience. 

In short, the lack of active federal oversight, involvement and funding for Alaska 

Native education has produced dire results for Alaska Native children and young 

adults. Alaska Native students have indeed been left behind by NCLB. 

2. Use the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

Definition of ‘‘Tribe’’

The complex array of tribes, tribal organizations and other entities that provide 

services to Alaska Native and American Indian people across the country are appropriately reflected in the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. 450b. Because of the unique Alaska 

landscape, federal programming and funding operates via several channels: tribes 

at the village and hub level, regional non-profit tribal organizations, and often 

through state contracts with tribes or regional tribal organizations. As a result, 

tribes and tribal organizations in Alaska have implemented federal Indian programs 

for over thirty years. There are over 40 statutes and regulations that use this definition, and thus ensure that services can be provided to Alaska Native people through 

all of the vehicles available, both federally recognized tribes and tribal organizations 

such as regional non-profit organizations. For example, CITC supports the recommendations bring Tribal Education Agencies on a par with state and local education agencies, so long as the ISDEAA definition of tribe is applied to the provision. 

3. There Is no Need to Expand ANEP to Include School Districts and

Charter Schools, as They Already Receive Funding From the

Department of Education 

The Blueprint for Education recommends expanding ANEP eligibility to school 

districts and charter schools for the few federal dollars that are expressly directed 

Alaska Native student education. As several others have testified, tribal involvement in reaching solutions for Native students is critical to the success of programs 

for Native students; therefore, CITC supports continuing to require linking the 

funds with required partnerships with tribes and tribal organizations. 

4. Academic and Case Management Must Be High Priorities for Native

Education Funding 

Combating the disparate achievement of Native students can only be achieved 

through both focus on the academic achievement and the case management of attendant issues that face Native students. CITC’s experience has shown that a different pedagogy as well as wrap around services are both key to improving grades 

and graduation rates. Most importantly, this intervention needs to start early and 

remain consistent throughout the K–12 years. For high school students without stable home lives, or who are aging out of foster care, attendant case management and 

services are essential to success. For this reason, CITC is taking the Partners for 

Success program to the next level, planning a stable, dormitory-style program that 

will coordinate with its school-within-a-school program at the local high school. 

68

5. ESEA Should Remove the 5 Percent Cap on Administrative/Indirect 

Costs 

It is both unrealistic and unhealthy for administrative costs to be limited to 5 percent; well-run programs need adequate resources to maintain, improve and grow. 

Tribes and tribal organizations have negotiated indirect rates with their cognizant 

federal agency (usually BIA or IHS), and other federal agencies should honor that 

administrative rate when contracting for services. 

6. ESEA Should Lower the 50 Percent Match Requirement and Allow NonFederal Public Funds to Be Used as Match 

CITC understands the importance of leveraging dollars and encouraging private 

and public support for education nationally. However, otherwise eligible and available programs are often excluded by the heavy burden of the match requirement, 

thus limiting flexibility and lowering local capacity for initiating necessary innovation. 

CITC Program Opportunities—Tribal/Public School Partnership 

The needs of our Native community grow every day due to the current economy 

and the persistent disparity in educational achievement. On behalf of Cook Inlet 

Tribal Council and the community we serve, I urge this Committee to expand funding for Indian education, and in particular the Alaska Native Equity Act, so that 

Alaska Native children can experience the quality of education they deserve. For example, continuing the ability to leverage funding on innovative demonstration 

projects, such as the CITC Partners for Success, is essential to sustaining success 

at the local, state and national level. It is of paramount importance that the re-write 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act maintain and expand the flexibility 

and opportunities for these unique tribal, state and federal partnerships that make 

possible real change and achievement for Alaska Native students, promoting effective schools, comprehensive services and family supports. It is now, at this critical 

juncture, as Congress sets a new course for American education, that we ensure 

that Alaska Native students—who have been left behind for so long—truly have the 

opportunity to succeed. We know what needs to be done, and we have proven strategies that require your support. We ask for the partnership and resolve of Congress, 

to work with us to close the persistent achievement gap for Alaska Native students, 

and allow our young people—our future generation of adults—to fulfill their unlimited potential. 

69

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MONTANA INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION


617c1.eps
70


617c2.eps
71


617c3.eps
72

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER BORDEAUX, SUPERINTENDENT, UNITED AUBURN

INDIAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY

TRIBAL SCHOOLS INC. (ACTS) 

Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Senate Indian 

Affairs Committee, my name is Dr. Roger Bordeaux; I serve as the Superintendent 

of the United Auburn Indian Community School in Auburn, California and the Executive Director of the Association of Community Tribal Schools Inc. (ACTS). I have 

been a Superintendent for 20 years and the Executive Director for 23 years. 

First I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee for this opportunity to 

submit testimony for the record. The tribal school movement started in 1966 with 

Rough Rock Demonstration School. Now there are over 28,000 students in tribal elementary and secondary schools. The schools are in the states of Maine, Florida, 


617c4.eps
73

North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, 

Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, California, 

Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. ACTS represents a significant number of the over 124 tribally controlled elementary and secondary schools. 

The schools have over 27,000 tribal children enrolled in k–12 programs. ACTS’s mission is to ‘‘assist community tribal schools toward their mission of ensuring that 

when students complete their schools they are prepared for lifelong learning and 

that these students will strengthen and perpetuate traditional tribal societies.’’

However, over the last six years, the budget for the Bureau of Indian Education 

has bloated while the appropriations to school based programs have remained relatively stagnant. Since FY 2006, the BIE Education management has grown 288 

percent, and no, that is not a type-over. During that time: Tribal Grant Support 

Costs grew 4 percent; School Facility Operations, 6 percent; ISEP Formula, 11 percent; Student Transport, 20 percent; and from 2008 School Facility Maintenance, 

less than 1 percent. My question would be: where is the money that the BIE is getting going if not to the students and the schools? 

This mismanagement of funding illustrates the need for more local and tribal control that can respond to student and community needs rather than more bureaucracy. As part of the House Education and Labor Committee’s request for public comments going into the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I have submitted legislative language that will give more control at the local level where it is needed, 

which I have passed on to your staff. Also in that language, are changes to the adequate yearly progress (AYP) system for Native American students to reflect the 

unique and individual needs of our children. As you are no doubt aware, currently 

under the law tribes can already create their own AYP, but it has been documented 

by the GAO that the process to do so is unclear and without proper guidelines. Additionally, in some cases the BIE has worked with states to create standards without 

receiving tribal input, and has not followed established guidelines for consulting 

with tribes. This has lead to few tribes being able to take advantage of the existing 

provisions in NCLB that allow the creation of their own AYP. That so few schools 

have the ability to take advantage of this creates a situation where in much of the 

country, Native students are participating in schools where their tribal governments 

have no say at all. 

Finally, starting in 1996 there was a moratorium placed on new schools entering 

the Bureau school system or from expanding an already existing program. This was 

done at the request of the Bureau so that they could ‘‘clear their backlog’’. Fourteen 

years later, that backlog still exists and schools are handcuffed into existing programs that don’t reflect the reality of the current situation. The only schools and 

programs that have had a chance to enter the system or add ISEP funding in this 

time have been schools that have been politically favored by the BIA or BIE, rather 

than schools that have an educational need. 

I thank you again for this opportunity to submit testimony and I look forward to 

working with each of the members of the Committee to find a comprehensive solution to the needs that face our students. I can tell you with absolute certainty that 

no one is willing to work harder for our children’s future than our tribal members 

and governments and we look forward to proving this through our actions. Our students are among the best and brightest in the country and we all need to make sure 

that they have the same opportunities to succeed that the rest of the country has. 

Attachments

74


617d1.eps
75


617d2.eps
76

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN WILSON, OGLALA LAKOTA; PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ALLIANCE TO SAVE NATIVE LANGUAGES


617e1.eps
77


617e2.eps
78


617e3.eps
79


617e4.eps
80


617e5.eps
81


617e6.eps
82


617e7.eps
83


617e8.eps
84


617e9.eps
85

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SANDRA FOX, OGLALA LAKOTA


617f1.eps
86


617f2.eps
87


617f3.eps
88


617f4.eps
89

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE TRIBAL LEADER’S CONGRESS ON

EDUCATION


617f5.eps
90


617f6.eps
91


617g1.eps
92


617g2.eps
93


617g3.eps
94


617g4.eps
95


617g5.eps
96


617g6.eps
97


617g7.eps
98


617h1.eps
99


617h2.eps
100


617h3.eps
101


617h4.eps
102


617h5.eps
103


617h6.eps
104


617h7.eps
105


617h8.eps
106


617h9.eps
107


617b1.eps
108


617b2.eps 617b3.eps
109


617b4.eps
110


617b5.eps
111


617b6.eps
112


617b7.eps
113


617k1.eps
114


617k2.eps
115


617k3.eps
116


617k4.eps
117


617k5.eps
118


617k6.eps
119


617k7.eps
120


617k8.eps
121


617k9.eps
122


617k10.eps
123


617k11.eps
124


617k12.eps
125


617k13.eps
126


617k14.eps
127


617k15.eps
128


617k16.eps
129


617k17.eps
130


617k18.eps
131


617k19.eps
132


617k20.eps
133


617k21.eps 617k22.eps
134


617k23.eps
135


617k24.eps
136


617k25.eps
137


617k26.eps
138


617k27.eps
139


617k28.eps
140


617k29.eps
141


617k30.eps
142


617k31.eps
143


617k32.eps
144


617k33.eps
145


617k34.eps
146


617k35.eps
147


617k36.eps
148


617k37.eps
149


617k38.eps
150


617k39.eps
151


617k40.eps
152


617k41.eps
153


617k42.eps
154


617k43.eps
155


617k44.eps
156


617k45.eps
157


617k46.eps
158


617k47.eps
159


617k48.eps
160


617k49.eps
161


617k50.eps
162


617k51.eps
163


617k52.eps
164


617k53.eps
165


617k54.eps
166


617l1.eps
167


617l2.eps
168


617l3.eps
169


617l4.eps
170


617l5.eps
171


617l6.eps
172


617l7.eps
173


617l8.eps
174


617l9.eps
175


617l10.eps
176


617l11.eps
177


617l12.eps
178


617l13.eps
179


617l14.eps
180


617l15.eps
181


617l16.eps
182


617l17.eps
183


617l18.eps
184


617l19.eps
185


617l20.eps
186


617l21.eps
187


617l22.eps
188


617l23.eps
189

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

CHARLES P. ROSE

Your written testimony noted that in the course of the Department consultations 

with Indian tribes, a common theme was raised by tribes that there should be more 

collaboration between the tribes and the state about how Indian students are educated. The tribal testimony received during these consultations indicated that the 

best way to promote such collaboration would be to elevate and fund tribal education agencies. 

Question 1. What approaches have been used by school systems to promote collaboration with stakeholders on how school children should be educated? 

Answer. One approach to collaboration is consultation with parents of Indian children and Indian tribes in the development of educational programs. For example, 

as part of the Department of Education’s Impact Aid program, local educational 

agencies (LEAs) are required to consult with parents and tribes, and in the Indian 

Education formula grant program a parent committee must approve the LEA’s plan 

for the use of program funds. Additionally, a small number of LEAs have entered 


617l24.eps
190

into agreements with tribes regarding increased tribal involvement in State-operated schools located on tribally controlled lands.

Question 2. How should state schools be incentivized to engage in such collaboration with Indian tribes? 

Answer. Because American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students have 

unique cultural needs, the Administration believes that States and tribes should 

work together when making decisions that affect AI/AN students. Tribes are often 

best positioned to understand the potential consequences of education policies and 

plans for AI/AN students. We believe that States have an incentive to collaborate 

with tribes because tribes can support States in such areas as training teachers, implementing specific educational programs, and collecting and reporting data.

You also noted that these consultations identified additional educational challenges Indian children face due to violence, drug abuse, and high unemployment 

rates in their community. 

Question 3. How can the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act accommodate these additional challenges so that Indian children can 

achieve academic success? 

Answer. Addressing the full continuum of student and community needs is critical 

to helping Indian children overcome these significant challenges, allowing them to 

graduate from high school and preparing them for college and the workplace. The 

Administration has proposed three programs for a reauthorized Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 that would support student success from the cradle through college and into a career. The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students 

program would provide support for improving school safety and promoting students’ 

physical and mental health and well-being, including activities to prevent and reduce substance use, school violence, harassment, and bullying. The Promise Neighborhoods program would provide grants for the development and implementation of 

effective community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education 

reforms for children in high-need communities. And a reauthorized 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers program would help grantees implement in-school 

and out-of-school strategies that provide students and, where appropriate, teachers 

and family members, with additional time and support to succeed. We are also looking into ways to encourage more meaningful and productive consultation and collaboration between tribes, LEAs and SEAs so that the expertise of tribal leaders can 

be better used to strengthen schools that serve AI/AN students.

The National Indian Education Study recently issued by the Department of Education found that on the National Assessment of Education Progress in both reading 

and math, Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Education students scored significantly lower than Indian students in public schools. For example, fourth grade 

BIE students scored 25 points lower in reading than Indian students in public 

schools and a 23 point gap among eighth grade students. 

Question 4. To what do you attribute these significantly lower scores? 

Answer. We find the achievement gap between BIE schools and LEA-operated 

public schools very troubling, and intend to work closely with our colleagues in the 

BIE to help raise achievement in those schools. Although the National Indian Education Study (NIES) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress are not 

designed to identify the causes of differences in student achievement, the NIES 

found that AI/AN students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools are more 

likely to be English Learners and more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price 

school lunch than their peers in LEA-operated public schools. These and other challenges may contribute to the lower scores in BIE schools. Nonetheless, we know that 

demographics are not destiny and many schools all over the country are successful 

with students in similar situations.

Question 5. How will you increase support and collaboration from the Department 

of Education to the Bureau of Indian Education to reduce the disparity in scores 

not only between BIE students and their counterparts in public schools, but also 

non-Indians in public schools? 

Answer. Recently, we have been working closely with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BIE, and we plan to build on this collaborative relationship. During the past year, Secretaries Duncan and Salazar have met twice to create an 

agenda for reform. DOI staff has assisted ED in developing ED’s tribal consultation 

plan, and ED has provided increased and targeted technical assistance to BIE staff. 

Additionally, over the next few years, we plan to (1) assist BIE with its initiative 

to transform some of its lowest-performing schools into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics academies; (2) provide technical assistance to the BIE regarding its collective bargaining agreement; and (3) join DOI in the First Lady’s 

Let’s Move in Indian Country initiative. 

191

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

HON. CHAD SMITH


617j1.eps
192

*Response to written questions received after hearing’s print deadline will be

retained in Committee files.*

Æ


617j2.eps