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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–491 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–621

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION IN NATIVE AMERICAN

COMMUNITIES OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

JUNE 16, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Ben, Terry, director of tribal schools, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians .................................................................................................................. 31

Bordeaux, Roger, Superintendent, Tiospa Zina, Tribal School ..................... 26

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, chairman,

Committee on Indian Affairs ....................................................................... 1

Leonard, Leland, director, Division of Dine Education Committee, Navajo

Nation ............................................................................................................ 33

Marburger, Darla, deputy assistant secretary for Policy, Office Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education ........................ 4

Parisan, Edward, director, Office of Indian Education Programs, Department of the Interior ...................................................................................... 2

Rosier, Theresa, counselor to the Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs,

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 2

Sparks, Lillian, director, National Indian Education Association ................ 19

Taylor, Carmen Cornelius, executive director, National Indian School

Board Association ......................................................................................... 22

Vasques, Victoria, deputy under secretary and director, Office of Indian

Education, Department of Education .......................................................... 4

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Anderson, Dave, assistant secretary, Indian Affairs, Department of the

Interior (with attachment) ........................................................................... 39

Bordeaux, Roger (with attachments) .............................................................. 43

Daschle, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .................................. 64

La Marr, Cindy, president, National Indian Education Association ............ 66

Leonard, Leland ................................................................................................ 72

Martin, Phillip, tribal chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians ............. 76

Taylor, Carmen Cornelius ................................................................................ 78

Vasques, Victoria .............................................................................................. 84

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letter from Jack F. Trope, executive director, Association on American

Indian Affairs ................................................................................................ 86

(1)

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2004

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

The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:40 a.m. in

room 485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Campbell, Conrad, and Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. We are told that we may have a vote any

minute, but we are going to go ahead and start with our oversight

hearing on the Indian provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001. This is a law that I authored along with Vice Chairman

Inouye.

This law reaffirms the trust relationship and responsibility of the

United States to educate Indian children. That responsibility has

been put into action by, first, funding increases, most notably as we

can see from the draft chart that is on my right, and people in the

audience may review it from where you sit. If you are exiting the

room, please also do it quietly.

The school construction funding has increased some 400 percent

from fiscal 1999 to 2003; that is a huge increase and a very needed

increase for our Indian schools, too. Second, President Bush’s Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education

signed on April 30, 2004, seek to ensure the highest quality education for our Indian children. With the act passed in 2001, Congress established a number of requirements, including standards

and accountability, flexibility in funding sources, and GAO studies

for funding and facilities.

Today, we will hear how these requirements have been implemented in Indian Country and any recommendations for improvements.

I will submit my formal and complete statement for the record,

and tell you that we have gotten unfortunately a lot of mail, that

I will discuss, lately and calls, too, concerning how this new law is

being implemented. I will deal with that a little bit later during the

hearing.

Now, I would like to turn to my Vice Chairman, Senator Inouye,

for any opening statement he has.
2

Senator INOUYE. I would like to ask permission that my opening

statement be made part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye’s complete statement will be included in the record.

Now, we will turn to our first panel. That will be Theresa Rosier,

accompanied by Ed Parisian; and Victoria Vasques, accompanied

by Darla Marburger.

With that, if you would like to proceed in that order, Ms. Rosier

first. You may abbreviate if you like. Your complete testimony will

be included in the record.

We are going to keep on going, and Senator Inouye and I will

spell each other. He will go vote and then come back and chair it

while I run and vote, so we do not have to take a break in the continuity of this meeting. Go ahead and proceed, Ms. Rosier.

STATEMENT OF THERESA ROSIER, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD PARISIAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Ms. ROSIER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman. My name is Theresa Rosier and I am Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I am happy to be here today to

speak on behalf of the Department of the Interior on our implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act in the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] funded school system.

I am accompanied today by Edward Parisian, our director of the

Office of Indian Education Programs.

President Bush and Secretary Norton are committed to ensuring

that the almost 48,000 students who attend the Bureau-funded

school system receive a quality education and the opportunity to

achieve. In fact, the President recently signed an Executive order

on American Indian and Alaska Native education with the purpose

of assisting those students in achieving the academic and challenging standards set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department is committed to working with the Department of Education on implementing this important Executive order.

Assistant Secretary Dave Anderson, who unfortunately could not

be here today, has also made Indian education a top priority. To

assist in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act, Mr. Anderson has asked the Office of Indian Education Programs to explore

two innovative concepts that he hopes to implement in the Bureaufunded school system.

First, Mr. Anderson would like to create a Success 101 curriculum in the classroom. This curriculum would encourage student

achievement, student leadership, business investment, home ownership and personal responsibility. Second, he has asked his staff

to develop a pilot program to look at transforming the mission of

one of our Bureau-funded schools into a leadership academy. We

are currently analyzing how best to implement these two programs

with our existing authority and with our existing funding. This

summer, OIEP will consult with tribal leaders, educators and community members on these two concepts.

As Senator Campbell discussed, a prerequisite to providing a

high-quality education is based in structurally sound schools. With
3

this in mind, the President has requested and secured historic levels of funding for Indian school construction. Under his Administration he has requested over $1.1 billion for Indian school construction.

The No Child Left Behind Act is the President’s commitment

that all schools receiving Federal funds will provide students with

a high-quality education and Bureau-funded students and parents

can expect that our schools will carry forward this vision. Full and

successful implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act requires

a strong partnership between the Department of Interior, our Bureau-funded schools and the communities with which we serve.

The No Child Left Behind Act required the Department to undertake formal negotiated rulemaking in several areas. We have negotiated eight of the nine area so far. In February of this year, we

published the first six draft regulations. These regulations were developed in 5 months with Indian tribal leaders and the Federal negotiating team sitting at a table and negotiating very complex and

difficult matters. These proposed regulations were developed

through consensus-style decisionmaking, meaning that all members

of the Federal and tribal team had to agree on the final negotiated

product.

The negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus on the

first six areas, that of defining adequate yearly progress, geographic boundaries, the allotment formula, funding distribution,

grants administered under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, and

student civil rights. The public comment for these first six draft

regulations ends next week on June 24.

In February of this year, the committee reconvened and negotiated two additional areas, that of school closure and consolidation

and the national criteria for home-living standards. Although consensus was reached on home-living standards, which are the standards that govern our boarding schools, we did not reach consensus

on school closure or consolidation. The reason that we did not reach

consensus is that the Federal and tribal team had differing legal

interpretations of section 1121(d). After a lot of thoughtful deliberation, it became obvious that we would not reach consensus on this

issue.

We hope to publish the two regulations on dormitory standards

and school closure within the next few months. After that, the public will have a 120-day comment period. We strongly encourage all

tribal communities who are concerned with the issue of school closure and consolidation to provide comments during this 120-day period. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, we are required to

review each and every comment. We have agreed for the first six

rules to sit down with the tribes and review the comments together. We expect to have the same type of meetings for school closure and dormitory standards.

The President’s budget also supports implementation of No Child

Left Behind in the Bureau-funded school system. First, the Bureaufunded school system has received significant increases from the

Department of Education in our flow-through funding. Second, the

President’s 2005 budget reflects a $500,000-increase in the Focus

Program. The Focus Program brings targeted assistance to our lowest-performing schools. This program has been very successful. In
4

the schools where it has been implemented, four out of the five participating schools have improved their student performance.

Finally, the Office of Indian Education Programs was awarded a $30.4 million 6-year grant to focus on reading first in our Kindergarten through third grades.

In conclusion, the No Child Left Behind Act rulemaking process

provided both the Department and the tribal communities an opportunity to reassess our education system. The results are a

thoughtful work product that addresses incredibly difficult issues

and that encourages the BIA, both at the central office and the Bureau-funded school system and individual schools to provide a

meaningful educational opportunity to the Indian students that we

serve.

That is the conclusion of my testimony and I will be happy to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Why don’t you now proceed, Ms. Vasques.

STATEMENT OF VICTORIA VASQUES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION,

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DARLA

MARBURGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,

OFFICE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. VASQUES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee. On behalf of Secretary Paige, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act for American Indian and Alaska Native Children.

My name is Victoria Vasques. I am the deputy under secretary

and director of the Office of Indian Education. I am here with my

colleague Darla Marburger, who is the deputy assistant secretary

for policy in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

I request that my written statement be entered for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your complete statement will

be in the record.

Ms. VASQUES. Thank you.

It was in large part our Nation’s long and unfortunate history of

too-often ignoring the educational needs of some children that led

President Bush to propose his NCLB reforms. Ignoring these students is no longer an option for states, school districts and schools

because under NCLB they are responsible for ensuring that Indian

and Alaska Native children meet the same challenging academic

standards that other children are expected to meet.

We also know, however, that there are implementation challenges. As you have heard often, Secretary Paige recognizes a onesize-fits-all approach will not work. There are challenges in areas

such as providing school choice for children who live in remote and

rural areas, assisting schools in meeting requirements that they

employ highly qualified teachers, and determining how Native language immersion programs for kids in grades K–three affect assessment requirements that begin in third grade.

However, we are committed to working in consultation with all

local, State and tribal governments to provide flexibility where possible, while ensuring that these and future generations of Indian

students are not left behind.
5

Working with each of you on this committee and with our tribal

leaders and our Indian organizations, the Department wants to

build upon the special relationship between the Federal Government and our American Indians, and our shared commitment to

educational excellence and opportunity.

As you have previously heard from my colleague, the President

recognized the unique cultural and educational needs of these children in his April 30 Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education. In particular, the EO emphasizes the importance of helping American Indian and Alaska Native students meet

the challenging academic standards of NCLB. I quote, ‘‘in a manner that is consistent with tribal traditions, languages and cultures.’’ We believe in fact that the NCLB Act which combines greater accountability for results with flexibility for local school districts

and more choices for parents provides an excellent framework for

meeting the goals of the EO for the nearly 500,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students that attend our public schools.

Another important event occurring on that same day was the

swearing-in of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education.

These council members were appointed by the President and will

advise Secretary Paige on the funding and administration of all departmental programs that benefit our Indian children and our

adults.

According to the most recent data from the NAEP scores, only 16

percent of American Indian and Alaska Native fourth graders score

at or above the proficient level in reading, compared to 41 percent

of our white students and 31 percent of all students. It gets no better by the time they get to eighth grade. Only 15 percent are proficient in math and only 17 percent are proficient in reading. After

falling so far behind in our early years, it is not surprising that Indian students scored 100 points below white students and 60 points

below the general population on the 2001 SAT.

Under NCLB, States must ensure that all students, including

our Indian students, are proficient in reading and math as measured against state standards by the 2013–14 school year. We know

this will not happen overnight, so the law requires each State, as

well as the BIA, to develop accountability standards for reaching

this goal. The plans are based on academic standards for those core

subjects, as well as annual assessments based on those standards

for all students in grades three–eight, and once again in high

school. They also include annual objectives from improving student

performance on those assessments, part of the concept that you

know as the adequate yearly progress.

A key advance in the new law is the incorporation of sub-group

accountability into AYP standards. This means that the performance of schools and school districts is based not just on overall student achievement, which can mask significant gaps between groups

of students, but also on the progress of major racial and ethnic subgroups. The result is a system that will hold the BIA, the States,

school districts and schools specifically accountable for improving

the academic achievement of American Indian and Alaska Native

students.

All 50 States, Puerto Rico and DC have developed and are currently implementing NCLB accountability plans, which include
6

both a system of rewards for schools that perform well and a system of interventions for schools and districts that are not meeting

their goals. These accountability plans are critical to improving the

education of our Indian students because more than 90 percent of

these students are enrolled in our public schools, which are operated by our public school districts and are held accountable by the

States in which they are located.

We are confident that the new sub-group accountability requirements, coupled with significant increases in funding for programs

under NCLB, will help close the achievement gap. We have no

doubt that American Indian students will benefit considerably from

the $3.6 billion or 41 percent increase in the title I grants to LEAs

funding since the passage of NCLB in 2002.

In addition to the Title I program, the Department of Education

provides other significant assistance to States and school districts

that support improved achievement for American Indian and Alaska Native students. As Theresa mentioned earlier, Secretary Paige

announced a 6-year, $30.4 million Reading First grant to the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. This major initiative seeks to improve

reading achievement using scientifically proven instructional methods for Indian children in kindergarten through third grade.

Putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom is also a

critical concern for our Indian students. Assistance is provided

through such programs as our improving Teacher Quality State

Grants, which is funded at $2.9 billion and includes a set-aside of

$14.6 million for BIA schools in fiscal year 2004. My office will

award approximately $10 million to support the training of highquality Indian education personnel through our Teacher Corps and

our Administrator Corps programs.

These funds will be used to support the American Indian Teacher

Corps, which trains Indian individuals at the bachelor’s degree

level or higher to meet full State certification or license requirements. These funds will also be used to support the American Indian Administrator Corps program to train Indian individuals at

the master’s degree level to become new school administrators with

full state certification. Together, these programs have already

trained more than 1,000 teachers and administrators to date.

In conclusion, the No Child Left Behind Act demands accountability for improving the achievement of all children, including our

American Indian and Alaska Native students. We recognize that

the NCLB Act sets high standards, and that finding the right mix

of accountability and flexibility can be a challenge. However, I am

sure that the members of this committee would agree that few

have more to gain from a concerted good-faith effort than our

American Indian and Alaska Native students as we continue to implement NCLB for their benefit and the benefit of all of our students.

In closing, I ask you the same question the President asked when

he signed the Executive order on April 30 for American Indian and

Alaska Native Education: How can we work together to raise the

standards and expect the best?

Thank you and I will be happy to answer any questions you

have.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Vasques appears in appendix.]
7

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you to both of you for those statements.

I have to tell you, knowing my own childhood, the difficulty of

our young Indian people getting a proper education. It is the most

important thing in the world, I will tell you that.

I have a number of questions. I am going to run and vote. Senator Inouye will ask his first, and I will come back and offer some

more. Before I go, I need to tell you that with every agency reorganization, there is a lot of movement and some consternation at reorganization. I have personally gotten a number of complaints, not

about the Department of Education, but really about the OIEP.

Some of those complaints were over the phone, some have been in

writing, and some of them deal with everything you can think of,

unfair labor practices, forced retirements, targeted ‘‘RIFs,’’ hostile

work environment, nepotism, cronyism, ethics violations, civil

rights violations, mismanagement of funds and on and on and on.

I know that what we have been doing in the past has not been

very good in educating our youngsters or we would not have such

a high dropout rate. I understand that and I know that we have

to make some changes. This committee is certainly not looking to

pick a fight or do a witch hunt or so on, but some of the things

that have been brought to my attention, I, in turn, called Deputy

Assistant Secretary Aurene Martin and discussed them with her.

She assured me that she would look into it, but we are still getting

complaints.

In fact, one of the complaints was a letter from a gentleman who

accused the OIEP of a callous process that contributed to the death

of his mother when she was fired. Another was a letter from an Indian school board that encouraged the committee to investigate the

reorganization policy or lack of it, because in their words, the injustices were affecting the children and families living on Indian reservations.

Now, we have no way of knowing if these accusations have any

merit or not, and maybe they do not. Maybe some are just disgruntled employees, but I do not take them lightly. So I did discuss this

with Senator Inouye, and I think that anything that hurts our Indian children and prevents them from being in a safe and healthy

educational environment is a great distress to both of us.

So this morning, I did direct staff to ask for a GAO investigation

of how this process is going, whether it is objective, fair and impartial, because of the complaints we are getting. I just wanted you

to know that up front, Ms. Vasques and Mr. Parisian, so it would

not blind-side you.

With that, I am going to run and vote. Senator Inouye, if I could

ask you to chair for a few minutes. I do have questions I really

want to ask, though, so I will be back in a moment.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

I have a question. I was not here for the prior questioning so I

may be repeating something. I hope not. Last April, the President

signed an Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native

Education. What steps have you taken to begin consultation and

implementation of this Executive order?

Ms. VASQUES. I am happy to answer that. Vickie Vasques from

the Department of Education.
8

We are charged in that Executive order to implement an interagency Federal working group that will work in consultation with

our tribal leaders and Indian organizations. We have just sent letters from Secretary Paige to the respective Cabinet members that

are listed to designate their particular representative. They must

be a GS–15 or above.

In parallel with that so we do not hold up the process, we have

a staff person on my staff that is already reaching out trying to get

this group formulated so that we can hopefully by the end of this

month, our tentative date is June 30, meet with the Federal interagency working group and include members of our Indian organizations and tribal representatives that can join us.

The President appointed the NACIE board members weeks before that, but on that same day they were sworn in by Secretary

Paige. We are hoping to get them included in that process as well,

because we are hoping to have the first board meeting July 1 and

2.

The EO also asked for a national conference to be held. We

would like to discuss that first with the interagency working group

and the tribal representatives, but we would love to see something

take place on a national scope and maybe have some roundtables

or regional sessions throughout Indian Country so that all can be

included in the process.

Senator INOUYE. I have not heard of any representation from the

Indian groups.

Ms. VASQUES. They will be actively included in this process and

we will work in consultation with them. I personally have worked

hand-in-hand with NIEA, NCAI, AIHEC, AISES and I cannot remember the acronym for the Impact Aid School Board, and then

the Indian School Board as well. It is part of inclusion. If we are

forgetting anyone, please keep me on my toes.

Senator INOUYE. Do you have any representative from the BIA?

Ms. VASQUES. Absolutely. I am sorry, my colleague is sitting

right next to me. We have worked very closely meeting with Ed Parisian from the Office of Indian Education Programs monthly, and

his staff and my staff, in order to better communicate, better collaborate, and hopefully provide better technical assistance out in

the field and work on implementing this Executive order jointly to

better serve our Indian students.

Senator INOUYE. I am certain you have read the report from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Ms. VASQUES. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. Are those numbers correct?

Ms. VASQUES. I cannot recall.

Senator INOUYE. It says that only 16 percent of American Indians and Alaska Native fourth-graders score at or above the proficiency level in reading compared to 41 percent of white students

and 31 percent of all students.

Ms. VASQUES. Sir, I use a lot of those scores when I go out and

speak publicly. We know personally as Indian people that we do

not have a high graduation rate; that we do have a very high dropout rate. The NAEP scores that I quote quite often are correct, 83

percent of fourth-graders are not proficient in reading; 86 percent

of fourth-graders are not proficient in math. As I said in my testi-
9

mony, it does not get better when they get on into the higher

grades. It is even higher in some cases; 90 percent in math. So for

right now, the NAEP scores are the best source that we have.

One of the other areas I would like to share with you that we

are looking at is to go out and do an evaluation and analytical

study so that we can find out first-hand from the Indian people

where our successes, where our strengths, and where our weaknesses are.

Senator INOUYE. Have you had studies in the past with which

you can compare this newer data?

Ms. VASQUES. There have been studies funded under the National Activities Program in the Department. To be honest with

you, I am not familiar with the outcome of some of those studies.

They have been done sort of in an independent manner. What we

have done now is just funded again through the National Activities

and through a consultative process with our tribal folks. It is called

the National Indian Education Study. It is working in collaboration

with our Institute of Education Sciences. It will hopefully evaluate

and collect data so that we can further improve education of our

Indian students.

It is a sampling right now of baseline data on academic achievement and retention of our American Indian and Alaska Native students. It has a committee that, I cannot use the word ‘‘advise,’’ but

they are working hand-in-hand with us to make sure that we are

including the right schools, the right geographic areas in this sampling for this study. There are some studies that are in process

right now that have not come to fruition yet, like the Early Childhood Study does not come to fruition I think until 2007.

But honestly, this 2004 fiscal year we are just ready to announce

two RFPs to go out and help me with evaluation, analytical studies, and the BIA, and to help us go out there and provide technical

assistance where it is desperately needed. We are in the middle of

our contract process as we speak. I am at their door every morning,

saying where is it? Where is it? I anticipate those competitions

being announced in the next week or two. We will go through a

competition and we hope that American Indian-owned businesses

will apply for those two contracts.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

I would like to ask a question of Ms. Rosier. You have discussed

the Department’s accomplishments in detail, but you have not

mentioned the feasibility of establishing a tribal accreditation agency, which is required by the law. What is the status of this feasibility study?

Ms. ROSIER. I would have to get back to you on that. At this

time, I do not know the answer to that.

Senator INOUYE. There are other reports that are required by the

No Child Left Behind Act, such as the annual report on

unaccredited schools. What is the status of these other reports?

Mr. PARISIAN. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman.

On our accreditation report that we have submitted, we have 180

schools out of the 184 schools; 4 schools that are not accredited at

this time. They are in the process of accreditation and we submit

those numbers within that report.

Senator INOUYE. The rest are all accredited?
10

Mr. PARISIAN. The rest are all accredited.

Senator INOUYE. There are many other reports that are required

by the No Child Left Behind Act, such as the annual report on

unaccredited institutions. Have you made those reports, too?

Mr. PARISIAN. The accreditation reports cover both accredited

and unaccredited; those schools that are in the process of working

with us to receive accreditation.

Senator INOUYE. I have a question for Director Vasques. You mentioned that Secretary Paige announced a $30.4-million Reading

First grant to the BIA. How much has the Bureau received from

Reading First prior to the grant?

Ms. VASQUES. The total dollars? It is broken out over a 6-year

period. I will ask a budget person for the Reading First amount for

fiscal year 2004.

Senator INOUYE. How much did they receive prior to this grant?

Ms. VASQUES. This was their first grant award. This is their first

Reading First grant with funds awarded last year and in 2004. The

total over 6 years will be $30.4 million.

Ms. ROSIER. We awarded 22 schools this year. It was in March

of this year, 22 schools were given Reading First grants.

Ms. VASQUES. $5.1 million went for 2004.

Senator INOUYE. Are these grants being used to improve proficiency in English or in Native languages?

Ms. ROSIER. It is in English. These grants are for promoting

reading proficiency in English.

Senator INOUYE. In what?

Ms. ROSIER. In English. These grants are for promoting reading

proficiency and it is in English. It is not in Native languages.

Senator INOUYE. Not in Native languages?

Ms. ROSIER. That is not the purpose of the Reading First grants.

Senator INOUYE. What provision does the Department have for

reconciling the English language requirements of the No Child Left

Behind Act and the Native American Languages Act?

Ms. ROSIER. Recently in our No Child Left Behind Act rulemaking on the funding section, we looked at the current bilingual

program that the BIA had and we wanted to provide more flexibility to schools in our system who would like to provide Native languages and cultural development. So that awaited comment that

we would put in our regulations, which are not final yet, but we

negotiated with the tribes. All the Department asked first is that

limited English-proficient students were identified and serviced,

but after that, the weighted unit would be used to provide for Native culture and Native languages. It provides a lot more flexibility

to the school.

With respect to our current system in the bilingual program, I

think tribes have to offer Native languages and they may not be

fully up front. We want them to be able to do this and do it proudly. That is why we have flexibility in the proposed regulations.

Senator INOUYE. Being more direct, are Native language immersion schools given any waiver of the requirement of standardized

testing in the English language?

Ms. MARBURGER. No, sir; they are not. It is important that with

these students as well as all students we are able to have an accurate measure of their achievement of standards and that we have
11

that measure annually. So that if a student is not learning what

they are expected to at each grade level, appropriate interventions

can be applied so that student does not fall behind.

However, there are several approaches that can be taken in assessing these students that are taught in their Native language.

One of those includes using Native language assessments, as well

as accommodations in assessing those students to help them with

taking the tests in a language that may not be the Native language, if the state or the school chooses to use an assessment that

is not written in the Native language, as well as alternate assessments that can be developed that are given in a more simple manner for those students.

Senator INOUYE. In other words, you do not have any examination that is conduct, in Native languages?

Ms. MARBURGER. It is up to each SEA to develop assessments

and there is actually a specific budget item that is given to the

states for assessment development. The SEAs then determine how

they use those funds to develop assessments in order to meet the

requirements of No Child Left Behind. So they can choose to develop Native language assessments. We have several states who

have chosen to do that.

Senator INOUYE. But it is not standard?

Ms. MARBURGER. Once again, it is up to the discretion of the

state. They can choose.

Senator INOUYE. So the determination that some of the Indian

children are not doing well may depend upon taking English tests

when their first language is a Native language.

Ms. MARBURGER. Certainly that may be a possibility, but we do

not have data to indicate that.

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that it is happening?

Ms. MARBURGER. I do not know.

Senator INOUYE. Do you give any special consideration to Native

language teachers as to their qualifications for teaching? Many of

them may not be graduates of teacher colleges.

Ms. MARBURGER. I am sorry. I did not understand your question.

Can you repeat it please?

Senator INOUYE. Many of the Native language teachers do not

have degrees or certificates from universities and colleges. Do you

give them special consideration to permit them to teach?

Ms. MARBURGER. If they are teaching in core content areas, they

are required to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements by

the 2005–06 school year. We are working directly with our state

educational authorities to provide technical assistance to them in

meeting those requirements. We acknowledge that a lot of schools

that serve our American Indian and Alaska Native students are located in remote areas, and recognize the need to use technology to

provide distance learning to such programs, to help get very specific and important training to our professionals that are out in

those remote areas.

Senator INOUYE. Do you give any special consideration for Native

language teachers as to their qualifications for teaching? I gather

that some do not have any college degrees.

Ms. VASQUES. If they are teaching a Native language or they are

teaching a cultural program or they are teaching a subject possibly
12

through one of the OIE fundings, which would be a supplemental

service, they are not excluded from doing so. If they are teaching

one of the core subjects, then by the year 2005–06 they must be

highly qualified to teach that particular core subject.

Senator INOUYE. So you do give waivers?

Ms. VASQUES. Pardon me?

Senator INOUYE. You do give waivers?

Ms. MARBURGER. No; the requirement does not apply to teachers

who are not teaching in a core academic area, for example in biology or a teacher that may be teaching algebra. The requirement

only applies to teachers who are teaching in those core areas. As

Vickie stated, if they are teaching a Native language, then they are

not required to meet the highly qualified teacher requirement. Or

if they are teaching in another one of the cultural areas, then they

would not be required.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Just perhaps let me ask one additional thing,

too. As I understand Senator Inouye’s questions and your answers,

core subjects would be something like math, physics or science.

Ms. MARBURGER. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. And they will need to have these requirements,

which would be some academic institution certifying them as a

teacher or the Department of Education issuing some certificate in

lieu of that. But those people who are teaching perhaps shop, art,

music, physical education or something else, they would not necessarily have to be certified by an academic institution. They could

teach language, for instance, their Native language under some

agreement or caveat with the school district? How would that

work?

Ms. VASQUES. It is set by the State standards.

The CHAIRMAN. By the State standards.

Ms. MARBURGER. It does not even require a caveat or a waiver

because the statute...

The CHAIRMAN. The school could just hire them?

Ms. MARBURGER. That is right. The statute does not require

those highly qualified teacher requirements for teachers who are

teaching in those other areas.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Good, thank you.

Ms. Rosier, on May 4, I requested that Secretary Norton meet

with tribal cochairs of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee of

the No Child Left Behind. You alluded to that on the negotiated

rulemaking. I understand the meeting has not taken place and that

the tribal caucus was referred, of all things, to the Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Do you know anything about

that? What was the reason for that referral?

Ms. ROSIER. The reason for that referral was probably just an

oversight. It is an oversight. There is no reason why tribal cochairs

would be referred. They were most likely supposed to be referred

to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that being corrected? Are they talking to the

right people now?

Ms. ROSIER. I did not know that they were referred to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife.
13

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I just mentioned that, because we are

talking about children, not fish. I think it is really important.

Ms. ROSIER. I apologize for that. I was unaware of that, but that

is completely an oversight.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you look into that for me, for the committee?

Ms. ROSIER. I will.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

On school construction, school construction funding has increased, certainly not enough for some of us, including Senator

Conrad I am sure. We still have a lot of dilapidated schools our

there that our Indian children are trying to learn in. What steps

have you taken to avoid delays in construction? Could you tell the

committee that? Do you have a way of monitoring the system for

construction, too?

Ms. ROSIER. We do have a way of monitoring. Before the 2001

budget, the BIA was building about two schools a year. Under the

last year of the past Administration and this Administration, our

school construction program has absorbed much more money and

more funding. We are in a position where we do not necessarily

have a lot of schools lined up who have started their planning or

have started moving forward. Right now, we have 25 projects that

were funded between 2001 and 2004. Four of those have been completed. We have 21 projects that are ongoing and 7 projects we

hope will be completed. I know there are always construction

delays, but we hope 7 more will be completed by December of this

year.

What we have done is we have been able to realize that we needed the staff to help the tribes be able to plan ahead. What we have

done is we have started getting our planning grants out earlier. In

fact, we are trying to award our planning grants for two schools

that were recently named for Dilcon and Porcupine, and they were

just recently named for the 2006 funding year. I am trying to get

out their planning money early. That is one step we have taken is

to help them get their design and planning started a little bit earlier.

The CHAIRMAN. How many schools are backlogged that need construction?

Ms. ROSIER. That probably depends on who you ask. On the current list for the Department, we have five scheduled for the 2005

budget. We have five more schools listed. After that, we have just

released a list for 14 more schools. That should carry us through

the 2007 budget cycle, and it may possibly take us into 2008, too.

It just depends on the funding provided.

We have tried to get planning money. Another thing we have

done is the result of the Inspector General is concern about that

our schools being overbuilt. This past year we have done a lot of

policy review inside of our facilities program. One thing we have

tried to do is look at our enrollment projections policy, our space

guidelines policy, and be more consistent; to provide an official policy so the tribes know ahead of time and have clear expectations

of what the process is.

We are doing a lot to improve the program, but I am sure we

have some challenges that we still need to complete.
14

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The sooner the better.

The Office of the Inspector General’s March 2004 report...

Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Conrad?

Senator CONRAD. Might I just followup on a question that you

asked?

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Go ahead.

Senator CONRAD. Thank you. I apologize for intruding, but I do

not think that we got an answer to the question that you asked,

which is a very important question. You asked the question, how

many schools are there that need to be built, and how many are

backlogged. The answer that was provided was how many are

being funded. That is not a responsive answer to the question that

was asked. I would say with all respect, you did not answer the

gentleman’s question. I would ask the same question. How many

schools are there that are in the backlog? How many schools are

there that need construction? How many schools are there that

need rehabilitation?

Ms. ROSIER. I do not have that figure for you today. What I can

tell you is the last area of the No Child Left Behind Act rulemaking that we are required to do and we are going to undertake,

hopefully, this fall, is for school construction. One of the things that

we are mandated by Congress to do is to establish the replacement

school construction list and to set the criteria for the Department.

That is one thing that we are going to be evaluating with the

tribal members at the table, which is our school construction program.

Senator CONRAD. Could I just say this, Mr. Chairman? If there

is anything, well, there are many areas where the system is broken, health care, housing, but schools are a big area. I can tell you,

in my State there is a school, and it is not on the list. It was built

about 25 years ago. It was built using a southwestern United

States architect. It was built at a time when they had this notion

of open schools.

The CHAIRMAN. Nice in Phoenix, but not North Dakota?

Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to you, in the winter in North Dakota, in one part of the school it is 75 degrees; in

another part of the school it is 50 degrees, because the heating systems are totally inadequate for our part of the country. Now, sitting in a 50-degree school, and they are not separate school rooms.

It is the most incredible situation. It has the open school design,

so you cannot hear yourself think. The result is it is a totally chaotic situation, and it is not on the list.

So this is something that is an example of the kind of thing that

needs to be dealt with. We have secondary schools that are absolutely abysmal in their condition. I think the first thing that we

have to do is establish an accurate and honest and objective assessment of what the need is, which is really what the Chairman was

asking. How great is the need? Only then can we fashion a serious

Federal response as to how we address that backlog.

In any event, I apologize to the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right.

Ms. Rosier, if you could get an inventory of backlogged schools

for the committee, as close as you can come to it, I would appre-
15

ciate that. I certainly agree with Senator Conrad. I taught school

for 10 years in the public schools. You talk to any child psychologist, and they will tell you, kids cannot learn unless the atmosphere is right. If it is too cold or they are hungry or if it is too

drafty or disruptive or anything that upsets the learning curve,

they are just not going to learn. It is as simple as that.

That is why it seems to me a safe environment and a healthy environment for the kids to learn, that is how they are going to learn.

If we do not do that, they are simply not going to learn no matter

how much money we pour into the problem. So please find that out

for us.

Let’s talk about money a little bit. The Office of the Inspector

General found in its 2004 report that education funds had not been

adequately managed by No Child Left Behind standards. Has the

Department delivered a response to the Office of the Inspector General? And what is the status of revising spending plan policies or

procedures, if you have?

Ms. ROSIER. We have delivered a response and I know the relationship with the Office of the Inspector General and the BIA, we

always provide supplemental information. They always have a request, so we are providing information on an ongoing basis with

the Office of the Inspector General.

I can say that Mr. Parisian has been in his position for about 1

year now, and many of those findings were before Mr. Parisian was

Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs. I will let him

speak about what he has been doing to change the environment.

We have worked a lot on accountability. Ultimately, this money

should be going to our schools and should be benefiting our students. That is one thing we have tried to do in the past since we

became aware of these findings was to work to be accountable to

the taxpayers and to our constituents with the Federal funding. I

will let Mr. Parisian speak about specifics.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Parisian, why don’t you go ahead

and speak.

Mr. PARISIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Rosier mentioned accountability. I have been in my position

since August of last year, approximately 10 months, and I came in

stressing accountability, particularly financial management. We

are looking at those recommendations and implementing the recommendations that were in the Inspector General’s report, particularly if you look at the contingency fund, as an example. It was

mentioned in that report. Since I have been in the director’s position, this last year we took what was left in the contingency fund

and distributed the funds out to the schools. We did not have the

need for the emergencies, at that time, as they are defined in the

regulations, so the funds went out to the schools.

The CHAIRMAN. Went out to the schools in what form?

Mr. PARISIAN. It went out to schools in dollars per weighted student unit to every school. It was evenly distributed to the schools.

This year’s contingency fund we just submitted $30 per weighted

student unit and sent it all out to the schools again this year because we did not have it so defined that we had the emergencies

that we could justify for contingency funds.
16

The only two other areas in which we used contingency funds

this year was up in the Dakotas. We had a couple of schools that

had some suicides, and we intervened and gave some dollars to

work with the Indian Health Service to help with counseling services. Otherwise, those dollars were all distributed out to the

schools.

My philosophy, since I have come into this position is get the dollars to the schools, let them make the decisions, but then I am

going to hold them accountable for results. I think that is the way

it should be.

The CHAIRMAN. Good. I have several other questions for you, Ms.

Rosier, and I will submit those in writing if you would return

those. To move along, let me ask Ms. Vasques a couple of questions, too.

Tribes have indicated that students in rural reservations really

do not have any choice in schools because some of them live 100

miles away from the next school. How does the No Child Left Behind Act create choices for kids in those remote areas?

Ms. VASQUES. I will answer that and then if you want to add

something, Darla, please do.

We recognize that we do not want a parent sending their child

off on a 2-hour, 3-hours in some cases, bus ride one-way. We are

working with our rural communities to work out these challenges

under parental options. That includes working with parents, the

community, and our tribal education departments.

There are other options in our distance learning tutorial services

and so forth, but I think Darla might want to elaborate.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to add something to that?

Ms. MARBURGER. Sure. I think it is very important that we recognize what resources we do and do not have access to whenever

you take into account the rural nature of many of our schools. One

of those areas we are really looking into is technology and how we

can use technology to better deliver education to students in remote areas.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary is hosting a series of leadership

summits focused on technology. Our next one is going to be in Orlando on July 11 and 12. Part of this will include a ‘‘virtual schoolhouse’’ where people can come in and see in action ways that technology is impacting education in allowing students in very different

settings to participate in the same type of education. As part of

that schoolhouse, I know that we have been talking to some of our

grant recipients at Indian schools to be a part of that.

It is very important whenever we do have cases of doing this successfully that we share that success so that others can look to

them.

The CHAIRMAN. I am a big supporter of the advancement we

have made in technology to help with distance learning. I think it

really has a place in all schools. Of course the problem we have a

lot of times with Indian children is a lot of them need a hands-on

approach because they have problems in the home or problems

after school or other places, much worse than the public at large.

You cannot fix that with a TV screen in front of you. It requires

some personal input and some personal involvement with that

child, too.
17

Ms. Vasques, your testimony mentioned that the BIA must come

up with an accountability plan. Does your Department have any

oversight on that plan? How do you work with the schools to help

meet the requirements of that plan?

Ms. VASQUES. Yes; we are working very closely with the BIA.

The reason why Darla accompanied me today is she is our point

person for policy on this cooperative working relationship. Do you

want to give him more information?

Ms. MARBURGER. Sure. We are working very closely with the BIA

regarding accountability and the requirements under No Child Left

Behind. As you know, the BIA is in the process right now of adopting a final rule. They have a proposed rule that is out for comment.

The comment period is still open on that. They invited the Department to be involved and be a resource to them as they underwent

that negotiated rulemaking.

It is very important that our Indian children, as we mentioned

earlier, based on the NAEP results, are held to the same high

standards as other students, so that they are afforded the same opportunities by having a quality education.

So as part of that, until the final rule is passed, we do have interim measures, accountability measures that are articulated in an

agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Education. We meet regularly with the Bureau regarding

that and regarding the progress that students are making.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand the Department of Education, and

I think you alluded to this Ms. Vasques, that you have an agreement with the BIA regarding the distribution and use of program

funds, but I can tell you from my own experience, getting the

money to the agencies and getting to the Indians can be quite a

different thing. We have had, at least some tribes believe that they

are having real difficulties receiving the funding. Do you know anything about that? Is there a particular reason why the tribes have

been unable to receive the funds in a timely manner when you

have sent them through?

Ms. VASQUES. I can speak for ourselves. We dispersed our funds

on September 24, 2003.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you disperse them directly to the tribes?

Some of those funds go to the BIA.

Ms. VASQUES. Directly to the BIA.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, that is where the glitch is. Maybe Mr. Parisian or Ms. Rosier can answer that. Why are some of the tribes

complaining that they are not getting the money in any kind of a

timely manner?

Mr. PARISIAN. Mr. Chairman, we do get the funds and disperse

them out, as I said, down to the school level. The title dollars are

based on an application process or amendment process. So we get

those amendments in, we work with the schools in getting those in

the correct form. Once we do, we do get the dollars out to them.

We have records that show, this year as an example, that we

have had some schools not submit us amendments until January

of this year, or February, but we can show that we turn the dollars

around rather quickly. We have other schools that we gave dollars

to in November, when we had the dollars, October, September, that

did not get their money until December, but that had to do with
18

a part B issue, which is a special education issue. When I found

that out, I told the Centers for School Improvement that you need

to disperse the dollars and we will deal with part B as a second

matter. Most of those dollars did get out in December. We are

working on improving that for the next school year.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, very good. Thank you.

Ms. Vasques, you talked somewhat about the funding for American teacher training, which I certainly support. Tribes have a real

problem with retention with qualified teachers, in fact even with

recruiting. I know in some cases that people go out on the reservation, and some are very, very good teachers that go out on the reservation to teach those Indian kids. Others are simply repaying

their student loans and cannot wait to get out of there, very frankly. I have a real problem with that kind of a teacher that has no

commitment to the youngsters, but only they put in their 6 hours

a day in school and they do not even talk to those kids after school.

There is something wrong with that.

How is the Department of Education dealing with recruitment

and teacher training and problems associated particularly with

those remote locations of tribal schools?

Ms. VASQUES. I can speak on my teacher training corps program,

and I am sure Darla can add on the bigger picture.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay.

Ms. VASQUES. We are working very closely with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium which oversees the 34 tribal

colleges in the United States. As a matter of fact, before we announced this discretionary grant process, I personally sent a staff

person out there to help them better understand what this teacher

training program was about so we can get more colleges implementing these programs. Because they are the heart and soul of

our Indian communities, so if we can get those certified teachers

from that community, I think they will stay.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you are absolutely right. That is their home.

They are going to stay. If you import them from New York City,

a lot of them are going to leave.

Ms. VASQUES. Yes; exactly. I agree. But Darla can address it on

the bigger picture possibly.

The CHAIRMAN. Darla, would you like to add a comment to that?

Ms. MARBURGER. Yes; I would just like to say that we also have

money that flows to SEAs for teachers, specifically for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers, and for their development so that you can take teachers or para-professionals that

may not be certified but, who have an interest and already have

exhibited a commitment to Indian children, and work with them to

become fully certified.

For example in recent years, we have had more than 50 grants

that have gone out to schools and universities, specifically to provide training and professional development for more than 500 Indian teachers and professionals. So those programs are available as

well.

Further, we really understand the importance of a teacher and

the role that the teacher plays in the success of the student. We

have developed the Teacher Assistance Corps to go out to the various States and SEAs and have also offered that to BIA as well.
19

We can go and talk to them about the highly qualified teacher requirements and professional development and that type of thing

and provide ongoing technical assistance to those States in those

areas.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Important.

I have no further questions, but I may submit some in writing.

Other members may also. Just let me leave you with this. I will

tell you, if you do a good job for children, you will rarely have a

problem with this committee. I know I am speaking for literally

every member, because it comes up over and over. The 12 years I

have been on the committee, I will bet you one-fourth of the time

our work has something to do with Indian children. I know the connection. We have to help them not only cherish and remember and

have pride in their traditional ways, but we have to give them the

skills to be able to cope with a modern society that is getting more

difficult to cope with all the time.

I just wanted to leave you with that note, help those kids. Thank

you.

We will now move to the second panel: Lillian Sparks, director,

National Indian Education Association; Carmen Taylor, executive

director, National Indian School Board Association; and Roger Bordeaux, superintendent, the Tiospa Zina Tribal School in South Dakota.

Roger, you are Lionel’s brother?

Mr. BORDEAUX. Cousin.

The CHAIRMAN. Cousin. He is a good friend. Tell him hello for

me. I have not seen him for a few years.

Mr. BORDEAUX. I will do that.

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed in that order, with Ms. Sparks

speaking first and then Ms. Taylor and Mr. Bordeaux last. If you

would like to abbreviate, that is good. We will include your complete written testimony in the committee report and I will ask a

few questions of you when you conclude.

Go ahead, Ms. Sparks.

STATEMENT OF LILLIAN SPARKS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Ms. SPARKS. Good morning, Chairman Campbell. My name is Lillian Sparks and I am executive director of the National Indian

Education Association. I am presenting testimony today on behalf

of Cindy La Marr, president of NIEA. She sends regrets that she

cannot be in attendance today as she is traveling out of the country, but she would like to reassure you she is committed to working

toward improving the status of Native children throughout this Nation, and looks forward to working with the committee members

and witnesses in this honorable goal.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of

the NIEA with regard to the impact of the No Child Left Behind

Act on Indian students and educators of Indian students. This

oversight hearing is an important beginning as we work together

to implement the newly signed Executive order on American Indian

and Alaska Native Education and address concerns of the NCLB

Act.
20

While NIEA generally supports the goals of the No Child Left

Behind Act as set forth in detail below, the act needs to be tailored

to the unique circumstances faced by schools serving large Native

populations and it needs to be funded up to its full authorization

levels. An important step toward tailoring the application of the act

was taken by President Bush when he recently signed an Executive

order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education, whose

purpose is to assist American Indian and Alaska Native students

to meet the challenging academic standards of the NCLB in a manner consistent with tribal traditions, languages and cultures.

It will take hard work and sufficient Federal funding to fulfill

the promise of this Executive order and of the NCLB. NIEA worked

closely with the Department of Education and the White House in

the drafting of the Executive order. We have high expectations that

the Executive order will lead to specific proposals to enhance Indian education under the NCLB. It will take extensive consultation

with Indian country and sufficient Federal funding. We believe that

the Congress and the Administration have recognized that a culturally based education approach is for Natives not only an educational strategy for improved achievement, but also a fundamental

civil right for Indian people. Indian communities have a fundamental right to their languages and culture.

The central pillars of NCLB are increased accountability through

testing, more choices for parents and students who attend title I

schools that fail to meet state standards, greater flexibility for

states, school districts and schools in the administration of NCLB

programs, and a major emphasis on reading through the Reading

First initiative.

In addition, title VII of the NCLB specifically addresses programs for Indian students. This provision squarely situates Federal

Indian education policy within the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to Indian people. It also emphasizes the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of Indian children.

This is good policy, but the real question is what can be accomplished and will the Federal Government make a commitment sufficiently great as to ensure the success of that policy whose purpose

is largely to undo the extraordinary harm that the Federal Government has done to Indian peoples over the course of many years.

A basic tenet of Federal Indian policy is that the education of Indians is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The NCLB

law directly addresses improving the quality of education for Indian students in the BIA school system. However, over 92 percent

of the Nation’s Indian children attend State-run public schools. The

U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics’ most recent data charts indicate 584,000-plus Indian children attend the Nation’s public schools, while only about 49,000 attend BIA schools.

The 460,000-plus children served under NCLB title VII formula

grants to school districts generate minimal funds at an average of

$226 per pupil per year. These meager amounts of money cannot

come close to guaranteeing equal access to quality educational services for the vast majority of Indian students attending State-run

public schools across the Nation.
21

We have serious concerns about several obstacles this act presents to Indian communities, particularly to those who live in remote, isolated and economically disadvantaged environments.

There are many key factors that inhibit the successful implementation of NCLB in Indian communities. Schools serving Indian students receive inadequate levels of funding through title VII to allow

for the development of culturally oriented academic programs.

President Bush’s proposed fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of Education, while providing for an overall increase of 3 percent, provides no increases for the title VII program serving American Indians, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians. Full funding

of NCLB will be necessary if its goals are to be achieved.

As was noted in a September 2003 GAO report on BIA schools,

the BIA student population, ‘‘is characterized by factors that are

generally associated with higher costs of education. Almost all students live in poverty and more than one-half are limited in English

proficiency. A substantial number have disabilities.’’

Similar factors would increase costs to non-BIA schools with

large Indian populations. The timeframes for results do not adequately account for the investment in time and resources required

to develop effective culturally based education approaches or to develop curricula that reflect the cultural and linguistic heritage of

the community. School-based testing requirements fail to recognize

the implications of the high student mobility and dropout rates

that are characteristic of Indian communities.

According to NCLB, the definition of a highly qualified teacher

refers to subject matter competence as defined by certification and

college majors. The statute does not add to this definition the conflict of capacity and knowledge of local traditions, beliefs and values in order to be an effective teacher of Indian students, or the

fact that remote or isolated communities have limited access to

highly qualified teachers as defined.

Knowledge of what works for Indian education programs may

exist, but often are not locally available. Accomplishment of the

broad-based goals of the statute requires strategic partnerships.

The availability of these partnerships in small, rural and isolated

communities is limited and often very difficult to coordinate. Many

schools that serve Indian populations simply do not have the resources to meet the NCLB standards. NCLB also provides confused

guidance on adequate yearly progress mandates, inadequate assessment examples for limited English-proficient students, weakened protections to prevent high dropout rates, a lack of focus on

parental involvement, a lack of recognition of para-professional

qualifications, and a basic denial of civil rights protections for children.

The fiscal year 2005 budget request proposes a 3-percent increase for the Department of Education. However, Indian education

program funding levels would remain the same as for fiscal year

2004 and remain down from the fiscal year 2003 level. The education for Native Hawaiians Program would remain the same as

for fiscal year 2004, as would the Alaska and Indian education equity funding. It is difficult to understand why these programs were

not given an equitable funding increase.
22

The overall Interior budget is proposed to be cut by .5 percent, which includes $66 million cut for Indian school construction. The

Senate needs to resolve this oversight and restore the education

funds proposed to be cut back into the Interior budget.

One of the most powerful actions the Federal Government can

take to improve Native education is to support the development of

tribal education departments, a strategy that has not been fully implemented, but which has tremendous potential to improve American Indian and Alaska Native student success in schools. It is to

support tribal governments in their efforts to improve the education of their tribal members. Achieving more tribal control of

education through tribal education departments furthers the Federal policy of tribal self-determination and will increase tribal accountability and responsibility for education of all our students.

Federal support for tribal education departments have been authorized in several Federal statutes, including the No Child Left

Behind Act. Despite these authorizations, the Federal Government

has never appropriated Federal funds for these programs. For fiscal

year 2005, NIEA seeks a total of $250,000 for tribal education departments for 12 tribes as an initial investment to improve Indian

education.

The House Appropriations Committee recently requested that funds be restored, including $645 million for BIA education, a $4-

million increase over the current funding levels. The committee

also recommended restoration of funding for BIA school construction, the United Tribes Technical College and the Crown Point Institute.

In conclusion, President LaMarr would like to respectfully remind the committee about the consideration of forming a task force

on public relations as requested by Vice Chairman Inouye in February. NIEA is committed to this effort and we respectfully urge

the committee to make Indian education a priority, working to find

ways to ensure true progress for Indian students.

We encourage this committee to hold field hearings and listening

sessions throughout Indian country to hear the Indian voice. It is

eloquent and compelling, and without exception calls for a greater

investment in our children.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Okay, we will go on to Ms. Taylor. As I mentioned before, you

may abbreviate because your complete testimony will be in the

record and we will be reading it anyway.

STATEMENT OF CARMEN CORNELIUS TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INDIAN SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here

this morning. My name is Carmen Taylor. I am an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead

Nation in Montana. I have served as executive director for NISBA

for over 20 years. We represent well over half of the 185 Bureaufunded schools, as well as a few public schools as well.

This is a very important hearing on No Child Left Behind, and

implementation concerns as well. First, I will state that we have

always been supportive of the whole concept of leaving no child be-
23

hind. I think probably everybody is. We have done this since 1987

by encouraging schools to use the Effective Schools research as the

basis for their school reform, because the first belief of Effective

Schools is that all children can learn whatever it takes. So I think

all children can learn is certainly a parallel with No Child Left Behind. I think probably some of the disagreement that we have

might be in the whatever it takes.

Effective Schools is a continuous improvement school reform

model. It uses data-driven decisionmaking. It also promotes

disaggregation of data for certain groups of students. I believe that

one of the positive things that No Child Left Behind has done is

to focus attention on student achievement through this

disaggregation of data. Because of this, many States are paying

much closer attention to the achievement levels and learning of

American Indians. In fact, this August the Council for Chief State

School Officers will be holding a forum to discuss what the States

can do to help Indian students learn.

I guess where we kind of depart is that we do believe that No

Child Left Behind assumes that every community, every school and

every child are the same, and that is it seen by us as more of a

one-size-fits-all model with no regard for socio-economic differences,

for differences in learning styles, cultural differences or inequality

of resources.

It is a top-down attempt at school reform that in my opinion or

in our opinion makes a mockery of such concepts as state rights

and local control. This is true at the State level as well as at the

51st State level, which is the BIA. NCLB is punitive, rather than

supportive. We should be helping schools build capacity, not punishing them.

Before schools go into school improvement or corrective action,

terms that are part of No Child Left Behind, there should be quality technical assistance provided to the schools. For schools funded

by the BIA, there has been little or no quality technical assistance

provided. Only recently did BIA Office of Indian Education Programs distribute money to schools and education line officers for

professional development and other purposes. This has been in the

last 2 weeks. This is June. School is out in most locations. This is

money that should have been distributed early in the school year

so that schools could get the best use out of it.

Grant and contract schools at least are able to carry this money

over into the next school year. BIA-operated schools, approximately

one-third of the schools in the Bureau-funded system, must have

it obligated by September 30. Many school administrators that I

have talked to are worried that they will not be able to make it

because of the cumbersome procedures and delays in being able to

issue contracts to service providers.

We have also had comments from schools about the fact that the

Bureau is telling them who and who they cannot use as service

providers. The same is true of the contingency funds that Mr. Parisian talked about earlier. Although I can understand why the contingency funds just now went out to the schools on a pro-rated student unit basis, some of the schools may have some difficulties getting these obligated before the end of the fiscal year. I have been
24

told by some administrators that it can take up as long as 6

months to go through the contracting process.

In a report, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year Two of

NCLB, from the Center on Education Policy, it is also noted that

38 out of 48 States responding to a question about capacity reported that they do not have sufficient staff to carryout the duties

required under NCLB. Yet local school districts said that State

education agencies were the resource they relied on the most to

help them implement the Act. In the same report, 24 of 40 States

reported that fiscal problems were adversely affecting their ability

to carryout the law. One-half of the responding States said that

local school districts are currently being hampered in attaining the

goals of the act because of fiscal problems attributed mostly to the

State budget deficits. All of this certainly has a direct impact on

the public schools serving Indian students.

Of concern to most Indian schools, often because of their small

size and their isolation, is the provision about highly qualified

teachers. As you know, it has been discussed here before that

teachers need to have a degree in the subject that they are teaching. In many of these rural schools, they might be teaching two or

three or four subjects, and they are not going to be able to meet

that requirement. This is the same which is true for BIA-funded

schools as well.

Also, the provision about school choice is really not feasible for

rural schools, nor is the provision for supplemental services. If a

school is failing, there are sometimes no alternatives offered within

hundreds of miles and supplemental service providers are often

nonexistent or very expensive because they are traveling great distances.

There is way too little focus on social causes of poor performance.

Children cannot learn when they are hungry or tired. They cannot

learn when they are affected by alcohol and drugs. Indian students

also have a long history of struggling on standardized tests. That

weakness can be traced partly to their lack of knowledge of

English. Non-Indian students typically enter kindergarten with a

working knowledge of 20,000 words in English. For Indian students, their vocabulary at that age usually hovers around 3,000

words. These are not excuses, but these are facts of life for children

who live on Indian reservations.

I really believe that with No Child Left Behind, there is way too

much dependence on the standardized test. There are other ways

that we can assess children’s learning on an ongoing basis without

putting everything on one day in a child’s life when they come in

to take a test. We have recently completed a 3-year school reform

capacity-building grant that was funded through the Office of Education Research and Improvement. We worked with 16 schools during that time, and a the end of the time we found that the schools

all showed significant increases in reading achievement.

When we began to isolate the variables, it was shown that the

cultural curriculum that was used was the only reliable predictor

positively associated with achievement gains at the elementary

level. At the middle and high schools, tribal values was the best

single predictor of achievement gains. So culture and language are
25

extremely important in helping make success for the Indian students.

I would like to just say that I made an attempt to go out and

get some feedback from administrators within the Bureau system.

There is real concern about the focus on the bureaucracy and very

little focus on teaching and learning. They are very frustrated.

They feel like it is a threatening environment that they are working in that has created even more stressful working environments;

that there are unreasonable timelines; dictatorial attitudes; lack of

assistance; too many mandatory meetings; poor dissemination of

information; funds not available on time; and inconsistent implementation of policies.

A big issue has been background checks. In one instance, an administrator reported that it took 75 days to get clearance on the

background check. In another, an administrator hired 10 people in

November, 5 ended up taking up other positions while waiting for

clearance and two others finally got clearance 3 weeks before

school was out.

So we are really concerned about some of the administrative

issues, and although those are not connected directly to No Child

Left Behind, they certainly affect the implementation. We are also

concerned about the reorganization of the Bureau. It is very contrary to the various public laws that we have worked hard on over

the years. So education once again no longer has direct control over

administrative support services, and that is going to end up being

very harmful to the schools in the end.

We thank you again for this opportunity and would be available

to answer any questions.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Taylor appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

When I went to college, I went to what used to be called San Jose

State Teachers College. It is in the university system now, in California. Maybe you know that school in San Jose. In those days, the

State of California gave two types of teaching credentials. One was

called a special education credential, which said you were qualified

to teach a specific subject from K–2-year college level. The other

one was called a general education certificate which said you were

qualified to teach anything K–12. After I got out, one of my first

jobs, guess what, I got assigned to music, science, and girls PE, and

I did not know one single thing about any of them.

They have changed that now. I still have those credentials, by

the way, and I still do not know anything about them. But I never

saw such a dumb way of filing credentials for people just so schools

could move you around any way they wanted. Of course, public

schools, they loved those of us who had general education credentials because that is exactly what they did. They stuck us in all

kinds of stuff. Where there was a hole, that is where they would

put us.

I thought, what a disservice to kids. Well, I put up with that for

a little while, and then I participated in a one-man Indian uprising

and got out of there, but it was one of the dumbest things I have

ever been involved in, when they gave me that teaching credential.

Well, let me go on. Dr. Bordeaux, I am sure you never faced that

problem with your credentials.
26

Mr. BORDEAUX. Daily, every day.

The CHAIRMAN. Every day. Good to see you. I believe this is the

first time you have been in front of the committee since we took

testimony on the original bill, if I am not mistaken. Is that correct?

Mr. BORDEAUX. You are close. It was a little over 2-years ago, I

believe.

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks for being here.

STATEMENT OF ROGER BORDEAUX, SUPERINTENDENT,

TIOSPA ZINA TRIBAL SCHOOL

Mr. BORDEAUX. I would like to talk a little bit about the implementation of the No Child Left Behind law, and specifically a couple of issues that deal specifically with the Native American Education Improvement Act, which you, Mr. Chairman, sponsored. One

of the things that is kind of troubling is the Department of the Interior’s decision not to implement a lot of things. I think it was

brought up by you and Senator Inouye about the reporting requirements and some of the things that have gone.

I think if you even go back to the education amendments of 1978

when 95–561 was passed, there are still some things on the book

that they chose never to implement. It is kind of perplexing why

they have never done, nobody has ever really pushed them to do

a lot of the things.

One of the big issues right now is the big reorganization stuff

that is going on. I faxed some exhibits to the committee office and

I want to make sure that all of these exhibits become part of the

record. I will give them again.

The CHAIRMAN. I am told we do have them. They will become

part of the record.

Mr. BORDEAUX. Okay, thank you.

One of them is from the Congressional Research Service. We requested a congressman to do the legal research through CRS to ask

if the reorganization complied with the No Child Left Behind law.

In essence, the response from CRS said that the Department of the

Interior appears to have acted in contravention of that intention

and in violation of the statute. I think it is important that somebody in Congress tells them that the reorganization, what they are

doing violates the No Child Left Behind law and they need to stop

that reorganization process specifically in regard to education functions.

Another big issue which was brought up by Ms. Rosier and also

you and the other Senators, deals with the whole thing of school

curtailment language in the American Indian Improvement Act. It

is a perception that they have that they have the authority to close,

consolidate or substantially curtail any school that they choose to.

At the committee level of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee,

it was the tribal representatives’ interpretation of the law that it

is clear that Congress says that they can do that only with tribal

governing body approval. I think that is something that needs to

be made clear. My interpretation of what Congress intended was

that there be a tribal governing body involvement in those decisions.
27

So I think those are two big things that I think part of the Native American Improvement Act, Indian Education Improvement

Act that really needs to be taken a look at.

I also put in the exhibits another thing that kind of troubles me,

which is that there are at least 11 different programs that I went

through, and all of the funding provisions that are on the Department of Education’s Website. There are at least 11 programs that

do not have any Indian set-aside money. So if you look at it from

one of our perspectives anyway, is that at least in those 11 programs, all of the children that are in public schools receive those

moneys through the state. For the 50,000 children that are in BIAoperated or -funded systems, they do not have access to those 11

programs, either through the Bureau or through the States.

There are other places that I think, and I know that not necessarily in NCLB, but the Department has requested as part of

special ed, if you look at the funding source in special education,

there has been about an 80 or 90 percent increase in the last 3 or

4 years. If you look at the Bureau’s appropriation amount, there

has only been about a 7- or 8-percent increase. That was something

that was initially requested by the Department of Education, I believe, and was concurred by Congress in appropriation language.

Part of that whole funding problem, too, is because of what Carmen said about the Bureau’s process of going through amendments

and reviews and all this kind of stuff, they end up, this is again

what we perceive, at the end of the year at least the last 2 years,

they have had a lot of money at the end of the year and they have

to give it back to Treasury or somebody, or else distribute it. So

they end up distributing money, like within the last 2 or 3 months

they came up with a program called Project Achieve at all the

schools.

The CHAIRMAN. That is one of the complaints we had, by the

way, when I mentioned some complaints a while ago that there is

some sort of last-minute dumping of the money so it would not go

back to the Treasury, with no real plan about where it was going

to go.

Mr. BORDEAUX. Yes; and I think all of that is real planning problems up front. I am not even sure that they have money from the

Department of Education for next year’s funding cycle for school

improvement funds. The program starts July 1, which is only 2

weeks away. In our case, at our agency they are having a meeting

on June 28 and 29 about the amendment process, of how to get the

money for programs that supposedly start on July 1.

I submitted an application for next year, toward the end of

March or early April, in anticipation of something like this, and I

have not gotten any response yet at all. I suspect that those funding sources will probably not become available at the school level

until September or October. It is planning structures that have to

be really fixed because it is happening at the school level, and we

are not getting money 10, 11, 12 months into the school year.

And then the last thing I really want to talk about also is the

whole accountability stuff in No Child Left Behind in regards to

adequate yearly progress and falling into school improvement or

corrective action or restructuring. I have some exhibits. I think I

have four charts from testing data from Tiospa Zina Tribal School
28

which shows that results based on norm reference testing which is

national testing stuff that the Bureau uses for assessment, I have

the State assessment processes which are augmented assessments

from the national norm tests, and then I also have some individual

assessments that we do based on our own standards that we developed as part of the Goals 2000 legislation a number of years ago.

There is a lot of wide discrepancies on who and what assessment

we should use, plus the differences. In taking these three assessments, they show different things on the percentage of students

that are proficient and advanced. One of the illustrations is in

math. At the 11th graders, in one instance 59 percent of our 11th

grade students are proficient or advanced in mathematics, and

then in a different case, 29 percent are. So if some schools choose

to adopt the State stuff, or if they even adopt their own, I am one

of those strong believers that the way that the law is written, all

school children will be in schools that will be in restructuring by

the year 2014. It just cannot happen where 100 percent of the kids

will be proficient or advanced regardless of whose criteria it is

going to be.

So I think No Child Left Behind is like a real good idea, but a

bad strategy. I was kind of jokingly telling my brother who is a

public school superintendent that that whole thing of No Child Left

Behind, of having a real good goal to reach, but a bad strategy to

get there, reminds me a little bit of what is going on in Iraq right

now, but that is a different area that we need to talk about some

other time.

So in conclusion, I think that we have to look real close at what

we are doing to kids in general and Indian children specifically because of poverty issues on reservations. If we do not change some

things and do some proper planning way ahead of time and do

stuff, we are not going to make a lot of big significant difference

even over the next 4, 5, or 6 years.

Again, if there are any questions, I am more than willing to take

them.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bordeaux appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you.

Let me start with Ms. Sparks. You have been in your current appointment less than 1 year, Ms. Sparks?

Ms. SPARKS. About 1 month.

The CHAIRMAN. About 1 month. Well, then I do not want to unload questions on you that you probably do not know anything

about, but if you cannot answer them, maybe you could get back

to us.

Ms. SPARKS. I will certainly make an attempt.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is good. In your written testimony, you

say there are numerous concerns about the act, but as near as I

can tell after two years of implementation, the Indian Education

Association has not offered any recommendations for changes. Do

you know why that is?

Ms. SPARKS. We have spent a lot of time reviewing the legislation. I do not want to make excuses, but we have been short-staffed

and my position has been filled just most recently. We are now

here in Washington, DC and we are going to be more active and

more vocal on legislation with regard to Indian education.
29

The CHAIRMAN. Good, because we need help. I have to tell you,

we do not have all the knowledge around here, and if we do not

get help from professional organizations, we wallow around some.

So I certainly encourage the National Indian Education Association

to participate with recommendations to help us with bills like this.

You have only been there 1 month, but do you know if your organization, the NIEA, has partnered with any tribes or tribal schools

to help prevent this terrific dropout rate that we have of Indian

kids?

Ms. SPARKS. Certainly. In the past, we have worked with a number of schools and tribes. I can get you the specifics once I get back.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you do that?

Ms. SPARKS. Absolutely. We are looking forward to going out into

Indian country throughout the rest of this year and holding listening sessions and working with the schools and finding out exactly

what is going on in the community and how we can address it here

through our organization.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. If you would provide that to the committee, I would appreciate it.

Ms. SPARKS. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Your testimony also notes that certain testing is

quote, ‘‘ culturally inappropriate’’ for Indian kids. Give me an example of that. Is math ‘‘culturally inappropriate,’’ for instance?

Ms. SPARKS. I think what that statement means to say is that

the way that the tests are being administered is culturally inappropriate and they do not accurately reflect what our children are

learning and how they are learning it. I think the exhibits that Dr.

Bordeaux has submitted demonstrate what it is that we are trying

to convey as far as how the tests are administered, what is included on the tests.

It is not to say that math is culturally inappropriate. What we

need to have is testing standards that more accurately assess what

our children are learning.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give me any example of what is culturally inappropriate?

Ms. SPARKS. No; I cannot.

The CHAIRMAN. Your testimony also states that the definition of

‘‘highly qualified teachers’’ does not include knowledge of local traditions. I happen to think that knowledge of local conditions are

really important for a teacher of Indian children. Would you suggest that that be included as a definition of ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’?

Ms. SPARKS. I definitely think that should be taken into consideration. We are very encouraged by listening to the panel before us,

as Native language speakers or teachers that would have some of

these qualifications. While they are not considered highly qualified

teachers to teach content areas, they would still not be excluded

from teaching in the schools.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is important, too.

Your testimony indicates that there was no focus on parental involvement in the No Child Left Behind Act. How can we address

that? Does the Federal Government have to dictate parental involvement? I think we do that with Title I, if I am not mistaken.
30

There has to be an Indian board or something that helps determine

the use of Federal money for Indian kids.

Ms. SPARKS. Sure. It certainly could be encouraged through Federal legislation. It has worked in the Native model through Indian

Head Start and the Head Start program’s parental involvement is

included. I do not think that it is something that cannot be included in Federal legislation. I think it is certainly something that

should be included as far as encouraging parental involvement because it does work in the Native model.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Ms. Taylor, your testimony indicates that since 1987, the National Indian School Board Association has promoted effective

schools research. What would you say is the most important data

that has come out of that research?

Ms. TAYLOR. Actually, the BIA, Office of Indian Education Programs promoted it and actually used effective schools research for

school improvement from about 1987–94. One of the things that we

began to see, because we worked with them very closely during

that time, we saw definite improvement in the school climate and

the learning environment for the children. That seemed to be a

very strong focus. We began to see that there was less turnover in

teachers and administrators. We began to see improvement in test

scores. I would say that those are the three probably primary improvement areas that we saw over time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Your testimony also stated that the No Child Left Behind Act

made education more standardized, but not for language, culture

and history. You do not need to answer this, but I am not sure how

we do standardize things like language, culture and history because tribes are different. I think it is important, but certainly

ought to be left to the local school boards and the local people to

determine what ought to be included.

Ms. TAYLOR. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. You stated that attracting highly qualified teachers is difficult. I certainly agree. Would you agree that one of the

ways to help solve that problem is to get more people who live on

the reservation, more Indian people involved in teacher education

where they can get training?

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think we are doing an adequate job in

the Administration or in our side of the Hill here in trying to promote that?

Ms. TAYLOR. I think there needs to be more focus on it. Funds

always help, of course, to help pay for tuition et cetera, for teachers. I think perhaps there needs to be more focus on what we call

the para-educators, those people who are teaching assistants in the

schools that are local people, work with them, get them into 4-year

positions.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the problems I think on reservations is

that a lot of the people that go to the tribal colleges, they are people who got married when they were young, had children, and they

have children, and so they find it convenient to go to the tribal college because it is right there, and they can have somebody watch

the kids while at school. But it is difficult for them to move to some
31

city a few hundred miles away to get teacher training or to get

their certification because of their children. They cannot do it. It

seems to me that the more we can do in the tribal-controlled

schools or the Indian colleges toward getting people teaching credentials, the better we would all be.

Are there some successful programs out there that you know that

have taught Indian children toward proficiency in both English and

their traditional language too? I realize that in some tribes, the

language is almost a dying language. Nobody under 60 years old

can speak it anymore in some tribes. But the larger tribes, like the

Navajo and the Lakota and so on, there are probably some success

stories there.

Ms. TAYLOR. I cannot name one right now, but I am sure that

there are some.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. It was just in passing. Thanks

anyway.

I thank this panel for being here. We will submit some questions

in writing, too. Thank you very much.

Our last panel will be Terry Ben, director of the Tribal Schools,

Mississippi Band of Choctaws; and Leland Leonard, the director of

the Division of Dine Education Committee for the Navajo Nation

from Window Rock. If you gentleman would sit down. We appreciate your both being here. We will start with Mr. Ben.

As with the other panels, we are running a little late. We have

been in here almost 3 hours now. If you could abbreviate, your

complete testimony will be in the record.

Go ahead, Mr. Ben.

STATEMENT OF TERRY BEN, DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL SCHOOLS,

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

Mr. BEN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I will just be abbreviated. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw

Indians operates the largest consolidated tribal school system in

the Nation. This school system consists of eight schools, including

a boarding high school, located in six different tribal communities

spread over three counties and claims about 1,800 students.

I know this hearing is about No Child Left Behind, and how it

relates to Indian country and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians specifically. The written statement addresses that, but I have

a few points that I would like to make here about Indian education

in general.

The primary effect of No Child Left Behind is to concentrate tribal and Federal attention on finding the most equitable way to distribute what is in fact inadequate funding. That is the main situation where we would like to concentrate on. The testimony will be

reflecting that.

The danger of No Child Left Behind is that it will compare tribal

education to the overall education system on an equal basis. However, there is nothing equal about Indian education. It has never

been properly funded. We had no schools in all of Mississippi for

Choctaw kids until the 1920’s and no high school until 1963. Our

population is bilingual and disproportionately poor, widely dispersed and isolated.
32

Such factors as these have to be considered when distributing

Federal funds, as well as when looking at performance. No Child

Left Behind is useful for measuring academic progress of Indian

children in relation to other children within the tribe’s State. That

is a useful measure that helps to determine if our educational program is working.

But the real challenge is to require the Federal Government to

adequately fund Indian education. The only reason Choctaw

schools have achieved anything like parity with public schools in

our area is because the tribe has spent a lot of its own money, over

and above what the BIA has provided, and have been able to add

programs, increase teacher pay and build schools.

For the record, over the past 8 years our tribal governments have

provided an average of about 20 percent of the annual funding for

our schools. Of the $50 million spent on school construction during

that time period, approximately $35 million was provided by the

tribe. While this has improved educational attainment of our tribal

members, it has required a diversion of tribal resources away from

tribal government’s primary goal of creating jobs and economic development in order to lift the economic success of our people.

Education is certainly a key component to increasing economic

well-being, but in Indian country education is supposed to be a

Federal commitment and obligation. No Child Left Behind does not

solve the funding inadequacies now account for the unique cultural

issues of the tribal schools.

Basically, what we are asking and what we heard about as far

the testimony this morning, we heard a lot about contingency

funds; we heard a lot about grants from different groups coming

down and maybe not coming down to Indian country or the Choctaw area. But basically, what we are proposing is increasing the

basic ISEP formula, that is the basic number that each individual

Indian child, that is what they get in terms of being enrolled and

being counted in what they call student count week.

What we would like to do is propose that the committee at some

point in the future to maybe raise that particular area in basic

ISEP to maybe someday a match or be close to what DOD figures

are for military schools. We believe that a consistent funding in the

area of basic ISEP will be the basic way to go, rather than relying

on grants that a tribe may get or a school may get or not get.

Grants are usually for about a 2- or 3- or 4- or 5-year period. Sometimes maybe a good program may not be carried out in its entirety

in its life during that time period.

So that is the basic proposal from Mississippi Band of Choctaw

Indians to maybe hopefully substantially increase the basic ISEP

formula which is usually about $3,000 per child as such.

So to wrap it up, I would like to say three more items just for

the committee to hear: A sizable increase for the basic ISEP; also

as we heard in previous testimony this morning, increase funding

for transportation. We have had our transportation mileage basically decreased over the last 2 years. Also as mentioned in official

testimony, we would like basic ISEP also to include a pre-K program to be a part of the basic ISEP.

As we all know, there are all kinds of different studies in America and the importance of the pre-K programs cannot be argued by
33

anybody. It is a great excellent program. I realize that there are

daycare centers out there. I realize that there are Head Start centers out there, but not every child, not every Indian child is part

of daycare or they are not part of Head Start because facility constraints; because of distance from those centers.

So we urge this committee in the future also to recommend in

the basic ISEP a pre-K program that is one of the things that can

really be of great benefit not only for Mississippi Choctaw, but for

all of Indian country as such. That is an item I wish to convey.

Before I yield the mike, I would also like to mention one thing

that was a concern to us, and I wanted to get up so very bad, but

I did not earlier when somebody was talking about school construction. We do have one school. We have a high school there, Choctaw

Central High School. It was built in 1963. As one of the fellow Senators indicated on the panel, we could use some dollars in that

area, too. Choctaw Central High School was built in 1963. Our

school system has some good schools, but we need some more additional new schools.

With that I would like to thank the committee. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I realize you probably do have some problems in construction,

and the problems any school has with high school dropouts or a kid

now and then going bad, something of that nature. But by and

large, I think the Mississippi Band of Choctaws have done a wonderful job with their education program. It is really kind of a model

that a lot of other schools ought to take a look at. Any tribe that

can provide $35 million of its own money for school construction

also says something about their economic situation and the successfulness of the tribe in general.

So please give Chief Martin my personal best wishes. He has

been a good friend of this committee for years and years.

Mr. BEN. I will.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now to go our last witness. Mr. Leonard,

if you would like to proceed. Your complete testimony will be in the

record and you may abbreviate.

STATEMENT OF LELAND LEONARD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF

DINE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, NAVAJO NATION

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, sir. Greetings from the Navajo Nation.

Chairman Campbell, members of the committee, on behalf of the

Navajo Nation, thank you for inviting us to provide testimony before the honorable committee on the topic of implementation of the

No Child Left Behind.

The Navajo Nation’s view of implementation of No Child Left Behind of 2001 is two-fold. First, the Navajo Nation agrees with the

intent of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is to not only have

our children achieve at the highest capacities or capabilities, but

also insist that our educators also achieve at their highest capabilities. Second, the changes initiated by the No Child Left Behind Act

resulted in the Navajo Nation asking itself two questions. First, do

the changes help the Navajo Nation better educate its children and

better train its educators? Or, do the changes merely disrupt the
34

Navajo Nation’s self-determined progress in better educating its

children and better training its educators?

Based on the implementation thus far, the Navajo Nation says

yes to both questions. The changes do help, but they also disrupt.

A balance must be reached between both. The Navajo Nation encourages flexibility in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Navajo Nation is in the best situation to embrace the

changes that help the Navajo Nation better educate its children

and better train its educators, while at the same time have the

ability to refrain from implementing certain changes that disrupt

the Navajo Nation’s self-determined progress in better educating

the Navajo children and better training for its educators.

The Navajo Nation, along with other nations, only wants to be

able to provide the best education for its children and to push our

children to achieve higher standards, as recently recognized by the

U.S. President in signing an Executive order on Indian Education.

The President stated,

We place a high value on education because we understand the importance of education to our future, and the importance of the education to tribal nations.

It is really important that we get it right. The President also

stated his vision was clear. On this day, April 30, 2004, the President agreed that we must make sure our visions are clear, starting

at the Federal level. Therefore, the Navajo Nation agrees, especially in regards to the implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act. It must begin at the Federal level with Native input. We must

get it right and our vision must be clear.

The Navajo Nation would like to provide some comments on

some specific areas of the No Child Left Behind Act, starting with

the initial testing results. Navajo testing for the years 2002–03

school years, in BIA-funded schools, 44 percent met AYP. In the

New Mexico public schools, where there is a large percentage of

Navajo students attending, 55 percent met AYP. In Arizona public

schools, 45 percent met AYP.

Over one-half of the schools are already in school improvement,

corrective action or restructuring. This number is expected to increase as the proficiency bar continues to rise over the next few

years. There is a narrow scope of testing in the No Child Left Behind Act. It only tests in three subject areas: Reading, math, and

science. While these subjects are important, the No Child Left Behind Act excludes tests given to students who may be excelling in

other areas such as music, art, or Navajo language.

As the committee here is well aware, not only the Navajo Nation

but all Natives prioritize retention of their Native languages. As

you know, no credit is received for such achievement under the No

Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act tempts

schools to focus on areas where the statute requires testing and

causes them to de-emphasize or eliminate programs that many students are involved with and excelling.

The focus on testing concerning No Child Left Behind, the continued focus, if not the heightened focus on test results, has had

predictable results. In many cases, teachers are increasing homework, expanding drill times on what some may say is teaching to

the test. This merely encourages implementing methods that were

not working before. The Navajo Nation is aware that the children
35

are very diverse. Some excel in math and science, while others

excel in arts and physical science.

The Navajo Nation merely requests the flexibility to foster the

excellent in those children according to their talents and skills.

Thus far, the Navajo Nation has seen very little flexibility in the

No Child Left Behind Act. There is not a lot of data or scientifically

based curriculum concerning what works for Navajo children. That

which does exist suggests that the most successful curriculum are

those that are oriented in the Navajo culture.

Many schools will discard this information or not have access to

it, and simply pick programs that have found their way onto the

approved list at the state or national level. Schools that have a

large Native American population must have the flexibility and opportunity to develop and implement culturally based curricula.

There is also a need for specific research funded to evaluate its effectiveness. On Navajo, we have the beginning of such research

under the Navajo Nation’s Rural Systemic Initiative program, but

the funding for this program is being cut this year.

There is a large gap in proficiency. The goal of full proficiency

within the 12-year period is far more realistic in schools where students are already testing at a high level of proficiency than those

where proficiency levels are very low. The No Child Left Behind

Act might still label certain schools that need improvement, while

other schools may be achieving high standards and doing an extraordinary job. If we may provide an analogy, sir, the No Child

Left Behind Act is like a track and field event, with several events,

but the primary focus is on three races. In these three races, the

fastest runners are given a huge lead, but the slowest runners are

required to catch up by the end of the race.

Even with the best intentions of the No Child Left Behind Act,

the danger is that the students who could not compete with the

faster runners, although still finishing the race, will still be labeled

as failing. The No Child Left Behind Act must require gains in student achievement with recognition that every student is an individual and with his or her own talents and interests. Testing should

be used to identify a student’s aptitude and provide guidance for

the future direction of his or her education.

Schools need to provide more options as the needs of the Navajo

Nation and the surrounding society expands. Further, there is an

isolation factor that is not addressed in the No Child Left Behind

Act. Essential assistance provided under the act is simply not

available, or is greatly reduced in isolated areas. There are few tutors available, and not a very large pool of professional educators,

no involved business community, and little expert technical assistance available on an economical basis. Such factors make it imperative that the act receive full funding and provide a mechanism for

isolated areas such as the Navajo Nation to access the central assistance.

Also, there is another area as far as this reference is concerned

regarding school boards and parent training. The Navajo Nation

will have an election in November that includes school boards of

Bureau-funded schools. We expect a large turnover in school board

membership, probably about 80 percent. These new members will

take office during a period when the knowledge required of school
36

board members is at an all-time high, but there is no provision in

the law for providing training expense. The committee should revisit the school board and parent training situation, especially for

BIA-operated schools where there are no administrative cost grants

to pay for training expenses.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Act has enhanced the Navajo

Nation in its process of assuming responsibility and authority over

educational programs on Navajo, beginning with the BIA schools.

The Nation is pursuing contracts with the Bureau’s Office of Indian

Education Programs, which will include functions and dollars for

providing technical assistance and training to school personnel,

school boards and parents, and redesign the program to include

regulatory functions such as establishing standards, accrediting

schools, data collection and analysis, and also licensing teachers.

The Navajo Nation plans to take full advantage of this opportunity

in order to make a positive difference in the educational programs

on Navajo.

The Navajo Nation is aware that this is a large undertaking and

there is the need for additional resources to plan and jump-start

our educational system. The Congress previously funded another

tribe on a one-time basis and we understand that this program

proved to be quite successful. We recommend this committee consider and discuss this option with the Navajo Nation, and the Navajo Nation looks toward this committee for assistance in requesting

specific funding for the tribal education department line item in

the BIA budget.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, again thank you very

much for the opportunity to express our concerns.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Leonard appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Let me ask each of you a couple of questions. Mr. Leonard, let

me start with you. You mentioned that there are no training expenses for new school board members included in the act. What did

you do before the act?

Mr. LEONARD. Before the act, I think there was money allowed

in other public laws that provided some.

The CHAIRMAN. With the implementation of this act, did it delete

the funding that you might have gotten from other sources that

you had relied on before for training for school board members?

Mr. LEONARD. I believe it has.

The CHAIRMAN. Frankly, I do not think it did, but we will try to

look into that, but you might also. I think that there were resources available before to help train new school board members.

I do not know of anything in this Act that would.

Mr. LEONARD. Through the public laws? Through the other public

laws? Yes, there is; there remains to be.

The CHAIRMAN. You think there still is.

Mr. LEONARD. I think there still is, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But the No Child Left Behind Act, I do not think

it addresses that.

Mr. LEONARD. It does not address that.

The CHAIRMAN. It does not address that, but it did not delete any

other kinds of funding that was already in place either, to my

knowledge.
37

Anyway, let’s go on. You said in one of your comments, the No

Child Left Behind Act excludes testing on other subjects outside

core subjects like math, science and reading, such as testing on

tribal languages. How would you implement that from a Federal

standpoint? How would you make mandates and accountability on

those subject?

First of all, I have to tell you, I do not think, and maybe I am

reading it wrong, one of us is probably reading it wrong anyway,

the No Child Left Behind Act puts certain standards, but it does

not say that you cannot implement some of your own standards

through local school board action. So if nothing requires testing in

non-core activities like music, science, language, and so on, to my

knowledge you can still do that through your own directives from

your school board. Am I reading it wrong or are you reading it

wrong?

Mr. LEONARD. No; I think we are both right in part. I use that

example of behind you, there is a Navajo rug, there is tremendous

imagine and vision that went into that. However, if you applied it

at school, at this time No Child Left Behind does not give credit

for that. I think that is the implication.

The CHAIRMAN. I would encourage you to pursue that, because

some of the things that are not in the Act, they may not be specified in the act, but it does not say you cannot. So I think a lot of

things you can do on your own for your local school board action.

Your testimony indicated also that research funding has been cut

for the Navajo Nation rural systematic initiative program for culturally based curriculum. Was that funding cut as a result of the

No Child Left Behind Act? I guess it is similar to the question I

just asked 1 minute ago.

Mr. LEONARD. No, sir; that initiative was started 5 years ago, in

1998. There was funding through the National Science Foundation.

It ends on September 30.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. So it really did not have anything to do

with the No Child Left Behind Act. In your testimony, you stated

that the Navajo are pursuing contracts with the Office of Indian

Education Programs. What is the status of those contracts?

Mr. LEONARD. At this point in time, the BIA Office of Indian

Education program had talked about realignment. The Navajo Nation had opposed the realignment. So we want to be involved in the

realigning process, and so our intentions are to contract some of

the functions at the Albuquerque BIA Office level. At least right

now, we are looking at what percentage of the function is geared

toward the Navajo area office. So that is the first thing. We asked

for some information. We have yet to receive that information. It

has been about 11⁄2 months now.

The CHAIRMAN. In the Navajo schools, do you have Native language programs?

Mr. LEONARD. In most schools, we do. We have been very effective in that area, as tests show.

The CHAIRMAN. Kids are getting pretty proficient at it?

Mr. LEONARD. Definitely. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly commend you for that. I think it is

really important. Once the languages are gone, it is not the same
38

as listening to a tape that an elder made before he passed away,

and being able to spend time with the elder themselves.

Mr. Ben, to increase funding, we have to certainly have some

data. I am the first one to admit that we have not done a real good

job at funding Indian education. We have so many youngsters,

frankly, I know some tribes where one-fourth of the whole tribe is

under 18 years old. That is how fast our birth rate is. So we are

always behind the curve when we try to provide the resources

through our appropriations process here in Washington.

Now the GAO did a study, but could not assess education funding in part because the BIA did not have any tribal data. Is that

your understanding too?

Mr. BEN. That is my understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you do any independent tracking that you

could partner with the Bureau in providing some of the information

that they have not done?

Mr. BEN. It states in the proposal that if directed at some point,

we will be glad to do that. We have some data internally that we

keep track based on expenditures that we have tracked all these

years.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that could be important.

Unfortunately around here, a lot of times the agencies testify and

then they leave. They do not wait and hear the testimony of the

other people that might have something to offer or have a different

opinion.

Mr. BEN. We would love to take it on. Let’s put it that way. We

would love to take that project on.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, good.

We pass a bill and the President signs it into law, and then there

are standards and there are rules made in the agencies, as you

probably know. During that process when they were developing

standards, did your schools or your tribe have any involvement in

helping draft the new implementing regulations?

Mr. BEN. There was a process, what they call a negotiated rulemaking.

The CHAIRMAN. Did it work for you?

Mr. BEN. Yes; it is working, the accountability portion and all

these other things I mentioned today are working.

The CHAIRMAN. Good. I am glad to hear that.

I do have a few further questions that I will submit in writing.

Other members may also do the same. We certainly appreciate

your being here. We will keep the record open 2 weeks for any additional comments you may have or anybody in the audience that

may have, too.

Thank you for attending. This committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(39)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVE ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN

AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased to be

here today to speak on behalf of the Department of the Interior about the Department’s efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act in its Bureau-funded

school system. The Bureau operates, either directly or through tribal grants and

contracts, 184 elementary and secondary schools [and peripheral dormitories] in 23

States.

On November 19, 2001, George W. Bush stated that, ‘‘Indian education programs

will remain a priority, so that no American child, including no Native American

child, is left behind.’’ President Bush and Secretary Norton are committed to ensuring that the almost 48,000 Indian students attending Bureau-funded elementary

and secondary schools receive high-quality educational opportunities and the opportunity to achieve. In fact, the President recently signed an Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education with the purpose of assisting American

Indian and Alaska Native students in achieving the academic standards established

by the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB]. The Department is committed to working

with the Department of Education to implement this important Executive order.

As Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, I have made Indian education a top priority. It is my strong belief that the most valuable asset of our future is our Indian

youth. In the last few months, I have visited a number of Bureau-funded schools.

What has become evident to me is the need to establish environments where students are encouraged to excel personally and academically.

I believe that the high rates of school drop-out, teen suicides, substance abuse,

and unemployment that exist on many of our reservations are directly caused by

young people growing up without a strong sense of ‘‘HOPE.’’ They don’t believe that

they have the opportunity to succeed. Success, achievement and accomplishment are

not part of their vocabulary.

I believe that NCLB creates an incredible opportunity for the Bureau and the Indian community to partner and create positive learning environments that will empower our native youth. Our native youth need to realize that the American Dream

has been made available to them. The American Dream of pursuing your ‘‘life’s passion’’ and experiencing achievement and success is available to everyone in this

great Nation.

While some may believe that the NCLB is too rigorous, I believe that the human

mind, body and spirit were meant to be challenged. Some of our native youth have

been allowed to just ‘‘squeak’’ by because they have not been held to challenging

standards. It is now time that we recognize that all of our children can learn and

should be challenged to fulfill their greatest potential.

To aid in implementing the NCLB in the Bureau-funded school system, I am exploring two important concepts that I hope will provide sweeping change in the way

we view Indian education at the Department. First, it is my vision that every Bureau-funded school should incorporate a ‘‘Success 101’’ curriculum into the classroom
40

to encourage student achievement, leadership, business investment, homeownership,

and personal responsibility. Second, I have asked my staff to develop a pilot program to work in partnership with a Bureau-funded school to transform its mission

into a Leadership Academy. A Leadership Academy will transform the mission of

a school to one of personal and academic excellence. We hope to weave both the core

academic curriculum with the personal achievement needs of students by teaching

success strategies, teamworking skills, effective leadership and communications, and

other important life skills. The BIA hopes to establish partnerships with tribal

school, communities and parents to help bring this concept into the bureau-funded

schools.

I have asked my staff to develop a Success 101 curriculum and a Leadership

Academy pilot program. We are currently analyzing how best to implement these

two programs within available funding and our current authority. During the

months of July and August, the OIEP will consult with tribal leaders, educators,

and community members on incorporating Success 101 and Leadership Academies

into the Bureau-funded school system. My goal is to turn the Bureau-funded school

system away from the perception that they are ‘‘schools of second choice’’ toward the

concept of that they are ‘‘schools of first choice: of leadership and achievement.’’

Since 2001 the Administration has made a substantial investment to provide students and teachers in BIA schools with a safe physical environment in which to

learn and grow. A pre-requisite to providing a high-quality education is safe and

structurally sound schools. With this in mind, the President has requested and secured funding to replace, rehabilitate, or repair deteriorating schools. In fact, during

the President’s term he has requested $1.1 billion in funding for the school construction program. We are moving forward with the funding provided and we are optimistic that we will have several schools completed within 1 year.

The Bureau-funded school system is striving to be a leader in building energyefficient schools. On April 20, 2004, the U.S. Green Building Council awarded the

BIA and the Baca/Dlo’ay azhi Community School Project [Prewitt, New Mexico] with

the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] designation. The

Baca/Dlo’ay azhi Community School was the first LEED certified building in the

State of New Mexico, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The design, construction and

operation of this building should minimize long-term negative environmental effects

and energy demands. Several sustainable design features, in addition to Navajo cultural elements, are incorporated into the innovative design of the school. A number

of other replacement-school construction projects are also being considered for LEED

certification.

While not specifically covered by NCLB, the Bureau has implemented an early

childhood education program, named the Family and Child Education (FACE) program. The FACE program promotes family literacy by directly serving Indian children from birth through grade three, encouraging parental involvement in their

child’s academic experiences, developing school readiness skills, and strengthening

the family community-school relationship. Approximately 2,300 children, 2,240

adults and 1,800 families are served each year through the FACE program. The four

components of the FACE program include: Early childhood education, parent and

child time, parenting skills and adult education. These program components are provided in the home and school setting. Under this Administration, the FACE program for Indian children and families has been expanded from 32 to 39 sites. The

BIA is in the process of instituting an independent review to assess the program.

The Administration’s budget request contains $12.5 million for this program and

study.

The Department is committed to improving Indian education and ensuring that

no Indian child is left behind. The NCLB is the President’s commitment that all

public schools will provide students with a high-quality education, and Bureau-funded students and parents can expect that our schools also will carry forward that vision. Full and successful implementation of the NCLB will require a strong partnership between the Department and every Bureau-funded school and its community.

The NCLB required the Department to undertake formal negotiated rulemaking

for nine specific areas as discussed below. Upon completion and publication of these

final regulations, the Bureau-funded school system will fully implement the President’s goal of increased accountability for improved student achievement. In August

of 2004, the Department will consult with tribal leaders, educators, and community

members regarding the remaining area to be negotiated as required by the NCLB:

School construction.

The NCLB negotiated-rulemaking process provided both the Department and the

tribal community a valuable opportunity to reassess our education system. The results are a thoughtful work product that encourages accountability to aid the Bu-
41

reau in fulfilling its charge to provide a meaningful educational opportunity for the

young people whom we serve.

On February 20, 2004, the first six draft regulations were published. These regulations were developed in 5 months through a process in which the Federal Government sat at the table and negotiated with Indian tribal leaders and Indian education professionals to develop proposed regulations to implement the NCLB. These

proposed regulations were developed through ‘‘consensus’’ decisionmaking in which

all 25 Federal and tribal committee members agreed to the final negotiated product.

The rulemaking committee reached consensus on the following six areas: (1) Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress, (2) Geographic Boundaries, (3) Allotment Formula, (4) Student Civil Rights, (5) Grants Administration under the Tribally Controlled Schools Grants Act, and (6) Funding Distribution. The public comment period on these proposed regulations ends on June 24, 2004.

During February 2–7, 2004, the committee reconvened and negotiated two additional areas required under NCLB: (1) Closure or Consolidation of Schools, and (2)

National Criteria for Home-Living Situations. Although consensus was reached by

the committee in the area of home-living standards, consensus was not reached by

the committee in the area of school closure or consolidation of schools because the

Federal and tribal committee members had differing legal interpretations of section

1121(d) of the Education Amendments of 1978, as amended by the No Child Left

Behind Act. After much thoughtful deliberation, it became clear that consensus

could not be reached on the issue of whether the Secretary could, without the approval of the tribal governing body, close, consolidate, or substantially curtail a

school pursuant to the regulations promulgated under section 1121 (d).

The Department is finalizing the proposed regulations for both the school closure

and home-living standards, and we hope to publish these proposed regulations in

the Federal Register in the near future. Following the publication of these proposed

regulations, the public will have 120 days to comment. The Department will then

review any comments provided.

We strongly encourage all tribal communities that are concerned with the issue

of school closure and consolidation to provide comments during the 120-day public

comment period. This public comment period is invaluable in assisting the Department in fulfilling both the letter and the intent of the NCLB.

The President’s budget supports implementation of NCLB in the bureau-funded

school system. The Bureau-funded school system has received significant increases

in flow-through funding from the Department of Education to aid in the implementation of the NCLB.

In fact, the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department of the

Interior includes a $500,000-increase for the FOCUS program. The FOCUS program

provides targeted assistance to the lowest-performing Bureau-funded schools. The

purpose of this funding is to provide technical assistance and raise the level of instruction in these schools to encourage greater student proficiency on challenging

academic standards and assessments. The FOCUS program has demonstrated improved student achievement with four of the five past participants, and, in fact,

after the first year one school raised its student academic proficiency levels by over

20 percent with the help of the FOCUS program.

Another success the Department has had in implementing the NCLB was passing

the Department of Education’s rigorous review of OIEP’s application to receive

Reading First grant money. In November 2003, the OIEP was awarded a $30.4-million, 6-year Reading First grant from the Department of Education. The purpose of

the Reading First program is to improve reading achievement through scientifically

based reading research for grades K–3 by promoting teacher development and instructional strategies that focus on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. In March 2004, the OIEP awarded its first 22 subgrants to eligible schools and will be awarding two more grants in July 2004. We

are excited about the opportunities that this Reading First Grant will open in our

Bureau-funded school system.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to testify on this important issue.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP MARTIN, TRIBAL CHIEF MISSISSIPPI BAND OF

CHOCTAW INDIANS

Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address your

committee this morning concerning the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

My name is Phillip Martin, tribal chief of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Accompanying me today, is Terry Ben, director of Choctaw Tribal Schools.

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians operates the largest consolidated tribal

school system in the Nation. This school system consists of eight schools, including

a boarding high school, located in six different tribal communities spread over three

counties and contains about 1,800 students.

Being part of one of the two school systems (BIA and DOD) over which the Federal Government exercises direct responsibility, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians welcomes any Federal initiative that is designed to improve the performance

of our schools and contribute to the academic success of our children. The intellectual stimulation and preparation of our children is essential if they are to be successful in a competitive 21st Century workforce.

I was pleased to attend the signing of the President’s executive order on Indian

education on April 30 of this year. The President recognized the unique legal and

moral relationship that exists between the United States and Indian tribes as provided in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, and Federal statutes. We

welcome the commitment of this Administration to continue working with tribal

governments on a government-to-government basis, its support of tribal sovereignty

and self determination, and its promise to assist our students in meeting the No

Child Left Behind Act standards in a manner that is consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.

The primary goal of the No Child Left Behind Act was to create a standard measure of accountability for public schools in each State with the State’s share of Federal funding tied to the performance of its schools, generally measured by a state

testing plan.

In Indian country, it was assumed that the BIA was to act as the State and develop the accountability and testing plan. The agency failed to do so claiming a lack

of funding to carryout such an activity. Neither states nor tribes are able to use

such an excuse. We would actually lose current Federal funding if we failed to implement the act.

As a result, it was determined that tribal schools should adopt the State plan of

the state in which the tribe is located with the ability to apply for certain waivers

when necessary. This application of the act is in fact acceptable to the Mississippi

Choctaw and is workable due to the fact that we have strived for at least parity

with local public schools and we believe that we have largely succeeded.

As a result, we fully support the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. However,

the act has not solved any of our educational problems and it has certainly not dealt

with funding issues. The act will allow us to measure our children’s educational performance against other children in our state but it provides no funding to support

improved performance. In fact, it threatens a portion of our funding if we fail to

‘‘measure up’’ to the state standard at the same time the existing level of Federal

funding is inadequate to allow us to so measure up.

Fortunately, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has for more than a decade

been able to heavily supplement our schools’ finances. For fiscal year 2005, the tribe

will provide almost $4.5 million of our schools total $30 million budget. And, over

a period of time, we have invested some $35 million in construction and development of our educational infrastructure. We believe that we would have no hope of

meeting the state standard if we relied solely on BIA funding. As such, the No Child

Left Behind Act serves to further point out the inadequate funding levels for BIA

education.

There have been a number of studies conducted over the years of BIA schools.

One thing that we have definitely learned is that education in BIA and tribal

schools is expensive. The per capita cost of educating a student in our schools (BIA

and tribal) is considerably higher than most other publicly funded schools. But the

high cost of educating our children does not negate the Federal responsibility to do

so nor should it reduce the financial commitment required to do so properly.

There are reasons that education on Indian reservations is so expensive. In the

case of the Mississippi Choctaw, for example, we had no schools at all until the

1920’s and we did not have a high school until 1963. We have a bilingual population, historically high rates of poverty and low levels of educational attainment

among our population. Hunger and a lack of health care was the norm on our reservation well into the 1970’s and the high incidence of congenital diseases, such as

diabetes, continues to plague all age levels of our community. When it comes to edu-
77

cation, we started far behind the populations that we are now being compared to

both on a performance basis and in terms of funding.

Additionally, the size of our school system and the fact that it is spread over three

counties affects our costs. The need for prekindergarten and after-school programs

to accommodate parents working at a distance from their communities and schools

are also important factors to note.

Even so, our children are beginning to measure up. We have advanced rapidly not

because of Federal initiative but because our tribal government has taken up the

slack, not just with the provision of tribal funds as previously noted, but also

through direct tribal administration of our schools.

We are concerned that No Child Left Behind may be used to compare our children

to other populations without accounting for these factors. The disproportionate

socio-economic handicaps that tribal children and tribal school systems have had to

face must be a part of the equation when examining performance and funding.

We need the increased financial support promised by this reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We also share the concern of the tribal

representatives of the negotiated rulemaking team that the ISEP funding for our

schools is totally inadequate and not based on the level of need rulemaking team

was tasked to develop a formula to equitably distribute inadequate funds. BIA funded schools do not have adequate financial support for academic instruction, transportation, or dormitories. As mentioned in a September 2003 GAO report, BIA funded schools must routinely supplement transportation funds from the academic programs. In addition, we need Federal funding for pre-kindergarten in all elementary

schools.

We ask that this committee direct the BIA to follow the recommendations of the

September 2003 GAO report by working with the National Center for Education

Statistics to develop a user friendly data collection instrument to collect instructional, transportation, and residential cost data. Once developed the Mississippi

Band of Choctaw Indians would be willing to have our schools field test this instrument. If we found it to be a good product, we would urge all tribally operated

schools to participate in the data gathering effort. This would provide valuable information to assess the adequacy of future BIA school funding.

Congress wisely enacted the Native American Language Act. However the act

does not include any funding. Since the act does not authorize funding, the rulemaking committee has recommended that the funds available for bilingual education be used for language restoration as well as for limited English proficient students. We support this change, but would prefer the committee revise the Native

American Languages act to authorize funding. If our languages are lost, so are our

cultures and traditions. However, our students must also master the English language. We believe that our students can master both languages at a high level if

they are provided appropriate resources.

The rulemaking committee proposes that we use the State of Mississippi accountability plan. We believe that Choctaw Students can and will perform well under this

plan.

We have actively recruited highly qualified educators. We have also implemented

staff development opportunities and incentives for our educators to improve their

skills. We are accomplishing this at a significant financial cost to the tribe, but we

must insure success for our students. We need appropriate and promised funding

to continue our improvements.

We understand that the negotiated rulemaking team has been unable to reach

consensus on a regulation regarding Secretarial authority to close or curtail programs at a BIA-funded school. Of course such action should only be made with tribal approval, otherwise such a move would contradict the law and be in direct conflict with tribal sovereignty and Indian self-determination rights. The President’s

Executive order signed on April 30 makes this clear and we trust that the Secretary

will not allow such a potential conflict to exist in regulation.

In closing, I again state that we support the goals of the No Child Left Behind

Act and that its implementation is not unduly burdensome for our tribe. However,

it does not deal with funding inadequacies nor does it address the broader socioeconomic issues that we as a tribe must address. Job development and improved

economic attainment are the keys to raising our socio-economic success. We can not

adequately deal with those issues when our tribal resources have to be spent on

education, health care, law enforcement, all programs for which the BIA is responsible.

Thank you.
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICTORIA VASQUES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF

INDIAN EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

On behalf of Secretary Paige, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] for American Indian and

Alaska Native children. My name is Victoria Vasques, and I am the Deputy Under

Secretary and Director of the Office of Indian Education [OIE]. I am here with my

colleague, Darla Marburger, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Office

of Elementary and Secondary Education.

It was, in large part, our Nation’s long and unfortunate history of too often ignoring the educational needs of some children that led President Bush to propose his

No Child Left Behind reforms. Ignoring these students is no longer an option for

States, school districts, and schools, because under NCLB, they are responsible for

ensuring that Indian and Alaska Native children meet the same challenging academic standards that other children are expected to meet.

We also know, however, that there are implementation challenges and that a onesize-fits-all approach will not work. There are challenges in areas such as providing

school choice for children who live in remote and rural areas, assisting schools in

meeting requirements that they employ highly qualified teachers, and determining

how native language immersion programs for students in grades K–3 affect assessment requirements that begin in the third grade. However, we are committed to

working in consultation with all local, State, and tribal governments to provide flexibility where possible while ensuring that this and future generations of Indian students are not left behind. Working with each of you on this committee, the Department wants to build upon the special relationship between the Federal Government

and American Indians and our shared commitment to educational excellence and opportunity.

The President recognized the unique cultural and educational needs of these children in his April 30 Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education. In particular, the Executive order emphasizes the importance of helping

American Indian and Alaska Native students meet the challenging academic standards of the NCLB Act ‘‘in a manner that is consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.’’ We believe, in fact, that the No Child Left Behind Act, which

combines greater accountability for results with flexibility for local school districts

and more choices for parents, provides an excellent framework for meeting the goals

of the Executive order for the nearly 500,000 American Indian and Alaska Native

students in our public schools.

Another important event occurring on April 30th was the swearing in of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Council members were appointed by

the President and will advise Secretary Paige on the funding and administration of

all Departmental programs that benefit Indian children or adults.

According to the most recent data from the National Assessment of Educational

Progress [NAEP], only 16 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native fourthgraders score at or above the proficient level in reading, compared to 41 percent of

white students and 31 percent of all students. By the time Indian students reach

eighth grade, only 15 percent are proficient in math and only 17 percent are proficient in reading. After falling so far behind in the early years, it is not surprising

that Indian students scored 100 points below white students and 60 points below

the general population on the 2001 SAT.

Under NCLB, States must ensure that all students, including American Indians

and Alaska Natives, are proficient in reading and mathematics-as measured against

State standards-by the 2013–14 school year. We know this won’t happen overnight,

so-the law requires each State as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] to develop accountability plans for reaching this goal. The plans are based on academic

standards for these core subjects, as well as annual assessments based on those

standards for all students in grades three through eight and once again in high

school. They also include annual objectives for improving student performance on

those assessments-part of the concept known as adequate yearly progress [AYP].

A key advance in the new law is the incorporation of subgroup accountability into

AYP standards. This means that the performance of schools and school districts is

based not just on overall student achievement-which can mask significant gaps between groups of students-but also on the progress of major racial and ethnic subgroups. The result is a system that will hold the BIA, States, school districts, and

schools specifically accountable for improving the academic achievement of American Indian and Alaska Native students.

All 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have developed, and are

currently implementing, NCLB accountability plans, which—include both a system
85

of rewards for schools that perform well and a system of interventions for schools

and districts that are not meeting their goals. These accountability plans are critical

to improving the education of American Indian and Alaska Native students because

more than 90 percent of these students are enrolled in public schools operated by

public school districts, which are held accountable by the States in which they are

located. We are confident that the new subgroup accountability requirements, coupled with significant increases in funding for programs under the NCLB Act, will

help close the achievement gaps. We have no doubt that American Indian and Alaska Native students will benefit considerably from the $3.6 billion, or 41 percent, increase in title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies funding since the passage of

the NCLB Act in 2001. In addition, the National Activities program carried out by

my office supports much-needed research and data- collection on the performance

of Indian students and will promote ongoing program improvement for Indian education programs.

Although most American Indian and Alaska Native students are served by public

schools, I know this committee has a special interest in the BIA-funded schools that

serve about 48,000, or some 9 percent, of American Indian students. Under the

NCLB Act, total Department funding for schools operated or funded by the BIA has

grown to nearly $131 million, an increase of more than $60 million or 85 percent

since fiscal year 2001. In addition, the law requires that the Departments of Education and the Interior enter into an agreement regarding the distribution and use

of program funds under the Act. This agreement must be in place before the Department of Education can transfer funds to Interior. To this point, we have entered into

interim annual agreements with the Department of the Interior to transfer these

funds. We are working with Interior to come up with a long-term agreement that

will ensure the timely and effective dispersal of NCLB funding to the BIA schools

during the remaining years of the current authorization.

Finally, we note that, over the past 2 years, the BIA has worked diligently to establish the regulations required for implementing various provisions of NCLB, including accountability measures.

In addition to the title I program, the Department of Education provides other significant assistance to States and school districts that support improved achievement

for American Indian and Alaska Native students. For example, last year, Secretary

Paige announced a 6-year, $30.4 million Reading First grant to the BIA. This major

initiative seeks to improve reading achievement using scientifically proven instructional methods for Indian children in kindergarten through third grade.

Putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom is also a critical concern for

Indian students. Assistance is provided through such programs as Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, which is funded at $2.9 billion and includes a set-aside of

$14.6 million for BIA schools in fiscal year 2004. The Department’s OIE will award

approximately $10 million to support the training of high-quality Indian education

personnel through the Teacher Corps and Administrator Corps programs. These

funds will be used to support the American Indian Teacher Corps, which trains Indian individuals at the bachelor’s degree level or higher to meet full State teacher

certification or licensure requirements. These funds will also be used to support the

American Indian Administrator Corps to train Indian individuals at the master’s degree level to become new school administrators with full State certification. Together, these programs have trained more than 1,000 teachers and administrators

to date.

Our OIE awards about $96 million annually to help approximately 1,200 rural

and urban school districts and BIA-funded schools meet the educational and culturally related academic needs of their American Indian and Alaska Native students. OIE also awards about $10 million for projects that help Indian preschool

children learn to read and Indian high school students make the transition from secondary to postsecondary education.

The No Child Left Behind Act demands accountability for improving the achievement of all children, including all American Indian and Alaska Native students.

We recognize that the NCLB Act set high standards, and that finding the right

mix of accountability and flexibility can be a challenge. However, I am sure that

the members of this committee would agree that few have more to gain from a concerted, good-faith effort than our American Indian and Alaska Native students as

we continue to implement NCLB for their benefit and for the benefit of all our students.

In closing, I ask you the same question the President asked when he signed the

Executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native education, ‘‘How can we

work together to raise the standards and expect the best?’’

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
86
87Æ