U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

89–678 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–383 

INDIAN EDUCATION SERIES: INDIAN STUDENTS 

IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: CULTIVATING THE NEXT 

GENERATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 9, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RHONDA HARJO, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 9, 2014 ................................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 46 

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 43 

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

WITNESSES

Broaddus, Mandy Smoker, Director of Indian Education, Montana Office of 

Public Instruction ................................................................................................. 2 

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

Gish, Brent D., Executive Director, National Indian Impacted Schools Association .................................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Hudson, Daniel, Chairman, Wyoming State Impact Aid ..................................... 8 

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

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

Indian and Alaska Native Education, U.S. Department of Education ............ 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Siqueiros, Alberto, Ed.D., Superintendent, Baboquivari Unified School District, Tohono O’odham Nation ............................................................................. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

APPENDIX

National Indian Education Association, prepared statement .............................. 57 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to: 

Mandy Smoker Broaddus ................................................................................. 61 

Brent D. Gish .................................................................................................... 60 

Daniel Hudson .................................................................................................. 61 

Response to written questions submitted to William Mendoza by: 

Hon. Heidi Heitkamp ....................................................................................... 62 

Hon. Lisa Murkowski ....................................................................................... 71 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 68 

(1) 

INDIAN EDUCATION SERIES: INDIAN 

STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 

CULTIVATING THE NEXT GENERATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

The CHAIRMAN. I will call the Committee to order. 

Today, the Committee is holding an oversight hearing on the 

public education of Indian and Alaska Native students. 

In February, the Committee held a hearing on early childhood 

development and education. We heard a lot about the investments 

in our youth and the positive outcomes that can occur when these 

investments take place early in a child’s life. This does not, however, free us from continuing these investments throughout a student’s educational life. 

It is estimated that between 90 and 95 percent of all Indian students in the United States are in the public school system. That 

is approximately 400,000 Indian students. In my home State of 

Montana, approximately 16,500 Indian students attend public 

schools. 

Yet, when we talk about Indian education, it often seems that we 

tend to overlook the programs affecting Indian and Alaska Native 

students in our public schools. I am pleased we are focusing on this 

important issue today. 

Many leaders and advocates for Indian education know that a 

quality education system can help lift communities out of poverty 

and many of the symptoms associated with poverty. I was a teacher, my mom was a teacher and one of my kids is currently a teacher. Education has been a big part of my life and I know firsthand 

the impacts a quality education can have on our youth throughout 

their lives. 

I believe that improving those opportunities can be a starting 

point for addressing many of the issues that are so prevalent 

throughout much of Indian Country. 

2 

As this Committee continues its series of oversight hearings on 

Indian education, I look forward to hearing the progress that some 

communities are making in improving Indian education for all. I 

want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and testifying on 

a topic that they are clearly very passionate about. 

I want to extend a special welcome to Ms. Mandy Smoker 

Broaddus, who is the Director of Indian Education for the Office of 

Public Instruction in my home State of Montana and a member of 

the Ft. Peck Sioux and Assiniboine Tribes. 

Senator Barrasso obviously is not here yet. When he arrives, he 

will have an opportunity to give an opening statement. 

For now, I think we will go to the first panel of witnesses. I want 

to welcome them all. First, we are going to be hearing from Ms. 

Mandy Smoker Broaddus, Director of Indian Education, Montana 

Office of Public Instruction. We will then turn to Daniel Hudson 

who is Chairman of Wyoming State Impact Aid. He will be followed 

by Dr. Alberto Siqueiros, Superintendent of the Baboquivari Unified School District No. 40 of Sells, Arizona, who has some interesting testimony. Finally, we will hear from Brent Gish, Executive 

Director, National Indian Impacted Schools Association. 

I thank you all for being here today. For those who made a long 

trip, thank you. For those who made a short trip, thank you. We 

appreciate your testimony. I am going to ask you to try to keep 

your testimony to five minutes. Your entire statement will be made 

a part of the record. 

We will start with you, Mandy. 

STATEMENT OF MANDY SMOKER BROADDUS, DIRECTOR OF 

INDIAN EDUCATION, MONTANA OFFICE OF PUBLIC 

INSTRUCTION 

Ms. BROADDUS. Thank you, Chairman Tester. Good afternoon 

and thank you for inviting the Montana Office of Public Instruction 

to this important hearing today. 

It is my privilege to work for Superintendent Denise Juneau and 

for an agency in a State that ‘‘recognizes the distinct and unique 

cultural heritage of American Indians and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of our cultural integrity,’’ language taken directly from Montana’s constitution. 

It is an honor to speak before you all today. I am humbled by 

the spirit of my mother and all those who have gone before me because a great deal of collective suffering, yet also undeniable resiliency among my family and throughout Indian Country has allowed me to be here today. 

I have traveled from Montana with the next generation of my 

family in my heart, nieces, nephews, cousins and my own son who 

attend public schools back home. I would travel any distance if it 

might mean strengthening schools and communities so that they 

might have a better life. 

For so many of us across Indian Country and on this panel 

today, this work is deeply personal because we realize that it is our 

job to remove all the barriers our children face, both inside and 

outside of the school building. 

No stone should go unturned in our efforts to improve the educational systems so that our kids are prepared for whatever they 

3 

choose next in life. This is the moral obligation for anyone who 

chooses to work in education and for American Indian students, it 

is even more necessary because times are urgent for our young people. 

In the face of suicide clusters, increasing domestic violence and 

growing instances of self-harm and drug addition, students show 

up at school every day and it is our job to do the best we can for 

them. 

The first thing I want to say to you today is that the work of improving educational outcomes for American Indian students cannot 

be the work of schools alone. The achievement gap in Montana and 

across this country is very real and the solutions are multi-dimensional and complex. 

We need better approaches to realize stronger, healthier, more 

stable and better-educated families and communities. This means 

that HUD housing, USDA, Head Start and the Department of Justice must be at the table with the Indian Health Service, tribal governments and tribal colleges. 

Funding and policy must be reconsidered within a framework of 

support with the end goal of creating an environment where young 

people are valued and safe. 

I will now talk about our efforts to create and coordinate innovative approaches in Montana. After many years of advocacy, the 

State provides funding, almost $500,000 each year, to the Office of 

Public Instruction to improve educational outcomes for American 

Indian students in our public school systems. 

We have funded dropout prevention efforts, early childhood efforts and elementary mathematics programs. We seek opportunities to support and educate the whole child because a collective effort is what is required. Over time, we have honed and refined a 

holistic approach to this work and we use public as well as private 

funding to establish as many leverage points as possible. 

In addition to State funding, the Office of Public Instruction has 

used Federal School Improvement Grant dollars to create a unique 

collaborative effort with our State’s most struggling public schools, 

all of which exist in Indian Country. The Department of Education 

allowed us some flexibility with our SIG grant and we created the 

Montana Schools of Promise. 

As a result, the OPI has provided direct services to three school 

systems in our State. In addition, our agency stretched its capacity 

and provided five on-site coaches to assist school leaders, teachers, 

the school board, students and community members. These OPI 

staff members either moved to these communities or worked from 

there. They go to work in our schools every day and are able to 

push on these turbulent systems in ways that district staff is limited. 

Key results have been increases in literacy rates, increases in 

student engagement and improvement in overall school climate and 

infrastructure. We have also been able to dramatically increase the 

efficacy of local boards of trustees and are supporting new administrators who focus on the difficult work of improving their schools. 

Lastly and perhaps most significantly, we have implemented an 

innovative approach to better support the emotional and mental 

wellbeing of students through high fidelity wraparound. We reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
4 

ceived a two year Montana Mental Health Trust grant and a $1.8 

million SAMSHA Systems of Care Grant and are partnering with 

tribal governments from our Schools of Promise sites—Fort Peck, 

Crow and Northern Cheyenne—and with Indian Health Services, 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the State Department of Public 

Health and Human Services. 

With this support, we are implementing community driven, culturally responsive school-based mental health wrap around supports for students and their families through trained staff who are 

tribal members. 

These staff members have access to county and State support 

services and natural and cultural support to build on the assets of 

youth who all too often face traumatic experiences and live with 

PTSD symptoms. 

In closing, here are a few additional considerations. Title III administrators at the DOEd must consider the uniqueness of historically impacted native languages and their differences from other 

world languages. All Federal and State entities which impact the 

lives of children must expand their efforts beyond the traditional 

scope of services and more fully realize important connections with 

local school entities. 

I applaud President Obama’s creation of the White House Council on Native American Affairs and hope that this work results in 

better coordination and innovation in Indian Country. A great need 

exists for comprehensive planning and funding to support the 

multi-faceted approach because we will not improve educational 

outcomes without addressing life outcomes overwhelmed by high 

unemployment rates and a lack of access to quality health care for 

American Indian families. 

Lastly, policy and regulations need to take into consideration the 

unique relationship American Indian tribes have with the Federal 

Government as sovereign nations. As such, their children and public schools are impacted by policies and regulations that fail to be 

culturally responsive and culturally sensitive. 

Again, thank you for allowing me this important opportunity 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Broaddus follows:] 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MANDY SMOKER BROADDUS, DIRECTOR OF INDIAN

EDUCATION, MONTANA OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION


409a1.eps
6 


409a2.eps
7 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Broaddus. 

Before we get to you, Mr. Hudson, I am going to turn to Vice 

Chairman Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this important hearing today. 

I am delighted to welcome Mr. Dan Hudson from Lander, Wyoming, to be with us on the panel and to be the next to testify. He 

serves as the Wyoming State Impact Aid Chairman. We have met 

many times over the past number of years. He has a great deal of 

knowledge of Wyoming’s schools, especially those on the Wind 

River Indian Reservation. 

As I have stated at prior hearings, and as he and I have discussed in the past, education is a critical factor for success in today’s world. Indian children have a remarkable capacity to learn 

and thrive. There are many challenges these children face in 

achieving their education. Recruitment and retention of qualified 

teachers and safe learning environments are just a few of those 

challenges. 

There are opportunities for improvement and success. I look forward to the entire hearing today, Mr. Chairman, and to hearing 

from our witnesses about the opportunities that exist. I welcome 

the witnesses and look forward to the testimony and especially welcome Mr. Dan Hudson. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Mr. Hudson, you may proceed. 


409a3.eps
8 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL HUDSON, CHAIRMAN, WYOMING 

STATE IMPACT AID 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for inviting all of 

us to be here today. 

I am Dan Hudson from Wyoming. As noted, I am Wyoming State 

Impact Aid Chairman. I am following the prepared written testimony. I would like to note that 93 percent of all Indian students 

are educated in public K–12 schools as opposed to the 7 percent of 

Indian students educated in Bureau of Indian Education schools. 

Second, three times as many Indian students are educated in 

schools receiving impact aid funds when compared to the Bureau 

of Indian Education schools. 

I point this out as there has been occasionally a misperception 

that Indian education is largely the province of the Bureau of Indian Education Schools and this is not the case at all. As your program title notes, Indian students are largely in public schools. 

Since 93 percent of Indian students are educated in public K–12 

schools, I think it important to note these schools are governed by 

locally elected school boards. As such, these school board members 

are very directly responsible to Indian parents and their local 

tribes. Impact aid recipient schools servicing Indian students have 

current specific legal safeguards in place that require parental and 

tribal input into the education programs provided by those schools. 

In written testimony provided, there are chosen examples of excellent and forward thinking programs provided by impact aid 

schools to serve Indian students. These schools include Browning, 

Montana; Ethete, Wyoming; Sacaton, Arizona; Wakpala, Wagner 

and Timber Lake in South Dakota; Toppenish, Washington; Red 

Lake, Minnesota and Lapwai, Idaho. 

These aren’t the only schools providing such programs but are 

representative of the best Indian education programs provided to 

cultivate the next generation. These schools are from your States. 

They would seriously welcome your visits to see what can be done 

with these funds. 

I would also like to point out that exemplary results have been 

achieved despite relative reductions in available impact aid funding 

for these and the other impact aid schools over the past several 

years. For Indian students, the most important portion of their impact aid funding is called basic support or Section 8003. 

For Fiscal Year 2014 and so far, 2015, the basic support portion of impact aid is funded at $1,151,000,000. That is 58 percent of the 

authorized figure of $1,984,000,000. As noted in my written testimony, other parts of impact aid are even more constrained such as 

payments for property, which receives only 3.5 percent of its authorized funding figure. 

The last time that impact aid received appropriations to match 

its authorization was 1969. As such, impact aid which provides for 

so much of the education of the great majority of Indian students, 

especially so when the Native population is concentrated, has not 

been adequately funded for the last 45 years. 

The third point I would like to discuss is the timeliness of payments from the U.S. Department of Education to impact aid schools 

serving impacted Indian students. Because impact aid is the only 

9 

Federal education program that isn’t forward funded, payments are 

issued only after the department receives either an appropriation 

or a continuing resolution in the current fiscal year. 

School programs should begin in September. For the 2014 funding provided by the U.S. Department of Education and Congress, 

several of Wyoming’s impact aid districts did not receive their payments until mid to late March of 2014 for the fiscal year that 

began October 1, 2013, seven months into the school year. 

It is thus apparent that having the funding arrive this late in 

any school severely compromises the district’s ability to begin or 

continue programs that should have begun the prior September. 

Additionally, other major portions of fiscal 2013 funding were not 

processed by the U.S. Department of Education and received by 

Wyoming’s districts until March of 2014. Providing and improving 

Indian education with such unreliable timeliness of payments is, at 

a minimum, extremely problematic. 

To address these issues and provide the best cultivation for the 

next generation, first, the impact aid program should be forward 

funded. This does require a two-year appropriation within a single 

year and is difficult with our current Federal fiscal operation. The 

amount required would be about $2.774 billion. 

Further, to provide the education that Indian students should receive in order to fully cultivate the next generation of public 

schools would thus require fully funding impact aid. This admittedly takes an even greater portion of funds, roughly $3.8 billion. 

To generate the amounts of funding necessary to achieve and 

sustain these figures should be included as a portion of the long 

overdue rewriting of the Federal tax code rather than trying to borrow the funding from elsewhere in the current Federal budget. 

Five minutes. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL HUDSON, CHAIRMAN, WYOMING STATE IMPACT AID

Good day. First I’d like to note that 93 percent of Indian Students are educated 

in K–12 public schools, with only the remaining 7 percent being educated in Bureau 

of Indian Education (BIE) schools. Indeed, just as regards Indian Students attending schools that receive Impact Aid, there is about a 3:1 preponderance toward regular K–12 schools (additional Indian students also attend K–12 public schools that 

do not receive Impact Aid funding, whereas the BIE figure is inclusive to those 

schools on their ‘‘count day’’). Please see Appendix A, pages 1 and 2 for relevant figures. The point here is that in regards to providing Indian Education, the preponderance of that activity is performed by Impact Aid schools, not BIE schools. 

We can provide examples of some notable Impact Aid districts’ educational programs, programs that serve to ‘‘Cultivate the Next Generation’’ as follows. These 

have all been presented at the Annual Conference of the National Indian Impacted 

Schools Association (NIISA) to the NIISA general membership. 

In Browning, Montana, a presentation of their alternative education program, 

‘‘Engaging Our Youth’’ provided an increase in graduation rates from 54 percent to 

71 percent. in the 2010 academic year. The Browning ‘‘Project Choices’’ provides an 

individualized education and social plan is generated, inclusive of physical needs, 

for each student within the program. This individualized plan is formulated by alternative education personnel. The ‘‘Choices’’ program in the school networks with 

other programs in the community, and has the overall intent of helping these students. As of the presentation, the program services 35 students. One should note 

that the graduation rate of 71 percent, even though not exceptional, is nonetheless 

a 17 percent increase—and that is achieved among students whose physical needs 

of existing are not met outside of the program setting. 

In Ethete, Wyoming, Fremont County School District #14 achieved a tremendous 

success in reading scoring, going from 0 percent reading proficiency over quite a few 

10 

years to 60 percent reading proficiency in grades K–6. This was due to instituting 

a research-based, culturally relevant professional development program developed 

by Mr. Craig Dougherty at the Wyoming Indian Center in Sheridan Wyoming—and 

initially developed for Native Hawaiian students. The focus of the Center is on improving teaching; by improving teaching the education of the students improves. 

The Center’s focus is to improve learning by working on students’ strengths. There 

are no excuses—teachers cannot change students’ family situation or backgrounds— 

and thus the teachers are the educational resources for the kids. Excuses and whining are not permitted—the teacher is responsible for educating the students. The 

program does require that teachers receive additional training after graduation. 

Graduate study in math or language arts is required for the program, as universities provide a general education background, but specialists are what are needed. 

Teacher quality has six times the effect on student learning than all other factors 

combined, including ethnicity and socioeconomics. We have to provide a world-class 

education to America’s First Children. 

In Sacaton, Arizona, Sacaton Unified School District (AZ), their instructional program is headed up by Superintendent Jim Christiansen with a team of Janet 

Chouteau, instructional coach, and Amanda Billings, master teacher. The Sacaton 

program uses teacher coaches to train staff, with the intent to unify and improve 

instruction. This method has resulted in substantial gains in reading capabilities; 

mathematics had good growth, although not quite as substantial. The Sacaton program has four essential elements used to turn schools around: (1) leadership, (2) 

professional growth, (3) curriculum improvement, and (4) assessment of results with 

resulting modifications to the plan. Reading and mathematics daily instructional 

time was increased from 50 to 80 minutes. Parental involvement in education remains an issue. The integration of cultural aspects and the Pima language into 

Sacaton’s educational program is not yet completed. Class materials are also available for advanced and superior students, as they can access instructional software 

in advanced level classrooms. 

In South Dakota, quite a few districts are instituting exemplary programs delivered to students while doing so in the geographical area of the highest poverty in 

the United States. Wagner, SD schools implemented the JAG (Jobs for America’s 

Graduates) program at that District to address student needs with severe life and 

academic needs. Typically, membership in the JAG increases graduation rates to 

over 90 percent. 

The Timber Lake District, also from South Dakota, has implemented an ‘‘Intensive Care Unit’’. Superintendent Jarrod Larson notes that the program focuses on 

achievement, accountability, and parent involvement, along with positive professional development. To enter in the ICU, students have missing work, have below 

a 2.0 average but no D’s or F’s. The ICU program identifies these at-risk students 

and low-achieving students. One of the components of the program is to have a 

Trusted Adult available to address bullying issues. There are no 0 grades, but students cannot go back to the prior semester. As such, if a student is in the ICU for 

mathematics, that student must work on mathematics in the program—not other 

areas such as art, for example. While in ICU, there is no participation in assemblies, no sports participation, no dances—until the work is completed. There are also 

no random reward days in ICU. The results indicate reduced student apathy, increased performance, and increased parental communication. Timber Lake also has 

a signal science program developed by LuAnne Lindskov, South Dakota Teacher of 

the Year. The program utilizes a new philosophy of educational planning for success 

for the science students inclusive of individualized tutoring during and after school. 

In Wakpala, South Dakota, located on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, they 

have implemented educational programs by trying to find out what works with Native students. It was noted that if the school is seen to be sincere about the task 

and also sincere in caring about the students, the students will perform well, it was 

also seen that healthy behavior had to be modeled by the staff, as the students do 

indeed watch. Wakpala has 100 percent Native Americans in its student body; They 

are also 47 percent Limited English Proficient, 30 percent special education, 100 

percent free and reduced lunch, and have 47 percent mobility among its students 

and the surrounding districts. One challenge noted is that the area districts are trying to provide a standardized curriculum in relation to the mobility factor. However, 

results from the Wakpala program included a 5 percent improvement in attendance, 

a 19 percent increase in graduation rate, and an eight-fold decrease in high school 

discipline referrals. 

Washington State also has a series of programs that serve Native students to 

‘‘Cultivate the Next Generation’’. Former Superintendent Steve Myers instituted a 

pre-school cooperative at Toppenish, Washington. Mr. Myers program is centered 

around the fact that very young children (ages 3–5) have much more brain activity 

11 

than is measured in later years. Myers has noted that we as a society invest great 

amounts of funding and effort to educate in later years, but very little in preschool, 

despite the fact that preschool is where the maximum amount of learning as measured by brain activity is actually occurring. Myers program provided data that the 

emphasis on early education pays off at the upper end of the education spectrum. 

86 percent of his program children graduate, and between 83 and 96 percent of the 

children go on to a post-secondary education. The program uses multiple data assessments to ensure each child masters learning skills. 

Toppenish also currently has an exemplary high school program centered around 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The goal of the this program, 

provided by Superintendent John Cerna, is both college and career readiness. They 

generate a 93 percent graduation rate. All students take Introduction to Engineering Design as an introductory class. Second in the high school series is civil engineering and architecture, followed by aerospace engineering. Toppenish High School 

also provides instruction in robotics and digital electronics. The English department 

also promotes technical writing. Toppenish Middle and High School entered the 

World Technology Competition, placing 36th overall in the world. Demographically, 

the District is 90 percent free and reduced lunch, 83 percent Hispanic, and 13 percent Native American. Additionally, all Toppenish freshmen take Principles of Biomedical Science, as the usual Earth Science and Physical Science classes weren’t 

preparing students for the Washington State tests. As a consequence, enrollment in 

upper level mathematics and science classes increased markedly, and the more 

basic/introductory classes declined in enrollment. 

Lapwai, Idaho instituted a program developed by Mr. Harold Ott called Key Elements of High Performing Schools. The Lapwai District was the recipient of a three 

year grant from the Albertson Foundation, providing funding to address student 

performance. Ott noted that we work too much on teaching, and not enough on 

learning. Ott also noted that it is the moral responsibility of each teacher to educate 

each child entrusted to them. The issue is to be teaching each student as they are 

special, all of them, one at a time. As a result, every student discovers their own 

chance to succeed. Ott also contends that students don’t fail—systems do. The task 

of leaders is thus to change systems so the students can all succeed. The Wapato, 

WA District, where Ott also worked, had a 14 percent graduation rate. A group of 

sixty separate people wrote a school improvement grant, as a moral commitment to 

change the Wapato school system. Four years later, the Wapato District had an 86 

percent graduation rate. Ott included the premise that cultural diversity is a gift— 

we, as a nation, don’t completely do the ’melting pot’ consistently. Wapato’s program, as replicated in Lapwai, had a multicultural fair, celebrating diversity, not 

uniformity. This honors the things important to the District’s various students and 

their respective cultures. It also provided a sharp reduction in discipline referrals, 

fights and gang activity. Ott noted his motto—‘‘No shame, no blame,—and no excuses.’’ 

These examples are all provided by Impact Aid recipient schools, and yes, they 

are selected with a viewpoint toward this Committee’s membership. They are by no 

means the only such examples available from Impact Aid recipient schools primarily 

engaged in teaching Native American students. It should also be pointed out that 

these schools are all what is referred to as ‘‘high LOT’’ districts—meaning that they 

receive a high percentage of their Impact Aid payment. Among other things, the 

high LOT designation is indicative of high need and was required by Congress in 

the 1994 iteration of Impact Aid. The point being made here is that other schools 

receive lesser payment percentages and as a possible consequence, have not evinced 

similar programs. 

Additionally, it should also be noted that these programs and results from these 

schools have been achieved even while the Impact Aid program itself has not received commensurate appropriations to provide and continue such programs, and 

the delivery of Impact Aid funding by the U.S. Department of Education to these 

and other Impact Aid schools has been haphazard, especially over the last few years 

of operation. 

The Impact Aid Law has several sections. Basic Support, or Section 8003 receives 

the major portion of appropriations and is the life blood of Native education. Currently this Section of Impact Aid is funded at 58 percent of authorization, for fiscal 

2014 a figure of $1,151,233,000. The full federal obligation of Basic Support would 

be $1,984,000,000. Basic Support, however, receives a far greater proportion of the 

federal obligation than does another portion of the program, that being Payments 

for Property, or section 8002, which receives only 3.5 percent of authorization. For 

fiscal 2014, that appropriation is $66,813,000; the true figure for Payments for Property is actually $1,885,000,000, substantially close to the Basic Support figure. As 

such, if appropriations were to actually meet the federal obligation as authorized, 

12 

the overall figure for these two portions of Impact Aid would be about $3.8 billion. 

This compares to the appropriated figure for these two parts (which aren’t the entirety) of Impact Aid of about $1.2 billion. The last year that appropriations balanced authorization for Impact Aid was 1969. Since that time, the Impact Aid program, which provides the educational needs and programs of the great majority of 

Native American students, has not been adequately funded. Please see Appendix B. 

Further exacerbating this issue, the U.S. Department of Education, first, cannot 

process payments to Impact Aid recipient districts without a current year authorization (or continuing resolution) amount. Impact Aid, as the second oldest federal education program, retains that current year funding character of such programs from 

years long gone. All other federal education programs are forward funded for one 

year. As such, the other federal education program payments can be processed in 

the current fiscal year without undue delays. Impact Aid, until such time as a current year appropriation (or continuing resolution) is completed, cannot be paid out, 

leaving the Impact Aid districts without Impact Aid funding for an unknown time. 

Worse, as I might note for Wyoming’s school districts (I cannot knowledgably speak 

for other states), there appears to be no consistency as regards reception of payments from the U.S. Department of Impact Aid. 

As an example, two Wyoming Districts (Fremont County School Districts #14 and 

#21) received 40 percent of their 2014 Impact Aid program funds in December 2013; 

they received an additional 40 percent of their fiscal 2014funds in March 2014. Another Wyoming District (Fremont County School District #38) did not receive any 

fiscal 2014 funding in December, and finally received its 2014 Impact Aid funds in 

mid-March of 2014. Yet another Wyoming District (Fremont County School District 

#6) is thought to have received its 2014 funds as of March 28, 2014. It should be 

noted that for the 2014 program year, it was Wyoming’s turn to provide documentation to the U.S. Department of Education to verify the Impact Aid application figures. Fremont County School District #6 had provided suitable documentation no 

later than April 17, 2013 as may be verified by email commentary in the supplied 

Appendix, yet did not receive payment until March 28th, 2014 (probably). Please see 

Appendix C, pages 1 and 2. 

Another example of lack of performance is the processing of another area of Wyoming’s payments. One of the three methods of calculating payments involves the use 

of what’s called a ‘‘generally comparable district.’’ This is the oldest method of calculating payment, and the Impact Aid law, both current and for reauthorization purposes, requires selection of the best method for payment purposes. The file properties of this payment basis for Fiscal Year 2013, of which I’ve kept a copy on my 

computer, and which the Wyoming Department of Education must certify to the 

U.S. Department of Education shows last saving of the file in August 2012. This 

means that all work was completed on the file in Wyoming and it was transmitted 

not later than August 2012 to the U.S. Department of Education. The payment of 

these Fiscal Year 2013 funds was not done until February 25, 2014. Please see Appendix D. Frankly, my file transmission email is so long ago that it no longer exists. 

You might look, for another example, at Appendix E, which is the transmission of 

Fiscal Year 2014 information, provided to the U.S. Department of Education on 

April 1—2013. It will be some time until we see these funds, but it has already been 

slightly over a year since the information was supplied. 

Anecdotally, districts have related that the U.S. Department of Education has related having staffing problems and/or data processing issues that prevent timely 

payment processing. These things do indeed happen, and we’ve all had them. However, when these excuses are used year after year (again, anecdotally), this certainly 

becomes an irritant at the school district level, but in the end, what this means is 

at least some of the students who should have received the benefit of these funds 

to provide their education will not receive the benefit of these funds. Please also see 

Appendices F and G. These are part of a presentation of the U.S. Department of 

Education to the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools Association on 

March 17, 2014 regarding payment processing timelines. I’d like to point out here 

that processing of some aforementioned ‘‘Basic Support’’ 8003 funding dates back 

three years to 2011; likewise the ’Payments for Property’ 8002 funding goes even 

further, back to 2010. To be fair, there are legal issues that may impede payment 

processing by the U.S. Department of Education. On the other hand, these legal 

issues are now dragging on for four years. 

Schools cannot provide a consistent program platform to ‘‘Cultivate the Next Generation’’ without having at least a relatively consistent fiscal basis. Some of the programs noted above, like that of Fremont County School District #14, are becoming 

static, as the Impact Aid funding necessary to provide and expand such programs 

has relatively dwindled. 

13 

It isn’t right to whine about problems without offering solutions, so, quite frankly, 

first and foremost providing a 4 percent Impact Aid appropriations increment for 

fiscal 2015 as compared to 2014 would begin to address the issues; this would require about $64 Million. 

Working toward forward funding of the program and thus alleviating a lot of the 

payment problems is more difficult, as that requires a ’double appropriation’ for two 

fiscal years in one, currently requiring about $2.774 Billion. With our current national fiscal situation, this is not an easy issue to address. 

However, to really ‘‘Cultivate the Next Generation’’ for Native students, these 

should be concrete goals to achieve. Finally, steps should be taken to fully fund the 

program in order to properly address the issue of federal responsibility for education 

of federal, and in our case here today, Native students. Frankly, although it will 

likely prove politically unpalatable for the foreseeable future, the source of funds to 

do these tasks should, by the way our government is supposed to work, be achieved 

during the long overdue rewriting of the federal tax code as a part of proper balancing of federal revenues and expenses. 

Thank you. 

Attachments 

14 


409b1.eps
15 


409b2.eps
16 


409b3.eps
17 


409b4.eps
18 


409b5.eps
19 


409b6.eps
20 


409b7.eps
21 


409b8.eps
22 

The CHAIRMAN. Right on the mark. Thank you, Mr. Hudson. 

Mr. Siqueiros? 

STATEMENT OF ALBERTO SIQUEIROS, E.D.D., SUPERINTENDENT, BABOQUIVARI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman and 

members of the Committee. 

I am the very proud superintendent of the Baboquivari Unified 

School District on the Tohono O’odham Nation. 


409b9.eps
23 

I am here to tell you that transformation is working in our school 

district. I thank the Committee, the U.S. Department of Education 

and the Indian Affairs Committee, in particular, for the support of 

the things that are going on in our school district. 

However, I will tell you that in September 2009 when I arrived 

at my school district, I would classify or characterize things as 

probably the most challenging experience I have ever experienced 

in my entire life. Things were in disarray; systemically, we were 

broken in every aspect of any expectation that a parent, community 

member or governing board member, the U.S. Congress or the Senate would have regarding a public school. 

Rather than just make lofty goals and establish short and long 

term aspirations for our kids and for ourselves, we decided to take 

a very aggressive approach to transformation. In fact, my elementary and high schools in January 2010 were classified as PLAs, 

persistently lowest achieving schools. That meant that we were in 

the bottom five percent of all schools in the State of Arizona. My 

middle school was a Tier 2 corrective action school, not that far behind. 

In fact, I will tell you that when I first arrived and looked at the 

data going back to the early 2000s, my elementary kids in the third 

grade were achieving mastery on the State assessment at about 50 

percent in reading, writing and math. 

However, as they progressed through the grades, by the time 

they were tenth graders, taking the High Stakes Assessment for 

graduation from high school, less than 30 percent of our students 

were achieving mastery. Instead of getting better, we were regressing. This not only required courageous conversation, but also required courageous action. 

Working together within our community with the support of my 

governing board, we began a comprehensive transformation effort 

that included rehiring our teachers. At that particular point, Arizona law permitted me to non-renew certain classifications or classes of teachers. We non-renewed 52 of our 87 teachers and started 

all over. Of the 52 that were non-renewed, 13 were invited to come 

back after an interview process. 

Our goal moving forward was not just to hire warm bodies to fill 

spaces, but to look and seek highly qualified and highly effective 

teachers. Sherman Alexi classifies his experiences growing up in 

the State of Washington as follows: The teachers that end up in 

tribal school situations are typically teachers without options. Consider for a moment how challenging that is. Usually we are located 

out in the middle of nowhere, very far from large urban settings, 

so it is challenging to find and retain teachers in our situations. 

As part of this process, we have leveraged our impact aid Federal 

dollars, our entitlement dollars and our State aid to create a situation by which we can recruit highly effective teachers and sustain 

them over a period of time. 

We have also looked at recruiting effective principals. We believe 

that the principal is the most influential part of the educational 

system; the teacher is the most important. Direct instruction matters the most. 

In addition to hiring teachers, we have created a very comprehensive approach to our instruction. We have identified four 

24 

fundamental questions that we ask: what do we want our kids to 

learn; how do we know when they have learned; what do we do 

when they do not learn; and what do we do when they do learn? 

As we answered those questions, we designed a very successful 

program that I will tell you right now, in the very short period of 

time, we have had some huge successes. Our goal is to truly create 

a college and career going culture in our school district. 

In May 2008, our graduation rate was 39 percent. I am pleased 

to report that in May 2013, that rate elevated to 78 percent. Thirty 

of our students out of 52 graduating seniors applied for college; 24 

were accepted and 19 enrolled. Over $2 million in scholarships for 

our school district was a record. The number of kids attending college was also a record. 

You can see that our transformation effort is really producing the 

intended outcomes and our students are becoming much more successful through self-determination. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siqueiros follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALBERTO SIQUEIROS, ED.D., SUPERINTENDENT, BABOQUIVARI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION

Background 

In January 2010, the Baboquivari Unified School District (BUSD) took the bold 

step to say enough to a legacy of mediocre performance and results, and committed 

to transforming itself to an excelling school system. Since that time, teachers, staff, 

administrators, parents, governing board, and of course, students have put forth an 

unprecedented effort to move from a school district producing mediocre results to 

one with high expectations and accountability! Our students have made significant 

strides in their academic ‘‘self-determination’’ to become effective learners who strive 

for excellence and our staff/teachers’ level of expertise and experience has never 

been better. We believe the Baboquivari Unified School District is now poised to become the great educational institute that we all envision, and that our students will 

be college and career ready upon graduation from high school! To this end, we have 

challenged our students, parents, community, and the BUSD educational team to 

take full advantage of our ongoing transformational efforts toward ensuring that: 

1. Students will reach their academic potential preparing them for the next academic year (yes, including college for our high school graduates); 

2. Parents will be highly involved and engaged with their children’s education; 

3. Schools will provide a nurturing and positive learning environment conducive 

to effective learning; and, 

4. The entire community will develop the ‘‘determination’’ that makes the education of our children its highest priority! 

Long gone are the days of low expectations, mediocre performance and results 

often seen in Tribal educational settings. We insist that the entire BUSD community support our efforts in educating our children. We believe that a community 

with high expectations will result in a quality educational system! These efforts will 

positively impact the health and wellness, economic prosperity, and quality of life 

of the Tohono O’odham for generations to come. The students of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation deserve a quality education and the Baboquivari Unified School 

District is poised and committed towards fulfilling its obligation. 

Examples of our students’ success include: 

• Nearly a 40 percent increase in Baboquivari High School’s graduation rate over 

the past five years. 

• Six Gates Millenium Scholars and one Dorrance Scholar over the past three 

years. 

• Over $2 million in scholarships in 2013 (all-time high for BHS). 

• State & National Science Fair winners in 2012, 2013, and 2014. 

• 52 seniors graduated in the Class of 2013; 30 applied to college; 24 were accepted; 19 enrolled in college in 2013 (all-time highs for BHS). 

25 

• K–3 cohorts have the highest achievement of all grades as a result of the full 

benefit of our current transformation efforts. 

Call to Action: Our Journey to Success 

As one of two school systems on the Tohono O’odham Nation, BUSD is a state 

public school serving 1,100 students in Preschool through 12th grade (the Bureau 

of Indian Education serves approximately 800 students). BUSD has a P–5 elementary school, 6–8 middle school, 9–12 high school, and two alternative schools serving 

students in grades 6–12. In 2012, Baboquivari High School (BHS) and Indian Oasis 

Elementary School (IOES) were designated as Persistently Lowest Achieving 

Schools by the Arizona Department of Education. By definition, these two schools 

were in the bottom 5 percent of all schools in Arizona. In May of 2008, BHS had 

a graduation rate of 39 percent and IOES had not made Adequate Yearly Progress 

in several years (Arizona Department of Education, 2008). As a result, a call to action was necessitated and put into motion by the BUSD Governing Board. The first 

step was initiated in the summer of 2009 when the new superintendent was hired 

to spearhead the transformation of BUSD. 

With the support of the Governing Board, the newly hired superintendent began 

the process of developing a strategic plan at addressing the root cause of BUSD’s 

underperforming schools. Several internal data points including student achievement, attendance, enrollment, discipline, college going rates, student interviews, 

community input, budgetary allocations and expenditures, teacher/staff performance, and parent involvement & engagement rates were used in a comprehensive 

needs assessment. Additionally, data points directly associated to the overall 

wellness of the Tohono O’odham Nation including high school completion rates 

among adults, college attainment levels, unemployment rates, and incidences of 

health issues were utilized. As a result, four key areas were identified to guide the 

work of transforming BUSD: 

1. Design a highly effective and efficient educational support services division: 

Human Resources, Transportation, Facilities, Technology, and Finance. 

2. Establish positive and meaningful partnerships and relationships with key 

stakeholders including the Tohono O’odham Nation, higher education institutions, parents, and the various wraparound service agencies on the Tohono 

O’odham Nation. 

3. Develop a highly effective system of support for the Governing Board that 

leads to highly effective governance. 

4. Develop a teaching and learning approach based on best practices that focuses on student achievement. 

The emphasis moving forward was to assume a systems-thinking approach by 

which all district divisions required partial to full overhauls. Unfortunately, the 

comprehensive needs assessment demonstrated serious inefficiencies within all district departments and divisions. The following sections will identify those deficiencies along with their remediation. 

Educational Support 

The design of a highly effective and efficient educational support services division 

that included Human Resources, Transportation, Facilities, Technology, and Finance 

was and continues to be the basis for supporting highly effective instruction and ultimately learning. 

Human Resources 

The quality of any organization is dependent on the quality of its employees. 

BUSD believes that teachers are the most important and that principals are the 

most influential members of the school district. And of course, other staff including 

non-certificated personnel and all district level-administrators exists to provide key 

levels of support to the teaching and learning that occurs in classrooms. Following 

were the existing deficiencies and the remediation BUSD has taken over the last 

four years toward building and developing the quality of services provided by employees: 

Human Resource Deficiencies and Remediation: 

Ineffective hiring practices and procedures that de-emphasized hiring highly effective certificated personnel and support staff were exceedingly evident. BUSD 

had resorted to simply filling positions by settling with the only candidate applying for a teaching vacancy. 

26 

BUSD committed to developing a comprehensive approach and philosophy of hiring only effective personnel. Specifically, the following corrective steps were taken: 

a. BUSD determined that it would follow a turnaround approach in the School 

Improvement Grant process and chose to non-renew all probationary teachers 

in the spring of 2010. In all, 49 out of 87 classroom teachers were non-renewed. All the non-renewed teachers were provided the opportunity to reapply for teaching positions and only 13 were rehired. All other teachers for 

the following school year were hired from a BUSD hosted teacher fair held 

in Tucson, Arizona. 

It is important to note, that BUSD was bound by Arizona Law in its decision to select only probationary teachers for non-renewal. Because BUSD 

was not effectively following State mandated teacher evaluation procedures, 

it could not bring forward statement of charges for poor performance for 

teachers in the continuing category. 

b. BUSD determined that it had to develop a comprehensive approach to hiring 

teachers. The following procedures and policy changes were put in place: 

• Developed two strategies for teacher recruitment: 

Teacher Recruitment One or TR1: When a vacancy exists, BUSD will follow 

the typical hiring procedures in school districts: post an advertisement, accept 

applications, invite qualified candidates to interview, select the bestqualified 

candidate. 

Teacher Recruitment Two or TR2: BUSD administration will identify superstar teachers from other school districts and actively recruit them. Identification of such teachers is based on referrals by other educators, newspaper articles indicating previous successes of a teacher such as awards or implementation of unique programs, or self identified teachers that contact BUSD. The 

superstar status is based on data that demonstrates their ability to move students academically. The concept of TR2 is very similar to how college sports 

coaches identify and recruit star athletes. 

• BUSD committed to increasing teacher pay by strategically utilizing its 

Federal funding (including Impact Aid) and State funding. BUSD went from 

being one of the lowest paying school districts in Arizona to the highest in 2013. 

The goal is to continue on this trajectory each year. 

• BUSD changed the governing board policy that provides the superintendent 

discretion in placing newly hired TR2 teachers on any step on its teacher salary 

schedule. Arizona school districts typically have policy that awards between five 

to ten years of experience to newly hired teachers for placement on salary 

schedules. Commonly, this is why teachers don’t move from one school district 

to another after they have surpassed this range of years of employment in any 

one school district. BUSD now has the ability to recruit experienced superstar 

teachers from other school districts by leveraging this change in policy. 

c. BUSD determined that it had to develop a comprehensive evaluation system 

for teachers. It appeared that prior to 2010, employees were not provided 

with an effective evaluation. For teachers it simply became a process of compliance with law and not providing accurate and meaningful evaluations. 

The shift from a philosophy of compliance to one of meaningful feedback for continuous teacher growth has become the norm in BUSD. Teachers recognize that 

the principal will progress monitor their instruction as a means toward improving academic achievement of students. As a result, BUSD developed and implemented the Teacher Performance Evaluation System based on the Arizona 

Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness. Key components of this system include: 

• All teachers, regardless of experience, receive at least two evaluations per 

year. The first evaluation is completed by the end of the first quarter of the 

school year. This provides the teacher with feedback early in the year and, if 

warranted, the teacher is placed on an improvement plan with the necessary 

support. 

• The school principal is required to conduct multiple formal and informal 

teacher observations throughout the year. 

• Three district teams comprised of the superintendent, key district personnel, principals, and school improvement coaches conduct monthly 

walkthroughs that provide principals with specific observational feedback on 

teacher performance. Each of the teams observes the same teachers monthly 

and the observational data is scored and monitored throughout the year. 

27 

• Each teacher is also evaluated based on the academic achievement growth 

of their students using classroom and whole school results. 

Issuance of subsequent year contracts is based on these components of the 

BUSD Teacher Performance Evaluation System. 

d. BUSD requires an annual evaluation of all non-classroom certificated staff 

and all non-certificated staff. Though a policy requiring annual evaluations 

had been in place in previous years, it was not until recently that this became the expected practice for all supervisors. 

e. BUSD implemented strategic and curricular aligned professional development 

for instructional certificated staff and para-professionals. All certificated staff 

received an extended contract that requires attendance in professional development before the beginning and end of the school year. During the 2013– 

14 school year, instructional staff was provided 19 days of professional development aligned to the district curriculum and expectations including Common Core Standards, AVID (Advancement Via Individual Advancement), Success for All Reading, PowerTeaching Math, technology, and Tohono O’odham 

Culture awareness. 

f. All BUSD non-instructional support staff receive job-specific training during 

the summer and throughout the school year as needed. 

g. BUSD strongly believes that school principals are the most influential members of the school district. As a result, three highly effective school principals 

with a deep knowledge of instruction, learning, and successful school leadership experiences are currently leading the three schools in BUSD. Each of 

the principals were recruited and invited to apply. 

Transportation 

Transportation Deficiencies and Remediation: 

The BUSD transportation required a shift from antiquated transportation procedures to a system that took into account more current methods of training, routing, 

and maintenance of its vehicle fleet. 

The following changes resulted in improved transportation of students to school 

and home: 

a. Hired an experienced transportation director to assist in providing effective 

leadership. 

b. Downsized the number of mechanics from five to one in accordance with industry standards based on the size of the district’s bus and white fleet. The 

one remaining mechanic oversees general breakdowns and miscellaneous repairs of the fleet. 

c. Determined that it is more cost effective to contract out repairs and general 

maintenance of the district’s fleet. 

d. Developed more strategic bus routes to reduce, as much as possible, the time 

students spend on the bus. Due to the remoteness of the district this continues to be a concern. 

e. Provide ongoing training to bus drivers in transportation specific areas in addition to areas generally considered more academic such as Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS), Child Find, Mandatory Reporting, 

and Tohono O’odham Culture awareness. 

BUSD acknowledges that our bus drivers are the first and last school employees 

to see our students daily. As such, we strongly view this department as a critical 

component of student success. 

Facilities 

Facilities Deficiencies and Remediation: 

The BUSD Facilities were in major need of remediation at the start of the 2009 

school year. All aspects of classrooms were in poor condition from walls needing repair and painting, inoperable light fixtures, stained and dirty carpets, and broken 

furniture. Generally, our school grounds were not maintained and in poor condition 

as well. Playgrounds, common areas, and athletic fields and facilities were not up 

to standard. Our students were not being provided a learning environment conducive to effective learning. 

The following changes resulted in aesthetically pleasing and safe learning environments for students, teachers & staff, and parents: 

a. Hired a facilities director and grounds lead with expertise in the areas of facilities & grounds maintenance and repair. 

28 

b. Strategically leveraged our Impact Aid, ARRA funds, and donation funds in 

the development of a comprehensive plan to fix all existing facilities and 

grounds and to develop maintenance schedules including: 

• Purchase of new furniture aligned to our teaching practices (desks and tables easily movable for cooperative learning activities). 

• Replaced carpet in all classrooms. 

• Painted all classrooms and in the process of painting the exterior of schools. 

• Repaired classroom fixtures such as clocks and pencil sharpeners. 

• Repaired roofs and replaced ceiling tiles. 

• Designed and built a playground for the elementary school. 

• Brought all athletic fields and courts up to Arizona Interscholastics remoteness Association standards so that our student athletes were provided safe 

venues to practice and play games. This included the purchase of score boards 

in several venues that didn’t have them. 

c. Provide department specific training and support for all employees in accordance with industry standards. 

Information and Technology 

Information and Technology Deficiencies and Remediation: 

BUSD had several areas of concern regarding its ability to deliver IT services both 

as a management system and as an instructional tool. Because this area required 

a high level of expertise, a new IT director was hired with the expertise and school 

district experience needed to resolve a variety of key issues. The following provides 

details of the deficiencies and how they were remediated. 

Internet Service 

The district had only 9 mbps of bandwidth total during the 2010–11 school year. 

The bandwidth was shared with the district office and all three school sites. Each 

school site had only 1.5 mbps each. During the 2012–2013 school year the district 

was upgraded to 200 mbps; 100 mbps at the district office/middle school, 50 mbps 

at the elementary school, and 50 mbps at the high school. 

In November 2011, the district procured Internet services using the E-Rate process. No vendors were able to deliver services at the 1000 mbps rate. The only service 

provider that could promise more than 50mbps was the Tohono O’odham Utility Authority (TOUA). The district applied for E-Rate funding and asked the vendor to deliver service at the earliest available time allowable using E-Rate funding. At the 

time, TOUA did not have any fiber based Internet services. After many conversations and pressure on TOUA, Fiber Optic services became available to BUSD in July 

2012. BUSD was the first TOUA customer able to order fiber optic Internet services. 

However, the district was not able to fully switch to the fiber optic Internet services 

until December 2013. This was due to TOUA’s inability to provide reliable service. 

E-Rate Funding 

Baboquivari School District had not received E-Rate funding between FY 2008 

and FY 2011. This was due to procurement and filling deadline issues. BUSD 

brought in a consulting vendor to help correct issues and get the district back in 

good standing with the E-Rate Program. The district is now reimbursed for 90 percent of all communications services. This includes Internet, telephone, cellphones, 

websites, internal connections, and maintenance of internal connections. 

Infrastructure 

The district infrastructure was not fully operational through the 2010–11. The 

district had purchased a wireless solution and it was never configured or fully installed. Access points were mounted and no cabling was present to power up the 

wireless access points. Network switches were connected at lower than ideal speeds 

using copper and not fiber. Some network switches were broken and not replaced. 

Servers were also in need of upgrades and replacement parts. 

During the fall of 2012 the district procured a full district-wide infrastructure 

overhaul using E-Rate funding. Funding was approved in February 2013. The district completed work at all sites in January 2014. E-Rate funds were only used at 

the middle school. School Improvement Technology Grant funding was used at the 

elementary and high schools. Using the school Improvement Technology Grants allowed the district to get the project fully funded. E-Rate funding only covers 90 percent of any costs. 

Hardware 

The district purchased 800 student laptops during the 2008–09 school year. Only 

450 of those devices were deployed in 2010. Many of the deployed laptops did not 

have sufficient wireless coverage to be used effectively. After the infrastructure was 

installed and repaired all the devices were deployed. 

29 

Power 

Power is still a big concern. Most of the network infrastructure had no battery 

backup power. The district infrastructure now has at least 2 hours of runtime and 

can support wireless devices and phones for that time. 

Support 

The district now has effective and responsive tech support. District technicians 

are able to work with staff and ensure that all district technology is in good working 

order. Also, the district now has a technology integration specialist. This position 

supports teachers directly in effective technology and content integration. 

Finance 

Finance Deficiencies and Remediation: 

Effective budgeting processes are essential to the successful operation of a school 

district. BUSD receives funding from State Aid, Federal Entitlement Funds, and 

Federal Impact Aid. However, during the 2009–10 school year it became evident 

that BUSD didn’t have defined budgeting processes with a clear focus toward supporting schools. The major areas of concern included: 

a. Lack of a defined budget development processes. 

• Decisions were made arbitrarily by the District’s business manager and superintendent without input from key stakeholders including principals, department directors, and parents 

• The school board had little to no involvement in the development of the 

budget, other than final approval. 

b. Lack of effective and efficient budget management processes. 

c. Out of compliance with State of Arizona Audit requirements. In the 2009– 

10 school year, auditors were unable to complete discovery due to a lack of 

established general budgeting procedures, therefore, the completion of audits 

were delayed over a four-year period. 

The following measures were taken to remediate these deficiencies: 

a. Hired an effective school business manager with 20 years of successful experience in Arizona public schools. 

b. Developed an inclusive budget development process that included the formation of a budget committee comprised of teachers, parents, principals, and 

district administrators. 

c. The Governing Board is provided a detailed budget report at a regular board 

meeting once a month. 

d. A study session is held annually with the Governing Board to review budget 

recommendations and to gather input from members. 

e. Upgraded budgeting and payroll software. 

f. Provide ongoing training to the business department staff. 

g. Developed best practice business procedures. 

h. Hired a reputable school auditing firm that assisted in bringing BUSD into 

compliance with the Arizona Auditing requirements. 

Meaningful Partnerships 

Key to the success of BUSD is the establishment of positive and meaningful partnerships and relationships with key stakeholders including the Tohono O’odham Nation, higher education institutions, parents, and the various wraparound service 

agencies on the Tohono O’odham Nation. BUSD strongly believes that if we are not 

successful with this component, our transformation efforts will plateau and sustainable effective learning will not occur. 

The Tohono O’odham Nation 

BUSD believes that a strong partnership with the Tohono O’odham Nation’s leadership is a key component in the sustainability of an effective school system. Of particular mention is BUSD’s efforts to create a C–20 Council on the Tohono O’odham 

Nation that brings key decision makers together to support the education of children (the C in this case refers to conception). Such a group will create the necessary 

collective efficiencies, not only for the benefit of BUSD, but the greater community 

as well. All service agencies and departments on the Tohono O’odham Nation will 

develop the much needed coordinated health and wellness approach so urgently 

needed. 

As an example, it is critical that a priority is placed on providing an expecting 

female the needed wraparound services she requires so that both mom and the baby 

have a healthy pregnancy term. There are two primary reasons for this: First, the 

30 

expected female needs guidance and support in maintaining a healthy pregnancy 

from prenatal care to awareness on what the dos and don’ts are during a pregnancy. 

For example, the incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has a direct correlation on 

the child’s health and cognitive abilities for the rest of his/her life. Expecting moms 

need to have knowledge of this and know exactly where and how to get the necessary assistance. Unfortunately, the standard of prenatal care for Native American 

women is not at the level recommended by the medical profession. Again, there is 

a need to provide all the necessary services to ensure that expecting moms have 

knowledge and access to the appropriate prenatal care and information associated 

with a healthy pregnancy. Secondly, brain research clearly informs us that the brain 

is about 80 percent fully developed by the age of three and to a great extent, the 

level of prenatal services are highly correlated to the cognitive developmental levels 

of children in Tribal environments. Sadly, there exists a crisis surrounding this matter. 

Just as critical in the C–20 Concept is the quality of early childhood services and 

education provided to children in our community. The research on learning suggests 

that children who are exposed to strategic learning opportunities and that are provided the appropriate levels of nutrition and wellness care are more apt to succeed 

academically. Unfortunately, this too is in a state of crisis and requires a significant 

overhaul. For example in BUSD, we do not see a correlation with kindergarten readiness with those students that are enrolled in the Tohono O’odham Nation’s Head 

Start Programs and those that are not. 

The current levels of wraparound services and safety nets for children of all ages 

fall short of providing the quality of services needed to support BUSD students and 

their families . The C- 20 Concept is intended to support the necessary changes that 

lead to the delivery of effective wraparound services and the development of the 

much needed safety nets for all BUSD children and their families. However, extensive work is required to reach this goal. 

Generally, BUSD is garnering the needed support from the Nation’s leadership 

through the following means: 

1. Regular meetings with the Human Resource Development Committee of the 

Legislative Council. BUSD provides progress reports and updates on program 

changes in addition to the implementation of new programs. 

2. Annual Progress Report presentations to the Legislative Council. 

3. Established meetings with directors and leaders of the Tohono O’odham Nation’s key departments including Education, Behavioral Health, Recreation, 

Police Department, Fire Department, and Public Safety, along with the leadership of the Indian Health Services. This effort is continuously improving 

as BUSD strives to build collaborative partnerships and relationships with 

the various agencies on the Tohono O’odham Nation. 

4. Periodic progress report presentations and meetings with the Chairman of 

the Tohono O’odham Nation. This is an area that continues to improve annually. 

5. BUSD’s direct involvement in the Circles of Care Grant that supports a coordinated model of the delivery of effective wraparound services and the development of safety nets for the Tohono O’odham Nation. 

Higher Education 

BUSD has established effective partnerships with several institutions of higher 

education including the University of Arizona, Pima Community College and the 

Tohono O’odham Community College. In particular the Tohono O’odham Community 

College (TOCC) and BUSD have established a comprehensive partnership to support 

the needs of students. Key components of this partnership include: 

1. Monthly collaborative meetings with BUSD and TOCC leadership. 

2. Implementation of a dual credit programs where juniors and seniors earn college credit for Math and English classes taught at Baboquivari High School. 

3. TOCC and BUSD are partners in the delivery of a United States Department 

of Education i3 Innovation Grant that provides students in K–12 with AVID. 

AVID is a college preparation system that infuses key strategies and expectations in the development of a college going culture. 

4. An MOU that ensures that both institutions will maintain a collaborative 

partnership in providing education to the Tohono O’odham in Preschool 

through Community College. 

Additional information related to BUSD’s partnership with the University of Arizona is described later in this document. 

31 

Parent Involvement and Engagement 

BUSD has made the involvement of parents, guardians, and caretakers a priority. 

The research and literature in educational best practices suggests that perhaps the 

most important component of student success is the level of parental involvement 

in their children’s education. BUSD has implemented several key strategies and 

programs in supporting our parents, guardians, and caretakers involvement in their 

children’s education. Among these are: 

1. POP Academy: The Power of Parents Academy is designed to engage parents 

at two critical levels in the lives of their children as described below: 

a. Provide a series of classes over 15 hours in seven weeks on topics that affect 

their children’s lives and that impact their quality of life now and in the future. This includes the following topics: 

• How to navigate the school system successfully (communicating with teachers, principals, and staff). 

• How to setup homework expectations that lead to effective learning. 

• Knowledge and awareness of social issues that influence their children 

(gangs, controlled substances, sexual activity, etc.). 

• Basic life skills such a financial literacy, how to maintain your vehicle, how 

to repair leaky faucets. 

• Topics surrounding health and wellness. 

b. Enforce to parents the significance of their own education by building the 

selfdetermination that they too can become lifelong learners. Their attendance not only helps them but they also become role models for their children. 

This in itself is perhaps the most significant aspect of the POP Academy: 

children seeing their parents attend school. 

BUSD is collaborating with TOCC in the development of programs that will encourage parents in returning to school to earn a GED and/or to continue their 

education. Unfortunately, nearly 50 percent of the adults on the Tohono 

O’odham Nation have not graduated from high school and very few have college 

degrees. 

The POP Academy will eventually assist our parents in continuing their education as follows: 

• Those that successfully complete the POP Academy will earn a college credit through TOCC. 

• Those who have not graduated from high school will be encouraged to enroll 

in TOCC’s Adult Education Program leading to a GED. 

• Those who have graduated from high school will be encouraged to enter a 

certificated program, an associates degree or a transfer program. 

An educated populace results in an improved quality of life for all members of 

the Tohono O’odham Nation. Certainly, as research suggests, there is a correlation in students’ academic success and the levels of educational attainment of 

their parents. The POP Academy is designed to capitalize on this. 

2. BUSD strongly believes in the significance of parent involvement and engagement and has dedicated funding that provides a fulltime district level administrator and a parent involvement specialist at each campus. 

a. The district Coordinator of Parent/Community Involvement & Engagement 

oversees all related programs and events associated with this effort. 

• Provides training and support for the site-level parent involvement specialist. 

• Plans and implements district level programs including the Back to School 

Celebration and the Miracle on Main Street Winter Festival. The Back to 

School Celebration is a comprehensive effort that brings over 1,000 students and parents to a community type fair. Students receive haircuts, 

backpacks and supplies, and participate in fun activities; while parents are 

provided classes in a variety of school and community related topics. The 

Miracle on Main Street provides and brings a community building approach 

where the schools and community agencies provide educational activities 

for students, school and community leaders perform Christmas carols, and 

students and adults are provided culturally relevant stories. Well over 

1,000 meals are served to those in attendance. 

• Oversees the POP Academy. 

• Oversees the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program. 

32 

• Leads BUSD’s community outreach efforts including newsletters, 

communique ́s, and community meetings. 

b. The site level Parent Involvement Specialists work directly with teachers and 

principals in all aspects of engaging parents including: 

• Conducting home visits as needed. 

• Providing transportation to parents to school events/meetings and to school 

related appointments with external agencies. 

• Making referrals for students and families to wraparound agencies as needed. 

• Participating in a variety of parent meetings. 

• Translating for parents as needed. 

• Overseeing their sites clothing bank. 

• Collaborating with the district coordinator in the delivery of all parenting 

classes and events. 

3. Generally BUSD expects parents, guardians, and caretakers to be fully involved and engaged in their child’s education. BUSD has established a compact that requires the following of parents: 

a. Read to and/or with their child at least 20 minutes daily. 

b. Spend at least 10 minutes daily having a meaningful conversation about 

school with their child. 

c. Volunteer at a minimum 4 hours monthly in their child’s school. This can include participation in the POP Academy and other parent classes and events 

throughout the year. 

d. Attend the back to school event where students are provided backpacks 

school uniforms, shoes, haircuts, etc. 

e. Attend Parent/Teacher conferences as scheduled twice per year or as needed. 

Governance 

BUSD strongly believes in providing a highly effective system of support for the 

Governing Board that leads to highly effective decisionmaking. 

a. The superintendent maintains communication with each board member in 

matters related to the operation of the school district. In BUSD this includes 

regular written updates along with communication on pertinent information 

as it occurs. 

b. The superintendent provides the Governing Board with the necessary information that prepares members for effective decisionmaking at official meetings. This includes the dissemination of critical information in the board 

packet delivered timely in advance of scheduled board meetings so as to provide adequate time for review. Additionally, in BUSD, the superintendent 

meets and/or calls each board member in the days prior to the board meeting 

to provide additional information and/or clarification to items and supporting 

documents as needed. 

c. The superintendent ensures that timely and effective training is provided to 

the Governing Board and its members. Additionally, an annual retreat is held 

where the Governing Board reviews previous years goals and outcomes, and 

sets the same for the subsequent year. 

Teaching and Learning 

BUSD is highly committed to providing a rigorous learning environment for each 

of its students. To this end, BUSD has implemented a teaching and learning approach based on best practices that focus on student achievement. We also believe 

that the most significant aspect of learning is direct instruction and as such, we 

have focused on improving our teachers preparation and readiness to deliver a rigorous curriculum that leads to students being next year ready at the completion of 

the current school year, and of course, college and/or career ready upon graduation 

from high school. BUSD believes that the most influential members of the district 

are its principals and that its teachers are the most important. BUSD also recognizes that the development of highly effective learning environments can only occur 

through individuals that have a clear purpose, unwavering passion, and a powerful 

persistence. BUSD has such a team of professionals in its teaching staff, administrative team, and support staff. 

As previously mentioned in this document, BUSD has implemented a comprehensive approach at providing training and support to all members of the instructional 

team including teachers, para-professionals, principals, and district staff and adminVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
33 

istration. Specifically, the instructional team participates in a focused effort that includes: 

1. Professional Development (PD) for the Instructional Team 

a. 24 days contractually required PD in 2013 and 19 days in 2014 (these days 

were scheduled prior to the school year and after the school year, with three 

days occurring during the school year; reduction in PD days attributed to decreased funding). 

b. Additionally, job-embedded training and support is provided throughout the 

year in reading and math. Trainers model lessons and strategies, observe 

teachers, and provide immediate feedback and coaching. 

c. Site level instructional coaches provide differentiated professional development and support to teachers aligned to principal observations and district 

walkthrough observations (described in the Human Resource section of this 

document). 

d. The following topics and areas continue to be the focus of the BUSD Professional Development Program: 

• Common Core Standards 

• Tohono O’odham Culture 

• Beyond Textbooks (curriculum mapping, lesson planning, and benchmark 

assessments) 

• Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching 

• Classroom Management 

• Technology as an Instructional Tool 

e. All teachers new to the district and all teachers in their second year in the 

district are required an additional 16 hour of professional development in the 

BUSD New Teacher Induction Program. Teachers receive extended training 

in the areas highlighted above. This is part of our efforts at ensuring that 

all teachers receive the same level of training and support in the expected 

pedagogy and curriculum. 

Additionally BUSD has set very clearly articulated expectations for teachers that 

are employed in our schools. The teacher contract includes the following language 

that articulates expectations: 

1. The Teacher agrees to teach such grade, grades or subjects and to perform 

such other professional duties as may be assigned by the Governing Board 

or its administrators including but not limited to: 

a. Meet the needs of all students through the use of the District’s adopted instructional strategies, programs and procedures so that all students are given 

every reasonable opportunity to achieve one year’s growth in the course(s) 

taught. This includes, but is not limited to the use of AVID strategies, Success for All, and all other adopted materials. 

b. Integrate the provided technology into everyday instruction in alignment 

with the District’s grade level and/or content expectations. 

c. Maintain a classroom environment that promotes effective learning through 

the use of best practice routines and procedures, displaying exemplary student work, posting learning objectives prominently visible to students in 

grade level appropriate language, maintaining bulletin boards/displays consistent with current instructional themes, and that promotes the Tohono 

O’odham Culture. 

d. Maintain an adherence to professional growth by attending all District approved professional development during the term of the contract. 

e. Collaborate with grade-level and/or content teachers at a minimum of once 

per week in the development of lessons, units, and activities in alignment 

with the District’s curriculum. 

f. Collaborate with grade-level and/or content teachers and other school personnel at a minimum of once per week in the disaggregation of student 

achievement, attendance, and behavioral data so as to develop and implement differentiated instruction as needed. 

g. Meet District expectations in the use of school-wide and classroom quantitative data that measures student academic progress in alignment with the 

Arizona Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness 

h. Complete lesson plans weekly in alignment with the district’s curriculum and 

post electronically utilizing the District’s lesson plan template. 

34 

i. Maintain accurate records in Infinite Campus, which are updated and posted 

as required by the District. This includes, but is not limited to, grade book, 

grades, attendance, and correspondence. 

j. Develop and design a teacher web page that includes, but is not limited to, 

teacher welcome page, lesson plans, curriculum, assignments, and links. k. 

Provide timely communication to each of your student’s parents or guardians 

at a minimum once per quarter or as needed. 

l. Recognize the significance of the Tohono O’odham Culture in teaching and 

learning and, as such, demonstrate proficiency through its integration into 

daily instruction in alignment with the District’s expectations. 

As part of the issuance of contracts, each principal meets with each teacher and 

reviews the language to ensure that there is full understanding and agreement of 

the district’s expectations. 

BUSD has implemented the following key initiatives over the past four years that 

will enable students to be next year ready upon the completion of the current school 

year and college and career ready upon graduation from high school. The selection 

of these initiatives was strategic having been preceded by careful review, research, 

and dialogue with principals, teachers, and school improvement specialist. 

• Common Core Implementation—Though required in Arizona through a phasein over three years, BUSD implemented fully prior to the full implementation 

time period. The Common Core Standards provide the rigor our students need 

to successfully be college ready. 

• Success For All Reading—provides a very structured program with intensive 

professional development and training. As a result, BUSD teachers have become 

effective teachers of reading. SFA also provides fluid leveled groupings that support struggling as well as proficient readers. 

—IOES was labeled as an SFA Ambassador School as a result of significant 

growth in reading. 

• Power/Teaching Math Framework—Similar to SFA, this framework provides effective instructional strategies incorporated with our math adoptions. 

• Beyond Textbooks—Provides BUSD teachers for a framework for curriculum 

mapping, teacher resources for lesson planning, and assessment calendars. 

• Increased rigor in graduation requirements. The BUSD Curriculum provides 

our students with a much deeper understanding of the Common Core Standards 

in all courses. Additionally, high school students are offered the necessary honors courses through direct instruction on campus, online courses, and dual credit courses through TOCC and Pima Community College. 

• Data Driven Response to Intervention 

—Effective use of Formative & Summative Assessments at all levels 

—GALILEO weekly and quarterly assessments 

—Interventions provided during school, afterschool, Saturdays, and all Intercessions 

• BUSD added 23 school days to the school year in 2011. The additional days was 

an increase to the 157 day school year up to that point. 

More specifically in our goal of students being college ready upon graduation from 

high school, BUSD has implemented the Wisdom Project. The Wisdom project is a 

joint effort with TOCC under a United States Department of Education i3 Innovation Grant in the delivery of a college readiness system. As mentioned previously, 

the implementation of the AVID system is funded through this grant. AVID, Advancement Via Individual Determination, is a college readiness system for elementary through higher education that is designed to increase school-wide learning and 

performance. AVID accelerates student learning, uses research based methods of effective instruction, provides meaningful and motivational professional learning, and 

acts as a catalyst for systemic reform and change (AVID, 2014). Beginning in elementary school the WICOR method, which stands for writing, inquiry, collaboration, 

organization, and reading becomes the standard for learning. AVID curriculum is 

used in AVID elective classes and in content-area classes. These basic skills are research-based strategies that help prepare students for college. 

Additional components of the Wisdom Project are: 

• Dual Credit Courses through TOCC and Pima Community College. 

• Focused visits to university and college campuses where students are introduced to specific fields of study and professions. 

35 

• Teen Town Hall where students plan and implement a forum where community 

leaders from throughout the Tohono O’odham Nation are invited to respond to 

specific student issues, concerns, and questions. 

• On campus college fairs and presentations where students receive information 

from colleges from throughout Arizona and the United States. 

Components of the Wisdom Project currently in development are: 

• Internships where high school students will be placed in degree required job experiences. 

• The Compact to Academic Success (CAS). BUSD is finalizing this unique program with the University of Arizona (UA) that provides Baboquivari High 

School Students with the following based on very specific requirements while 

in high school: 

1. Automatic Admission to the UA. 

2. ‘‘Front of the line’’ status for financial aid and scholarship opportunities. 

3. Dedicated retention services while enrolled at the UA 

BHS students must: 

1. Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher 

2. Maintain an attendance rate of 95 percent or higher 

3. Must be involved in extra-curricular activities 

4. Model exemplary citizenship 

5. Successfully complete all prerequisite courses 

6. Meet ACT or SAT requirements 

Our goal is to expand this program to other universities in Arizona in subsequent 

years. 

Next Steps 

Additional efforts are currently in development and scheduled for implementation 

for the 2014- 15 school year: 

• BUSD is adding an additional 20 days to the 180 day school year currently in 

place. 

• Implementing a digital program: 

—All math and reading materials at the elementary school will be fully digital 

—The middle school and high school will be fully digital 

—Each student will be issued a take home tablet that will have all materials 

as listed above on their tablets 

—Each classroom will have a 75’’ HD monitor with a touch overlay that will 

permit the teacher and students to manipulate it with their finger. Additionally, the teacher and students will have the capability of manipulating 

the 75’’ HD monitor from their tablet. 

—This will create a true 21st Century learning environment that prepares 

students not only for college, but also for the exponentially moving technological world. This will permit our students to develop skill sets and 

foundational knowledge of 21st century possibilities. 

• Moving to a School-wide III budgeting process that permits the blending of all 

entitlement funds with State aid. 

• Development of a Foundation that will support scholarships for students, additional educational programs, and increased salaries for teachers and staff. 

The development of a Superstar Teacher salary schedule based on specific criteria 

aligned to student achievement and leadership. Teachers successfully meeting this 

criteria are moved to a ‘‘master level’’ pay rate significantly higher than the current 

salary schedule. 

Closing 

BUSD is committed toward meeting its obligation of providing a comprehensive 

learning environment that leads to college and career readiness for our students. 

Over the past four years, BUSD has had courageous conversations with all key 

stakeholders and has taken the courageous actions resulting in improved outcomes 

for students. Though we celebrate these successes, we recognize the need toward 

continued improvement and will continually strive to do what is best for our students. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share the challenges and successes on BUSD’s Journey to Success and welcome further discussion. 

36 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gish? 

STATEMENT OF BRENT D. GISH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INDIAN IMPACTED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GISH. Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for the 

opportunity to come before you today. 

My name is Brent Gish. I serve as Executive Director of the National Indian Impacted Schools Association, commonly known as 

NIISA. Prior to accepting this position, I was privileged to work as 

a teacher and school administrator at two of Minnesota’s federally 

impacted Indian land school districts for nearly 40 years. 

The Impact Aid Program, established by Congress in 1950 and 

administered through the Department of Education, provides Federal funds for public school operations that otherwise would have 

been provided by local tax revenues but for the presence of Federal 

property. 

The program provides funding for eligible districts enrolling federally-connected children. My comments will focus on the challenges faced by Indian land school districts and the children they 

serve. 

There are roughly 1,350 public school districts nationwide receiving impact aid payments; 635 of those are Indian land school districts. These districts enroll over 941,000 federally-connected students, of which approximately 115,000 reside on Indian treaty, 

Federal trust and Alaska Native Claims Act lands. 

The Impact Aid Program supports educational services to over 12 

million children enrolled in eligible districts. The Impact Aid Program provides a formal link between tribal governments and public 

school districts. 

Through the Indian policies and procedures written into current 

law, tribes and parents of Indian students are afforded the opportunity to provide valuable insight and recommendations on whether Indian students are equal participants in all district programs 

and school activities. 

Should they determine the need, they may request changes in 

school programs and content. If the discussions reach an impasse, 

the impact aid statute provides for an administrative appeal process. NIISA supports the IPP process in current law. 

The timeliness of impact aid payments is a major concern for eligible districts. Boards of education and school administrators must 

make very difficult and legally binding decisions regarding programming and personnel for the upcoming year without knowing 

how much impact aid funding they will be receiving, trusting that 

Congress will pass an appropriations bill in a timely manner. 

For some heavily impacted school districts, impact aid can represent 50 percent or more of their operating funds. It cannot be 

overemphasized how critical impact aid is in providing basic, dayto-day educational services. 

With the current Federal budget deficit and the Budget Control 

Act of 2011 passed to address the budget shortfall, we acknowledge 

the challenges that forward funding would present to the Congress. 

37 

However, we believe the rationale for it is sound, is in the best interest of Indian land students and tribal communities. 

The implementation of the Budget Control Act hit Indian land 

school districts in Fiscal Year 2013, a year before most Federal 

education programs. Faced with a reduction in impact aid funding, 

our districts sought ways to absorb the loss with the least negative 

impact on our students. 

These cuts came at a particularly critical juncture in school reform and restructuring efforts. A high percentage of Indian land 

schools are in various stages of school improvements. Evidencebased programs and strategies have been adopted to close the 

achievement gaps, improve attendance, increase graduation rates 

and advance culturally relevant practices and strategies in preK– 

12 classrooms, the ultimate goal being to prepare our students for 

tomorrow’s workforce and higher education. If we are to be successful, federally impacted Indian land districts need adequate resources to get it done. 

NIISA gratefully acknowledges that for Fiscal Year 2014, Congress restored impact aid funding levels to near pre-sequestration 

levels. We propose, however, a modest four percent increase for Fiscal Year 2015 which would allow Indian land districts to begin the 

recovery process due to loss and declining revenues, to invest in 

new technology, to rehire teachers and support staff, to implement 

more culturally relevant practices and classes, to upgrade facilities 

and more. 

The goal of each and every one of our districts is to become a 

high performing school district. We fervently believe that we can 

accomplish it, our school boards and administrators can make it 

happen with adequate resources, impact aid being one very critical 

element. 

Section 8007 of the law authorizes appropriations for school construction and facility maintenance. The amount appropriated in recent years has been grossly inadequate to address the backlog of 

need for facility replacement, renovation and maintenance of Indian land districts. 

The ability of Indian land districts to address facility needs varies but for many it is nearly impossible to secure the necessary 

bonding for construction or major renovation. It is urgent that Congress seek a solution for this critical need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gish follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENT D. GISH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INDIAN

IMPACTED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Members of the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf 

of the National Indian Impacted Schools Association and the National Association 

of Federally Impacted Schools. 

My name is Brent Gish. I serve as the Executive Director of the National Indian 

Impacted Schools Association (NIISA). Prior to accepting this position, I was privileged to work as a teacher and school administrator in two of Minnesota’s federally 

impacted Indian land school districts for nearly 40 years. 

The NIISA organization is an advocacy organization working on behalf of some 

635 public school districts that enroll children whose residence is located on Indian 

treaty, federal trust, or land conveyed under the Alaska Claims Settlement Act. 

These parcels of land are exempt from taxation, the primary sources of operating 

38 

1 Alaska—$132.6 M; Arizona—$160.3 M; Hawaii—$31.8 M; Idaho—$4.8 M; Minnesota—$18.1 

M; Montana—$40.7 M; Nebraska—$15.6 M; North Dakota—$23.8 M; New Mexico—$86.1 M; 

South Dakota—$47.8 M; Washington—$39.3 M; Wyoming—$8.6 M 

funds for public schools. The long term goal of NIISA is to secure full funding of 

the Impact Aid program. 

The Impact Aid Program, established by Congress in 1950 and administered 

through the Department of Education, provides federal funds for public school operations that would have otherwise been provided by local tax revenues but for the 

presence of federal property. It should be noted that the Impact Aid Program also 

provides funding for districts enrolling children whose parents serve in the armed 

forces residing either on or off military installations, federal low rent housing and 

civilians that live on or work on federal property. My comments will focus on the 

challenges faced by Indian lands school districts. 

As you are no doubt very keenly aware, approximately 93 percent of American 

Indian and Alaska Native elementary and secondary students attend public schools 

with the remaining 7 percent of students attending Bureau of Indian Education/Bureau of Indian Affairs and privately funded schools. 

Roughly 1,350 public school districts nationwide receive Impact Aid payments. 

These districts enroll over 941,000 federally impacted students of which approximately 115,000+ reside on Indian/trust/Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act 

lands. The revenues generated by federally impacted students through the Impact 

Aid program supports educational services to over 12,000,000 children enrolled in 

eligible districts. Impact Aid is non categorical funding and therefore can be utilized 

for any allowable expenditure as authorized by state education agencies and the 

local school board. This is but one example of efficient and effective utilization of 

federal programs, dollars generated by a segment of the student population benefiting the whole student community. 

Every state represented on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs receives substantial amounts of federal Impact Aid. In FY 2013, estimated Basic Support payments amount to nearly $610,000,000 or half of the total Impact Aid appropriation 

of $1.2+ billion. 1 It should also be noted that in addition to basic support funding, 

eligible districts receive funding for children with special needs and facilities upkeep 

and repair. 

For Indian Country, the Impact Aid program is a vital element of public policy 

for providing every child with a free and appropriate public education or as is the 

focus of this hearing, ‘‘Cultivating the Next Generation’’. Signed into law in 1950, 

the Impact Aid program is one of the oldest federal education programs. The land 

base that generates Impact Aid consists of 53 million acres of Indian trust land in 

the lower 48 states and 44 million acres included in the Alaska Native Claims Act. 

The Impact Aid program is but one example of the United States government fulfilling its trust responsibility—in this case, for education—for American Indian and 

Alaska Native peoples. 

The Impact Aid program provides a formal link between tribal governments and 

public school districts serving students residing on Indian lands by requiring school 

districts to consult with tribes and members of tribal communities. Federally impacted school districts must consult with tribes and Indian communities to develop 

Indian Policies and Procedures (IPP). Through this process, tribes and parents of 

Indian students are afforded the opportunity to provide valuable insights and recommendations on whether Indian students are ‘‘equal participants’’ in all district 

programs and school activities. Further, tribes and parents may request changes in 

school programs and content. Should discussions reach an impasse, the Impact Aid 

statute provides for an administrative appeal process. We support the processes established through the Indian Policies and Procedures provision in current law. 

The timeliness of Impact Aid payments is a major concern for eligible districts. 

Impact Aid is not a forward funded program as are other major education programs, 

e.g., Title I, Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and Bureau of Indian Affairs/ 

Bureau of Indian Education, etc. Boards of Education and school administrators 

must make very difficult decisions regarding programming and personnel for the upcoming school year without knowing how much Impact Aid funding they will be receiving. For some heavily impacted school districts, Impact Aid revenues can represent 50 percent or more of its operating funds. It cannot be over-emphasized how 

critical Impact Aid is in providing basic day-to-day educational services. 

Forward funding of the Impact Aid program would be a major step forward, and 

long overdue I might add, in providing timely payments to school districts. With the 

federal current budget deficit and the Budget Control Act of 2011 to address deficit, 

we acknowledge the challenge that forward funding would present to Congress, howVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
39 

ever, we believe the rationale for it is sound and in the best interest of Indian lands 

students and tribal communities. 

The implementation of the Budget Control Act hit Indian lands school districts 

in FY 2013, a year before most other federal education programs. Faced with a reduction in Impact Aid funding, our districts sought ways to absorb the loss in funding in a variety of ways: reduced professional development; increased class size; deferred facility maintenance; reduced instructional staff; reduced support staff; reduced course offering including culturally relevant classes; reduced technology replacement and expanded student usage; close community based schools; reduce bus 

routes and extra curricular transportation, etc. These cuts came at a particularly 

critical juncture in school reform and restructuring efforts. A high percentage of Indian lands schools are in various stages of school improvement. Evidence based programs and strategies have been adopted to close the achievement gap, improve attendance, increase graduation rates and embed culturally relevant practices and 

strategies PreK–12 with the ultimate goal being to prepare our students for tomorrow’s workforce and higher education. If we are to be successful, federally impacted 

Indian land districts need adequate resources to get it done! 

To illustrate the challenge ‘‘the sequester’’ posed to Indian lands districts, school 

administrators offered the following insights and perspectives. One superintendent 

from an Oklahoma district stated his district has ‘virtually no local tax base’ from 

which to fall back on in times of budget reduction. It was further sighted by a superintendent serving students living on Navajo trust lands, ‘‘It is important for all students to have opportunities equitable to other districts with lucrative tax 

bases. . .To penalize students due to lack of a tax base and the failure of the federal 

government to pay its ‘fair share’ of the tax burden is a detriment. . .There are no 

alternative resources to make up to lost Impact Aid revenues. . .’’ Finally, a superintendent from a Nebraska school district put it this way in referencing the impact 

of the sequester, ‘‘We are planning for tough times instead of seeking ways to provide children with more opportunities to be successful in life’s endeavors.’’ Suffice 

it to say, the sequester hit federally impacted Indian land school districts hard and 

to the detriment of the students, their communities and reservations. 

The illustrations above reflect the impact of the sequester on FY 2013 and previous years of funding levels that fall short of keeping up with inflation. NIISA 

gratefully acknowledges that for FY 2014, Congress restored Impact Aid funding 

levels near pre sequester levels. NIISA wishes to express its deepest and most sincere appreciation. We are hopeful that future budgets and appropriations passed by 

Congress will reflect its obligation to adequately compensate federally impacted 

school districts for lost taxing authority. And, as we prepare for FY 2015, the Administration’s Budget request to Congress would increase the Department of Education’s/Impact Aid budget by 1.9 percent. Given the deficit our country is facing, 

one might conclude that increase is more than fair. However, I would point out that 

the Impact Aid program has not been fully funded since 1969 resulting in prorated 

payments to eligible districts. The NAFIS/NIISA request to Congress is for a modest 

4 percent increase. That would allow Indian land districts to begin the recovery 

process due to lost and declining revenues. . .to invest in new technology; to rehire 

teachers and support staff; to implement more culturally relevant practices and 

classes; to upgrade facilities; etc. The goal of each and every one of our districts is 

to become a high performing school district. We firmly believe it can be accomplished. Our school boards and administrators can make it happen with adequate 

resources, Impact Aid being one very critical element. 

Finally, Impact Aid is authorized under Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Section 8007 authorizes appropriations for school construction and facility maintenance. The amounts appropriated in recent years have been 

grossly inadequate to address the backlog of need for facility replacement, renovation and maintenance in Indian lands districts. The ability of the Indian land district to address facility needs varies but for many it is nearly impossible to secure 

the necessary bonding for construction or major renovation. For instance, there are 

80 school districts made up entirely of Indian lands and there are an additional 161 

school districts which have at least 50 percent Indian lands. The situation was not 

created by the Indian lands districts and needs a federal solution! 

Chairman Tester and Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank 

you for extending an invitation to the National Indian Impacted Schools Association 

to appear before this Committee. We look forward to working with you as legislation 

comes before Congress that affects children residing on federal trust, tribal and 

Alaska Claims Settlement lands. 

40 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gish, and thank all of you who 

provided testimony today. I appreciate your coming to Washington 

and providing your perspective on our children’s future. 

I will start with you, Ms. Broaddus. Senator Dorgan sat in the 

same seat last week. He told us about a roundtable that he held 

with Federal agency officials working on programs that affect families and children. His organization was doing something very, very 

similar in one instance on the same reservation without knowing. 

Everyone was working but no one was communicating because they 

didn’t know the other was there. 

You brought up the importance of communication and collaboration. Can you speak to some of the collaboration that OPI and Montana have been involved in, their success and why they were successful? 

Ms. BROADDUS. Coordination and collaboration in Indian Country 

is often more difficult and complicated than it seems with many 

funding streams and many different interests at the table. At the 

Office of Public Instruction, we found those partners are very willing, however, especially when it comes to issues surrounding children and families on our reservations. 

We have coordinated meetings from the very beginning of our 

school improvement grants. As an example, we asked that all partners come to the table to talk about this unique funding stream 

and the ways that Montana wanted to employ specific strategies 

for American Indian students. 

Everyone came to the table and brought forth really great ideas 

and really helped us as valuable partners in our overall process. 

The CHAIRMAN. We all know about the population figures. For 

example, in Montana, we have 3,600 individuals, about 7 percent 

of our general population is Native American, yet 17 percent of our 

male inmates are Native American, 21 percent are female. 

One thing I know contributes to higher incarceration is lack of 

educational attainment, yet in Montana—you can correct me if I 

am wrong—Native kids are expelled or suspended from schools at 

rates that far exceed their population, making it in some cases 

nearly impossible to complete their education. 

Why do you think this is happening in your personal opinion and 

is there anything we can do to help turn it around? 

Ms. BROADDUS. That is a very complicated but very good question. I agree with those specifics regarding suspension and expulsion rates across our State. In particular, I think a key issue at the 

heart of the matter is the difficult life experiences and the trauma 

that many American Indian students face. 

I think often behaviors described as discipline issues could often 

be solved in better addressing student mental and emotional needs 

and concerns. Through our Schools of Promise work we have 

trained our teachers and our administrators to understand those 

signs of trauma and PTSD in American Indian students and to better respond to give them tools they can use to decelerate those behaviors in our schools. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

I am going to go to you, Dr. Siqueiros. 

I think we are all impressed by the strides you have made in 

your school district. I think your experiences may help us develop 

41 

policies for under performing schools but it probably isn’t easy, as 

you just said. 

You took up the first challenge of realigning faculty and administration. How vigorous was the evaluation process and how did it 

affect instruction throughout that process? 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. At that particular point, my school district did 

not have a very successful comprehensive evaluation process in 

place. We took what was in current use and revised and modified 

it. We had expectations that all employees, particularly our teachers, would be evaluated. 

The evaluation process was not simply for dictating if you were 

coming back or not. Think about that for a moment. One of the 

things we implemented was that all teachers would be required to 

have the first evaluation be completed by October 15, the end of 

the first quarter. That allowed us, as an instructional team, to provide the necessary support for that teacher to improve. 

Secondly, it also gave us the opportunity within Arizona law that 

in the event we had to bring forward a statement of charges for 

dismissal, it gave us that opportunity as well. At that particular 

point, because of all those efforts and the efforts in terms of our 

teacher recruitment and retention efforts, we brought in a different 

type at the level of expertise for our school district that we had not 

seen before. 

That does a number of things. One, those highly effective teachers are not just graded in the classroom for direction instruction, 

but they are also role models for the neighboring teacher in the 

classroom next door. 

The CHAIRMAN. Amen, brother. 

I am impressed with your technological upgrades, although I actually come from rural America and I know that there is a lack of 

access to high speed Internet. Tell us more about your experience 

with the E–Rate process and how increased access to the Internet 

is affecting instruction in your schools? 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. I would tell you that we are incredibly challenged 

right now with bandwidth, accessibility and capacity within the 

Tohono O’odham Nation. The Nation received a large grant a few 

years ago and they are laying fiber optics throughout the Nation, 

in particular for the school systems and other government agencies. 

The capacity that the Tohono O’odham Utility Authority has 

right now is not sufficient to serve all of its customers. Given our 

technology emphasis moving forward, we would take about 50 percent of total capacity. 

We are in the process of utilizing our E–Rate funding possibilities—I hope I use the terminology correctly—we are going to dark 

fiber to that capacity by borrowing, hopefully, or renting the pipe 

that comes in from Tucson, Arizona to the Tohono O’odham Nation 

to purchase from a third vendor the necessary bandwidth for us to 

do the necessary work. That funding will come directly from our E– 

Rate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Vice Chairman Barrasso? 

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

I have questions for Mr. Hudson. 

42 

Your written testimony talks about teacher quality having about 

six times the positive effect on student learning in terms of other 

factors combined. Teacher quality improvement was instrumental 

in improving the reading proficiency at the Fremont County School 

in Ethete, Wyoming. The proficiency went up significantly in 

grades K–6. Can you elaborate on how teacher quality was increased in the Fremont County Schools? 

Mr. HUDSON. We decided to put an intensive reading program in 

place. Our teachers virtually had to be retrained and we had two 

lead teachers who were extensively trained and then that was distributed throughout the entire K–6 educational staffing. First 

teachers were trained and additionally, the paraprofessional educators we had were also trained. 

This meant whether you had the teacher or the paraprofessional, 

they were both capable of influencing the reading and eventually 

the mathematics instruction that was given to the students. Consequently, within those two areas, our test scores which had shown 

zero percent proficiency for I couldn’t even tell you how long, managed to come up to 60 percent proficiency within one year by virtue 

of having those lead teachers and the program they developed with 

folks from Sheridan, Wyoming. They instigated that and came up 

with some dramatic gains in reading. They weren’t quite as good 

in mathematics but there was a 40 to 50 percent increase. 

It has also increased the class time devoted to reading and mathematics. This came at the expense of cultural programs but since 

we are tested and evaluated in reading and mathematics, that is 

where we put our efforts. So far they have paid off. 

Later in the written testimony, you might note that it has not 

gone up from that 60 percent. It stagnates. It is like my colleague 

from New Mexico notes, for some reason it hits a platform and it 

is very difficult to drive it past that point. We are still trying but 

haven’t gotten much farther than that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Following up with that, we heard from Dr. 

Siqueiros that the teachers are most important, but the principals 

are most influential. I wonder if we can visit a little about that because recruitment and retention of qualified teachers are issues 

many tribal communities face. 

In your written testimony, you mentioned teachers are the educational resource for Indian children. Can you talk a bit about the 

role of the principal in helping with recruitment, with putting forward a program? You mentioned how intensive the retraining of 

the teachers was to have them prepare to help students in this way 

and maybe some of those retention strategies you are now going to 

use in Fremont County and whether maybe we can replicate those 

successes in other places. 

Mr. HUDSON. The principals are actually also a part of the staff 

training. They went through this and made sure the teachers attended the training sessions to start. Their evaluation programs 

also started to require they had to be proficient within reading and 

mathematics instruction as delivered to the students. That became 

part of their evaluation. 

Wyoming requires any initial teacher to be evaluated twice and 

a continuing contract teacher once a year. The evaluation was rewritten to include proficiency in their instruction in mathematics 

43 

and reading. Additionally, staff training was provided by the principals to any of the staff who came up with deficiency in providing 

these programs to the teachers and in turn, to give it to the students. 

From an administrative point of view, the principals have to be 

trained to do a proper evaluation of the staffers. It isn’t the same 

plain Jane evaluation as has been pointed out that says okay, 

we’ve done this, looks good, you’re doing a good job, you step in the 

classroom twice a year, then you walk out the door and the teacher 

goes back to what they were doing anyway. 

The staff has to be quarterly and directly evaluated as far as 

their capability of putting this program into effect. If they don’t put 

the program into effect, then it doesn’t happen and a lot of excuses 

start. The administrators have to develop and implement a very 

valid teacher evaluation platform. 

In turn, our superintendent, Ms. Michelle Hoffman—you are familiar with her—was the driving force to put this into place. She 

said this will be and when she says that, it is. 

Senator BARRASSO. You talked about parental involvement and 

also used the term trusted adults. Could you talk a bit about that? 

Mr. HUDSON. Primarily the Fremont County School districts, the 

adults are an integral part of the educational program because 

they are there at every school board meeting, not just for the required impact aid meeting. They have a valid input into the educational program of their students. 

We hold teacher-parent visitations at least twice a year on a formal basis and informally at any time so the students and parents 

can visit with the appropriate instructor and/or the administrator. 

Sometimes discipline gets to be an issue and because of that we 

have hired additional counselors to try and forestall such issues before such things as suspension or expulsion happen. Teacher involvement of educated parents is a very valid part of that program. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Heitkamp? 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Chairman Tester and Vice Chair 

Barrasso. 

One of the first hearings Senator Tester had as Chairman of this 

Committee was to talk about early childhood learning, helping prepare children before they come to your institutions to actually be 

ready to learn. I think as we look at how we can get beyond the 

plateau, we definitely believe that is a strategy that needs to be 

pursued. 

I want to take a moment and think about who you all represent 

and then think about a room full of kids because that is who you 

are really here representing. In your hands are the futures, their 

futures. Kids behind their parents, their grandmas and grandpas, 

usually will tell you the most significant and important people in 

their lives are their teachers. 

44 

That is why I think it is so important that we get that piece right 

and that we recruit the best and brightest of those teachers. We 

try to get kids more prepared to learn but I think you are absolutely headed in the right direction. 

I was listening to your story and said, man, I wish we could do 

that in our schools in North Dakota. I wish we could take your programs and introduce them in North Dakota. You kind of brushed 

over how you actually got to the recruitment of those teachers. Was 

it pay increases, was it additional time off, additional support, 

promises of more access to decision making in the classroom? What 

was it that you pitched to those new teachers that made such a 

compelling case that you were able to get folks to come to Indian 

Country and your school districts and teach? 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. Before I answer that question, I want to put an 

emphasis towards conception in early childhood education. We are 

incredibly concerned about what occurs at conception to a child and 

all the issues that exist on tribal lands. 

In our committee, we are emphasizing that very issue, that all 

the wraparound services need to come to the aid of that mom to 

prevent FSA and to prevent nutritional issues. Think about brain 

development for a second. The brain is almost fully developed by 

the age of three, somewhere between 80 and 85 percent, way before 

we get them in pre-school, kindergarten through 12th grade. It is 

important that we address that as well. The importance of wraparound services is critically important. 

In response to your question about teacher recruitment, we established two recruitment efforts, what we call a Teacher Recruitment I and Teacher Recruitment II. TR1 is the typical. We have 

an opening, post the position on our web page, we take and screen 

applications and invite people for interviews. With TR2, we go out 

and seek highly effective teachers, either word of mouth, they won 

an award, they come out in newspapers, something like that. We 

go out and recruit them very much like college football coaches recruit their star quarterback. We have taken that approach. 

Because we have leveraged our Federal impact aid dollars and 

our entitlement dollars and our local State aid, we have been able 

to raise our teacher starting salaries. We are now the highest paid 

school district in the State of Arizona as a result of leveraging 

those dollars to apply as much as possible back to the classroom. 

I need that great teacher to make this happen. 

Secondly, we also provide highly intensive, professional development programs that are in line with our curriculum and our expectations of instruction. We are also clear about those expectations 

when we sign or issue a contract. What we expect is fully spelled 

out in their contracts. 

Third, we take care of folks. It is not just about the money, it 

is not just about professional development. We work really hard to 

create an environment that is effective for them as much as it is 

for students. We spend a lot of time in indoctrination of the Tohono 

O’odham culture because the majority of our teachers are not Native Americans. 

Senator HEITKAMP. It sounds like it is absolutely the right direction. I appreciate your comments about don’t just look at early 

childhood, look at all those things. 

45 

Senator Murkowski and I have introduced a commission on the 

status of Native Americans bill because I think we have for too 

long siloed these issues. We are here talking about K–12 education, 

we talk about higher education and student attainment, we talk 

about public health, and we talk about housing. 

We talk about all these issues but at the end of the day, all we 

really want to do is create a much better environment from the 

word go for Native American children because that is going to elevate everyone. Too often, you have these struggles where we fight 

over what is really very few resources saying no, don’t put it in 

housing, it is much more important to put it in education; no, don’t 

put it here. 

If I could have another second, I want to talk about forward 

funding. We saw this during the shutdown. I can’t tell you the 

panic calls I got from schools who are already late in getting their 

payments saying now what, now what do I do? Should I lay off 

teachers, where do I go with this? 

I think everyone here who understands Indian Country understands the importance of forward funding. I will ask you what are 

the other things we can do on impact aid schools collaboratively beyond forward funding that could make a difference? I guess that is 

to you, Mr. Gish. 

Mr. GISH. We understand the difficulties that basically a double 

appropriation would bring and yet we want to continue to keep it 

at the forefront because these are the challenges that our school 

districts face. They are making a decision in March and April, negotiating with bargaining units and entering legal contracts with 

them. We have to make decisions based on the fact that Congress 

will act in good faith. 

If appropriations could at least come in a timely manner, even 

if it weren’t a forward funded program, if we could say we can 

count on that first payment coming in October after beginning our 

school year or even a month or two later, there have been times 

that we have had to face no funding until mid-winter, until February and March and that means our school districts are out there, 

borrowing money, paying interest and those dollars never return. 

Those are dollars taken away from our students. 

It would be critical and be a huge step forward if the appropriations would come and federally impacted schools are going to get 

their first payment as schools begin. That would be huge. 

On early childhood—if I might add on to that—it is the most fertile ground in Indian Country. If we have a child who comes to 

school ready to learn, we can do miracles but when our first step 

is to start remediation, it means catch up and some never will. 

Ms. Broaddus said we can’t do it alone. That is absolutely true. 

We need to be able to tap into every other resource in the tribe, 

early childhood programs or Head Start programs and put our 

heads together. We can do it together. 

If we knew we had an appropriation and could count on it in 

those early months in the fall, that would relieve a lot of the stress 

and pressure and those dollars that go out of our school systems 

to pay interest. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

46 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gish. You are right on early 

childhood. 

Senator Franken? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. First of all, I would like to recognize Mr. Gish. 

Thank you for being here. Thank you for all your years of work in 

education and in Indian Country. 

Chairman Tester, I would like to commend you for the series of 

hearings on Indian education issues. 

One of the things I want to talk about is school construction and 

school reconstruction. The Bug O Nay Ge Shig School on Leech 

Lake Reservation has been a project of mine, to get this thing reconstructed. It’s a pole barn. The kids actually have to leave the 

school if winds get above 40 miles an hour. 

We had a very tough winter this year and sometimes that means 

they have to leave the school when it is below zero and the wind 

is howling. They have to run to another structure about 400 yards 

away. There are all kinds of physical problems with this school. 

Mr. Siqueiros, you mentioned the renovation of school facilities 

in your district as part of your overall school improvement plan. 

Can you elaborate on how you were able to create a safe learning 

environment for your students and staff? 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. One of the things we have done effectively is 

through our finances and our budgeting processes. I mentioned in 

my opening statement we have been able to leverage all our funding sources highly effectively. 

We have been able to carry forward our impact aid dollars and 

keep them in reserves up to about $5 million annually. Initially, 

one of the things we did was reinvest those dollars and renovate 

some of our facilities that were in dire need of renovation from 

painting walls to replacing furniture, carpets, tiles, leaking roofs, 

on and on and on. 

One of the issues we are hoping to prevent reoccurring over and 

over is lack of maintenance of our facilities. That is our emphasis 

for our school district, that we provide the necessary resources in 

terms of not just the money but also people power that are knowledgable and expert and can do this for us. 

The unique circumstance that we face—because we are 60 miles 

outside of Tucson, Arizona—is if our air conditioning breaks, there 

is some additional cost to get folks out. 

Senator FRANKEN. How far out? 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. Sixty miles. That requires that we have trained 

personnel go in and change air filters, provide general maintenance 

and things like that. In Arizona, obviously we have extreme heat. 

Senator FRANKEN. Dry heat though, isn’t it? 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. Dry heat, absolutely. 

Senator FRANKEN. It’s cold in Minnesota, dry cold so it is not so 

bad. 

Mr. SIQUEIROS. Very true. 

That is the approach we have taken. However, our goal in the 

very near future is to add an additional wing at our elementary 

school that we will leverage with impact aid dollars. Hopefully, we 

47 

will be in a position to apply for some of those contract dollars from 

impact aid but we are also going to leverage some of that with 

some local funding opportunities from a program called First 

Things First that will allow us—we find matching dollars—up to 

$5 million to build an early childhood center for our school district. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think that is great. I met with the Tohono’s 

Chairman. Tohono is 60 miles from Tucson and that, as those of 

us who work on this Committee know, makes a difference in terms 

of the finances of a tribe. 

Leech Lake that I am referring to—Mr. Gish knows—is not near 

a big city like Tucson. It is near Bemidji, but a population center 

makes a difference in terms of how you can put aside the impact 

aid. 

Let me talk about mental health a bit because I had a roundtable in St. Paul with a lot of the different Bands and tribes in 

Minnesota on impact aid and what had to go by the wayside. We 

had one Band where they had to lay off their mental health people 

in the school and they had a couple suicides. 

I just think that mental health is tremendously important. I put 

forward a bill called Mental Health in Schools. We actually got 

about $55 million in funding in the last appropriations to do grants 

for schools that use a kind of model where they train everyone from 

the school bus driver to the teachers to the lunch ladies to recognize when a kid may have a mental health issue and to go to the 

counselor or school psychologist. These were some of the people 

who were lost when impact aid got cut. 

Having those professionals see the kid and get the kid access to 

community mental health services has made a huge difference. It 

is a great program and has made such a difference to kids and obviously to their families. 

Can you talk, Mr. Gish or anybody, about the needs in Indian 

Country in terms of mental health services and substance abuse 

treatment services? 

Mr. GISH. I like to give credit where credit is due. The credit goes 

to the Red Lake Nation where I spent the last six years of my career. My service came right after a very traumatic tragedy that occurred in the school and the community. 

As we looked at a recovery plan, we first looked at what are the 

characteristics of high performing schools and looked at research 

there. Foundational to that was just as we are speaking, that we 

need healthy learners. If we are going to make great progress and 

become a high performing school, we need healthy learners. 

Healthy learners make healthy schools. 

We got a multi-faceted approach but it began with the Red Lake 

Nation and their health services, specifically their mental health 

services. They provided our schools what we call cultural counselors, trained individuals, enrolled members of the Red Lake Band 

who were in each and every one of our schools. 

They became the first level of mental health services for a child. 

Maybe they were just angry some day and needed to talk to someone but it was someone who looked just like them, someone from 

their culture and someone who understood where they were coming 

from. They had resources above them and also had school psychologists who were available as well. 

48 

After that first level says no, this goes beyond me, this is more 

than just a little bit of a single incident or anger but going to people more technically trained and have the education and background. Then further, we had access to the Indian Health Service 

and the mental health division there where clinical psychologists 

and psychiatrists were available. 

Mr. Tester may remember this. We incorporated the services of 

the Native Children’s Trauma Center, which is at the University 

of Montana in Missoula. They came in and trained all staff that we 

had from our bus drivers to food service, to all of our teachers, to 

our administrators and board members as well so that we could 

recognize characteristics of children who are suffering. 

We have children where there is situational trauma they are 

going through but there is also historical trauma we are dealing 

with. It doesn’t simply go away over time so we developed strategies that we could incorporate. 

I will tell you after we had a suicide incident, we put into place 

a crisis management plan the next day ready to pay for students 

who were going to be traumatized by this and very upset. We discovered there was a suicide pact and six individuals were ready to 

follow through with that. The system worked. All six were placed. 

They went to the Indian Health Service, they were placed in a facility in Grand Forks, North Dakota. 

All six are walking this earth today. I will tell you I believe it 

is because the plan actually worked. I will give credit where credit 

is due. We had people who were intervening, services that worked 

and the system worked that time. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think we just need to do that both in Indian 

Country and nationwide. We need to really understand that about 

1 in 5 children nationwide will experience a serious mental health 

issue in their lives and about 70 to 80 percent never get diagnosed 

or treated. 

That is where we can save a lot of pain for a lot of people and 

a lot of families, a lot of kids and as a country, do ourselves an 

enormous favor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

I will say from my perspective, I think the greatest opportunity 

we have in education is early childhood. The greatest challenge we 

face as a country is with mental health. This is a problem that is 

not going to go away. It will only be remediated if we are able to 

do the right thing at the State, Federal and local levels. 

I just want to say thank you all for your testimony. I appreciate 

it very much. 

Mr. Hudson? Make it as concise as possible. 

Mr. HUDSON. One thing I would note in the Ethete and Fremont 

County areas, we have our grandparents of the students employed 

within the school district to address their needs. Not only are they 

out there basically as professionals but these are people they are 

related to and know and they can trust. Then they go on to the 

counselors. 

Secondly, as Mr. Gish pointed out in school construction, the cur- rent year, 2014, there is $17.6 million in impact aid out there for 

construction. That is about enough to build one 400 student eleVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
49 

mentary school in the whole United States, just one. Consequently, 

I tend to think it is somewhat under funded. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is an understatement. 

Thank you all for your testimony. There will be questions we are 

going to have to submit. We can talk with this panel literally until 

summer. Thank you all very much for your perspective. Thank you 

for your testimony and thank you for your commitment to be here. 

With that we will bring up our second panel which consists of 

Mr. Bill Mendoza, Executive Director, White House Initiative on 

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

Education. 

Mr. Mendoza, it is very good to have you here. I want to thank 

you for joining us today. 

As with the previous panel, I would ask that you try to keep your 

testimony to five minutes. Your entire written testimony will be 

made a part of the record. With that, welcome. 

We might do this as standard operating procedure. I appreciate 

your being willing to be on the second panel. One of the things I 

have found through my short tenure here is it gives me great perspective if I can hear what the folks on the ground are saying. I 

think as someone in the Administration, it can help you and everybody else too. 

Thank you for being here. You may proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MENDOZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON AMERICAN INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION 

Mr. MENDOZA. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Barrasso and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. 

While I am here as the Executive Director of the White House 

Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education, I am 

also an Oglala and Sicangu-Lakota product of public schools. I 

worked as a teacher and principal in public schools. My children 

attend public schools and have dedicated my professional life to improving and supporting the needs of all American Indians and 

Alaska Native Students. 

American Indian education is sometimes thought to mean education provided by Bureau of Indian Education funded schools. 

However, as every speaker has testified before you today, the reality is that the vast majority of Native students, 93 percent, attend public schools operated by their local school districts. 

These schools are located both on and off reservations and in 

urban centers. In many cases, there is coordination between local 

education and tribal communities. However, as we hear time and 

time again from tribal leaders and from educators, more often than 

not, these public schools exist without meaningful input from the 

tribal community. 

Absent this interaction, our public schools are less informed 

about culture and unique needs of our Indian students and Native 

students lack access to culturally approved curricula, educators 

with sufficient cultural training and adequate learning conditions. 

50 

These challenges may act as barriers to quality of education and 

contribute to poor outcomes for Native students. 

Native students comprise just one percent of the overall student 

population. However, according to the Department’s civil rights 

data collection, we know that Native students account for roughly 

seven percent of kindergarten students held back; two percent of 

school suspensions; and three percent of expulsions. 

In addition, males are suspended more than two times the rate 

of their peers and females are more than three times likely to be 

suspended as well. According to the National Center for Education 

statistics, Native students drop out at a rate nearly twice that of 

other students. They lag behind their peers in graduation rates and 

complete AP courses at a significantly lower rate than their peers. 

The NIES study report shows the achievement gap is widening 

in mathematics between Native students and their peers and reading scores remain stagnant. 

These figures are important because they paint a picture for the 

landscape of public education for our Native students. We must 

also be careful that we are drawing the proper conclusions. We 

need to dig deeper to better understand why these disparities exist 

so that we can put in place meaningful support that will improve 

outcomes for all students attending our public schools. 

The Department of Education provides support to these students 

in a variety of ways. There are large dollar programs such as Title 

I and impact aid that direct funds to communities with high concentrations of low-income students as well as communities affected 

by Federal activities. 

In addition, the department administers several formula grants 

and discretionary competitive grants designed to support the 

unique cultural and language needs of Native students, increase 

the number of American Indian and Alaska Native teachers, school 

administrators and other school officials and build capacity of tribal 

education agencies in partnership with State educational agencies 

and to support the unique needs of Alaska Natives and their communities. 

Early in the Administration, President Obama demonstrated a 

deep commitment to Native students and the tribal community by 

issuing a memorandum instructing agency heads to engage in regular meaningful consultation with tribes. In 2011, he signed an executive order further signaling his commitment to improve educational outcomes cradle to career for American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. 

Secretary Duncan has also shown unwavering commitment to 

these students. He has visited numerous reservations and tribal 

communities, held roundtable discussions and participated in consultation and commencements. 

One of the consistent themes expressed by tribes and tribal communities has been the lack of opportunities for them to engage 

meaningfully in the education of their children. The department 

understands the best solutions for Native students come from those 

who these students the best, the tribes. 

As a direct result, in 2012, we launched a pilot program, the 

State Tribal Education Partnership Program. We plan to continue 

this first of a kind effort in order to further respond to the tribal 

51 

community. My office, the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education is actively engaged in these 

issues and includes the President’s Interagency Working Group on 

Indian Education, the DOI Education Joint Committee on Indian 

Education and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. 

I have expounded on this work in my written testimony and 

would be happy to discuss this in more detail in the question and 

answer portion. 

Chairman Tester and members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mendoza follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MENDOZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Barrasso, and distinguished 

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

the status of the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in our public 

schools. 

AI/AN Student Profile 

American Indian education is sometimes thought to mean the schools operated by 

the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) or by Indian tribes or tribal organizations. 

However, the reality is that the vast majority of AI/AN students—approximately 93 

percent—attend public schools operated by their local school districts. These schools 

are located both on and off reservations and tribal lands. 

In some cases, there is coordination between the local education agency (LEA) and 

the tribal community. However, more often than not, these public schools exist without meaningful input from the tribal community. Absent this interaction, our public 

schools are less informed about the culture and unique needs of our Indian students. 

AI/AN students lack access to culturally appropriate curricula, educators with sufficient cultural training, and sometimes adequate learning conditions. These challenges may act as barriers to a quality education and contribute to poor outcomes 

for AI/AN students. 

We know the earlier we start providing educational opportunities to our students, 

the more successful they will be as adults. The best investment we can make is to 

provide our children with a strong start and foundation for learning. 

The Department of Education recently released the Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC) for 2010–2011. This is the first time since 2001 that we have data from 

nearly every public school in the country that tells us about specific subpopulations 

including AI/AN students. While we know that AI/AN students comprise about one 

percent of the overall population, according to the CRDC report about seven percent 

of the 140,000 kindergarten students held back were AI/AN students. These AI/AN 

kindergartners are held back at nearly twice the rate of white children. Further, 

states like Oregon, Wyoming, Montana and Arizona with high American Indian populations are among the States with the lowest percentage of school districts operating pre-school programs. 

The CRDC report also collected data on school discipline. Similarly, AI/AN students represent a disproportionate share of disciplinary action as they are less than 

one percent of the student population but account for two percent of out-of-school 

suspensions and three percent of expulsions. AI/AN males are suspended at more 

than two times the rate of their white peers with, on average, six percent of white 

male students being suspended compared to approximately 13 percent of AI/AN 

males. Young AI/AN females are more than three times more likely to be suspended 

from school as their white counterparts, with, on average, two percent of white females students being suspended from school as compared to approximately seven 

percent for AI/AN female students. 

Each day that our students are not in the classroom they are missing out on valuable instruction time. 

One of the most important factors in raising student achievement is an effective 

teacher. While there certainly are effective first year teachers, research shows that 

teachers on average increase their effectiveness over their first few years of teaching. It is interesting to note that the CRDC report found disparities in access to experienced teachers for AI/AN students. The data shows AI/AN students attend 

52 

schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers at a higher rate than white 

students. Specifically, approximately four percent of AI/AN students attend schools 

where more than 20 percent of teachers are in their first year of teaching, compared 

to one percent of white students. 

We also know AI/AN students are less prepared for college and career. Looking 

at the high school graduation rates and drop-out rates for 2011, we see AI/AN students dropout at a rate that is nearly twice that of all students. In fact, AI/AN students account for the highest dropout rate of any racial or ethnic population. And 

AI/AN students are lagging in increasing their graduation rates. The average graduation rate for all students increased six points, from approximately 75 percent in 

2007–2008 to 81 percent in 2011–2012. Yet, over this period the graduation rate for 

AI/AN students increased just four points, from approximately 64 to 68 percent. 

But graduating isn’t always enough. We must ensure AI/AN students are taking 

rigorous coursework to be best prepared for today’s economy. In 2009, only about 

20 percent of the AI/AN graduates completed an Advanced Placement course. This 

is extremely low when we consider the comparable approximate figures for Asian/ 

Pacific Islander (66 percent), White (37 percent), Black (22 percent) and Hispanic 

(34 percent) graduates. 

And even fewer AI/AN high school graduates (approximately 18 percent) have 

completed an analysis or pre-calculus course compared to the average for all students (approximately 35 percent). We also see drastic differences in the completion 

of courses in chemistry or physics compared to the averages for all students (approximately 70 percent and 36 percent, respectively). 

In 2011, the National Indian Education Study (NIES) reported the results of the 

mathematic and reading achievement levels of fourth- and eighth- grade AI/AN AI/ 

AN students, using a nationally representative sample. 

The math assessment showed that AI/AN fourth-grade students scored approximately 16 points lower on average than non-AI/AN students in math. AI/AN eighthgrade students scored approximately 19 points lower on average in math than nonAI/AN students. This represents and even wider gap compared to the 2005 NIES 

scores that showed a gap of approximately 12 points for fourth-graders and 15 

points for eight-graders. And while there are no significant changes in average reading scores for AI/AN students compared to 2005, overall gaps separating AI/AN students from their white peers have mostly widened. 

For those in poverty, the difference is even starker. Using the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) as an indicator of family income, we know that in 2011, AI/ 

AN eighth-grade students who were eligible for NSLP had average reading scores 

approximately 20 points lower, on average, than AI/AN eight-grade students who 

were not eligible for NSLP. 

Department Programs that Support AI/AN Students 

The Department administers a variety of formula grants as well as competitive 

grants to support AI/AN students. 

Impact Aid is a formula grant program under section 8003 (Basic Support Payments) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that provides direct 

funding to school districts that are affected by federal activities. The Basic Support 

Payments program was funded at $1.2 billion for FY 2014 and approximately onehalf of those funds will be distributed to districts that provide free public education 

to children living on Indian lands. 

Title VII, Part A provides formula grant funds to over approximately 1,300 districts that educate AI/AN students. The funds must be used for supplementary services to meet the needs of those students, including their language and cultural 

needs, to help them succeed in school. In addition, Title VII, Part A also authorizes 

several discretionary programs designed to improve the quality of education for Indian students and to prepare and train Indians to serve as teachers and school administrators. Funds are awarded competitively and currently support the following 

programs: Demonstration Grants (Section 7121); Professional Development Grants 

(Section 7122); and the State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) (Section 7131). 

Demonstration grants provide support in such areas as innovative programs, remedial instruction, bilingual and bicultural programs, guidance and counseling, 

early childhood and kindergarten programs, secondary-to-postsecondary education 

transition programs, school-to-work programs, and family literacy services. 

Professional Development grants support increasing of the number of American 

Indians qualified in teaching, school administration, and other education professions, and improving the skills of those individuals. Individuals receiving training 

under this program are required to secure employment in a field related to their 

education and benefiting Indians. If they do not meet this requirement, they must 

53 

pay back the amount of the assistance. Awards focus on pre-service teacher and preservice administrator training. 

The Alaska Native Education (ANE) program supports activities that provide educational opportunities that are culturally relevant and beneficial to Alaska Native 

Students and the community. In 2012–2013, there were 57 active ANE grants for 

a total investment of just over $31 million. 

The Department understands the best solutions for AI/AN students come from 

those that know these students best, the tribes. We remain committed to strengthening and advancing our relations with Indian tribes. 

In 2009 President Obama issued a Memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies emphasizing his commitment to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal 

implications. The memorandum called for complete and consistent implementation 

of Executive Order 13175. It also directed each agency to submit a detailed plan of 

action that the agency will take to implement the policies and directives of E.O. 

13175. 

The Department was quick to respond to the Memorandum. In 2010, the Department conducted six tribal consultations with tribal leaders and Indian educators. 

We held consultations in New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska, Arizona, 

and Washington and learned much from the discussion. As a result, we issues a report in November 2011 titled ‘‘Tribal Leaders Speak: The State of Indian Education.’’ 

We continue to have regular consultation with these leaders and have held additional consultations in Denver, Green Bay, Stockton, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, 

Troy, Anchorage, Scottsdale, Niagara, and Smith River. This year the Department, 

in partnership with the National Indian Education Association and The United and 

Southeastern Tribes, held the first consultation of 2014. We have three more consultations scheduled for later this year in Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota. 

One of the consistent themes expressed during these consultations has been the 

lack of opportunities for tribes to meaningfully participate in the education of their 

own children. In response, the Obama Administration proposed, in our ESEA reauthorization blueprint, to elevate the role of tribal education agencies (TEAs). 

Additionally, the FY 2012 appropriation provided funding for the Department to 

create a pilot competition designed to increase the role of the TEA in meeting the 

education needs of students attending public schools on the tribe’s reservation. The 

State Tribal Education Program (STEP) is the result of this effort. The STEP program aims to promote collaboration between TEAs and state educational agencies 

(SEAs). The program is also intended to build the capacity of tribes as they develop 

and enhance their roles, responsibilities and accountability in Indian education. 

The pilot program funded projects created through cooperative agreements between TEAs and SEAs that allow the TEAs to perform some state-level functions 

for certain Federal grant programs funded through ESEA, specific to public schools 

located on tribally controlled lands. 

In 2013, Secretary Duncan and Secretary of the Interior Jewell traveled to Wyoming for a series of events to highlight the importance of education that included 

a roundtable discussion with local tribal leaders and two school visits. During this 

trip the Secretaries engaged with state and tribal representatives as well as youth 

from the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes. 

I am proud to inform you that the Secretary has visited reservations and tribal 

communities in Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Wyoming 

and Arizona. These visits have allowed him to witness first-hand the problems that 

Indian country faces. His visits have included roundtable discussions as well as 

commencement addresses at Sinte Gleske University, Navajo Technical University 

and College of Menominee Nation. This year he will be the commencement speaker 

at Salish Kootenai College in Montana. The Secretary welcomes these opportunities 

to learn more about the unique challenges facing AI/AN students and to highlight 

the important role tribal colleges and universities play in providing access to higher 

education for the community. He understands the vital role tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) play in language and cultural preservation. 

The White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education 

(Initiative), housed at the Department of Education, has responsibility to carry out 

the President’s Executive Order 13592, signed December 2, 2011. The Initiative 

seeks to support activities that will strengthen the Nation by expanding educational 

outcome opportunities and improving educational outcomes for all AI/AN students. 

The Initiative is also committed to furthering tribal self-determination and we work 

to ensure AI/AN students, at all levels of education, have an opportunity to learn 

their Native languages and histories as well as receive complete and competitive 

54 

educations that prepare them for college, and careers so they may lead productive 

and satisfying lives. 

In order to meet the goals of the Executive Order the Initiative is actively engaged in three major activities; the ED Joint Committee on Indian Education, The 

President’s Interagency Working Group on Indian Education and the Native Languages Working Group. 

The Initiative formed a DOI–ED joint Committee on Indian Education (Committee), which includes tribal leader representatives from the Tribal Education 

Budget Council. The Committee was formed as a result of a 2012 ED–DOI Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU leverages the expertise of both departments to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for AI/AN students. The 

Committee has started working on developing plans to implement seven specific 

goals and activities that are outlined in the MOU. 

The President’s Interagency Working Group on Indian Education (IWG) was established in the E.O. 13592. The IWG held its inaugural meeting in 2013. Senior 

Administration Officials from 29 agencies came together to begin interagency implementation of the E.O. The departments will work to develop four year plans that 

will focus on expanding educational opportunities and improving outcomes for AI/ 

AN students including helping ensure the opportunity to learn their Native language. 

The Native Language Working Group resulted from a Memorandum of Agreement 

between the Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Interior 

Bureau of Indian Education. We are working to achieve the goals of the Agreement 

(MOA) on Native Languages. In addition to developing a course of action, the MOA 

provides a framework for collaboration and coordination across Federal agencies to 

help preserve and revitalize native languages. 

The Native Language Workgroup is planning a Native American Languages Summit; Working Together for Native American Language Success for June, 2014. During this conference, Federal partners and organizations with Native Language programs will come together to discuss methods for measuring success. The goal is to 

work together as a team to ensure the preservation and acquisition of Native languages so that they may not only be revitalized but that Native youth have a command of the language from a linguistic and cultural perspective. 

The Department of Education has taken significant steps to promote the preservation and revitalization of native languages including the following: 

• The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) has included an Invitational Priority to support activities that strengthen Native language preservation and revitalization in institutions of higher education in the Title III Alaska Native 

and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions grant competition in FY 2014. 

• The Office of Indian Education (OIE) has made several important changes to 

the application for Title VII formula grants for FY 2014 in order to emphasize 

the statutory requirement that grant funds be used as part of a comprehensive 

program for meeting the culturally-related academic needs of Indian students, 

including the language and cultural needs of the children. In 2013, there were 

approximately 1,300 Title VII programs and 500,000 students served nationwide. 

• In 2013, the South Central Comprehensive Center (SC3), one of three ED Regional Comprehensive Centers, supported the Oklahoma State Department of 

Education (OSDE) in the development of the native language certification and 

is continuing to provide technical assistance during statewide implementation 

of an alternate pathway in native language certification. This work addresses 

the critical need for fluent native language instructors in efforts to enhance native language revitalization among the 39 Oklahoma tribes. 

Through dedicated funding including ED’s Strengthening Institutions Program 

and Title III grants, several tribal colleges have implemented native language activities as part of their curricula. For example, Cheyenne language courses are currently being offered at Chief Dull Knife College in a four course series and the college also provides summer Cheyenne language immersion experiences for youth in 

the surrounding communities; Fort Berthold Community College, a tribal college of 

the Three Affiliated Tribes, has started a project that will provide linguistic training 

to tribal members in technologically advanced methods of linguistic data collection 

and analysis aimed at preventing the loss of the highly endangered Mandan language; and the Blackfeet Language Studies curriculum at Blackfeet Community College is designed to promote language fluency in accordance with Blackfeet Language 

standards, which are equivalent to national standards for language acquisition. 

55 

* A copy of the NACIE Annual Report to Congress 2012–2013 has been retained in the Committee files. 

The Department of Education continues to hold consultations with tribal leaders 

on ways the Department can help address the need to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop native languages. 

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education 

have collaborated to ensure that AI/AN students who are not proficient in English 

are appropriately identified as English Learners (ELs) and offered language support 

services until they achieve proficiency in English. Toward this end, the Departments 

reached two settlement agreements with the State of Arizona regarding its Home 

Language Survey (3/25/11) and its process for testing ELs (8/31/12). In February of 

this year, the Department of Justice also reached a settlement agreement with a 

school district in Arizona to ensure its Navajo-speaking ELs receive appropriate EL 

services with teachers who are trained to provide those services. 

The National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE) also plays a vital 

role in how we address the unique needs of AI/AN students. NACIE is comprised 

of fifteen American Indians (including Alaska Native) that are appointed by the 

President. NACIE advises the Secretary on the funding and administration of any 

program, including those established under Title VII, Part A of the ESEA, with respect to which the Secretary has jurisdiction and that includes Indian children or 

adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults. NACIE annually submits a report to the Congress on the activities of the Council which may 

include any recommendation the Council considers appropriate for the improvement 

of Federal education programs that include or may benefit Indian children or adults 

as participants. * 

Moving forward, the President has requested funding for vital new programs, 

such as Race to the Top Equity and Opportunity, a new College Success Grants for 

Minority-Serving Institutions Initiative, First in the World (FITW) funds focused on 

institutional innovation, and additional existing programs that are critical to addressing the needs of many AI/AN students. 

The Department remains committed to better understanding the needs of AI/AN 

students and to our responsibility to help improve the educational outcomes for all 

AI/AN students. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I happy to respond to any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

They have called a roll call vote on the floor so I am going to 

make my questions short. You make your answers short. I doubt 

anyone is coming back because there are multiple votes. 

The White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education has been in existence for about three years. How are 

you measuring the progress and success of the work of that program? 

Mr. MENDOZA. My measurement of the progress of this initiative 

centers around how we are changing the context within the Federal 

family of how we look at American Indian and Alaska Native education. As we have come into what amounts to a paradigm shift in 

approaching this issue, we are looking at closing the gaps between 

how the Federal Government, States and tribes are working together. 

To that end, we are engaged in a number of activities that directly effect how the Federal Government operates in terms of how 

we utilize grants, contracts, services, loans and so forth to affect Indian communities. We work directly from the lens of self-determination and self governance for tribes. I would be happy to expand on some of those specific mechanisms that I mentioned in my 

remarks. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like you to, in written form if you may, 

cite me some of your most significant achievements with this proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
56 

gram to date. I would love to see those so we could potentially utilize them. 

In the Department’s appropriation for 2012, funds were included 

for a pilot program known as State Tribal Education Partnership, 

STEP. Can you tell us how the implementation of this pilot program is going? 

Mr. MENDOZA. The implementation of this program is proceeding 

in a way we feel is dramatically changing the way States and 

tribes are working together. In areas of the country like Oklahoma, 

New Mexico and Idaho, we see a tremendous amount of effort 

being put into formal collaborations between these entities that are 

getting at the root causes of some of these issues where we are 

dealing with culturally responsiveness, the teaching field and looking at how we are supporting the capacity building of tribal education agencies in some of the critical formula programs. 

We couldn’t be happier with how these tribal education agencies 

are growing through these programs and how we can move forward 

in strengthening the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

I am going to put some additional questions to you in writing. 

You heard the testimony of the previous folks. If there are things 

they said that are applicable to the department and the department would like to respond, I would love to hear your response. 

There are some programs out there that I think have real merit 

and I think we might be able to take them more than just regional 

and more than just single school districts. 

Thank you, Mr. Mendoza. I appreciate your testimony. I am 

sorry we have this vote right now but sometimes we have to do 

that. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. This 

Committee will continue to work on these issues and work on legislation to make productive changes. As I said in my opening, I am 

a big believer in education. I think it is one of the keys to getting 

people raised up in the economic strata and how we build our economy. Indian Country and Indian education is incredibly important 

in all of this. 

The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

1 National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, United States Department of Education.National Indian EducationStudy 2011.(NCES 2012–466). http:// 

nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies/ 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Tribal leaders and Native advocates have consistently listed education as a top 

priority for our communities. The National Indian Education Association (NIEA) is 

excited that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has heard the collective call 

for reform and is working to highlight the condition of Native education and find 

solutions to persisting problems. As NIEA and Native education stakeholders have 

stated for years, a strong education foundation is critical to the future of tribal nations and Native communities. To provide recommendations for strengthening that 

foundation and as this Committee works with Congress and the Administration, we 

request this written testimony and supplemental documents be submitted into the 

record. 

NIEA was incorporated in 1970 and is the most representative Native education 

organization in the United States. NIEA’s mission is to advance comprehensive and 

equal educational opportunities for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. NIEA supports tribal sovereignty over education as well as 

strengthening traditional Native cultures and values that enable Native learners to 

become contributing members of their communities. As the most inclusive Native 

education organization, NIEA membership consists of tribal leaders, educators, students, researchers, and education stakeholders from all 50 states. From communities in Hawaii, to tribal reservations across the continental U.S., to villages in 

Alaska and urban communities in major cities, NIEA has the most reach of any Native education organization in the country. 

The State of Native Education 

Native education is currently in a state of emergency. Native students lag behind 

their peers on every educational indicator, from academic achievement to high 

school and college graduation rates. Just over 50 percent of Native students are 

graduating high school, compared to nearly 80 percent for the majority population 

nationally. Further, only one in four Native high school graduates who took the ACT 

scored at the college-ready level in math and only one-third in reading comprehension, as compared to more than half for white graduates. Increasingly alarming, 

only 40 percent of Native college enrollees in 2004 actually graduated college with 

a bachelor’s degree by 2010. Nearly 62 percent of the majority students graduated. 

For Native students to succeed in college and careers, they must have a strong education foundation that also meets their local needs and strengthens their linguistic 

and cultural identity. 

Native Student Demographics 1

• 378,000, or 93 percent of Native students, attend U.S. public schools, comprising 0.7 percent of the total public school population (2010–2011 school year). 

• Of all Native students, 33 percent live in poverty, compared to 12 percent of 

Whites (2011–2012 school year). 

• 29 percent of these students attend high-poverty city public schools, compared 

to 6 percent of Whites (2009–10 school year). 

• Only 52 percent of Native students live in two-parent households, compared to 

75 percent of Whites (2011). 

• After the most recent census, only 65,356 Natives ages 25 years and older had 

a graduate or professional degree. 

58 

Public Education Recommendations 

NIEA’s work over more than forty years has centered on reversing these negative 

trends to ensure our communities have the future leaders they need to thrive and 

sustain local cultural and linguistic traditions. The following public education recommendations are based on resolutions passed by our membership as well as past 

policy work and community outreach regarding needed regulatory and legislative reform. 

I. Equitably Fund Native-Serving Schools 

Tribes and Native communities have a tremendous stake in an improved public 

education system. With 93 percent of Native students attending traditional public 

schools, education should prepare Native students not only for active and equal participation in the global market, but also to be positive, involved members and leaders of their communities. To support that participation, the federal government 

must uphold its trust relationship with tribes. Established through treaties, federal 

law, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, this relationship includes a fiduciary obligation to provide parity in access and equal resources to all American Indian and 

Alaska Native students, whether they attend Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), 

charter, or public schools. 

As tribes work with Congress to increase their role and responsibility in administering education, federal support should increase for tribal governments and Native education institutions to repair the damage caused by shrinking budgets and 

sequestration. Historical funding trends illustrate that the federal government is 

abandoning its trust responsibility by decreasing federal funds to Native-serving 

programs by more than half in the last 30 years. 

Fortunately, Congress postponed sequestration for two years and increased funds 

to many programs. However, Congress and the Administration maintained FY 2013 

sequestration levels in FY 2014 for Native education funding in Title VII—the Native education title under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 

This action is incomprehensible and unacceptable. Now is the time to invest in Native education by strengthening the ability of tribes to participate in education as 

well as provide adequate funds to schools serving Native students. Tribal governance of education services is crucial as well as increasing collaboration and engagement among key stakeholders and decreasing barriers that inhibit tribes from 

equally participating in education. 

II. Strengthen Tribal Self-Determination 

Congress should assist tribes who wish to participate in the delivery of their children’s education by strengthening tribal education agencies. Since the late 20th 

Century, Congress has worked to strengthen tribal capacity to directly serve their 

citizens. In this spirit, tribes should have the same ability as state and local education agencies to administer education services because many Native-serving public 

schools are located on or just outside tribal lands. In FY 2012, Congress funded an 

authorization under the Department of Education (ED) for tribal capacity building 

in public reservation schools under the State-Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) 

program. STEP was not only a good first step to increase cooperation and collaboration among states, tribes, and local schools, it succeeded in increasing, albeit it in 

a limited way, the capacity of tribes to administer education programs. 

True tribal self-determination without the state acting as an intermediary in education should be afforded. All tribes who wish to participate should have the authority and funding to build their capacity to administer education programs. Native 

leaders understand their children best and Native communities can better address 

a child’s unique educational and cultural needs. Providing tribes the ability to administer education programs would ensure that tribes have the same ability as state 

education and local education agencies. The ESEA should authorize tribes to operate title programs in public schools located on tribal lands and that serve Native 

students. ED would then work with tribes to identify appropriate title programs for 

administration allowing tribes the opportunity to partner with their particular local 

education agency for effective implementation. 

III. Expand Collaboration and Engagement 

Since Native students often transfer between their local schools, there must be 

collaboration among federal, state, and tribal governments, as well as between 

tribes and their local schools, to ensure the academic and cultural needs of Native 

students are addressed. While the federal government has a trust responsibility to 

work with tribes, tribal concerns are often excluded at the state and local level. 

Local education agencies and their schools should partner closely and consult with 

tribes when developing programs that serve Native students. Further, local schools 

59 

should work with tribes to develop school calendars that account for cultural events, 

local outreach that successfully engages parents, and professional development and/ 

or technical assistance training that includes cultural and linguistic traditions. 

Native parents must be involved in Native-serving public schools to provide their 

children familial support. Otherwise, local work to increase the success of Native 

students will fail. Parents and family members must feel comfortable in their child’s 

school environment. Schools should ensure parents understand how to navigate the 

school’s administrative and educational structure, so parents understand the appropriate support needed at home in order to complement their child’s learning in 

school. 

Congress should also ensure public schools engage their local tribes to make sure 

a network of care provides parents additional services, such as health and wellness 

and behavioral supports, where needed. Unfortunately, Native-serving schools often 

work in a vacuum or hire non-Native staff unaware of their local population’s needs. 

These attributes are not conducive for creating stability for Native parents and communities who rely on local relationships built on a foundation of trust. Tribes and 

Native communities should have the ability to work with their local public schools 

to ensure Native parents feel comfortable engaging teachers and administrators. 

This begins by increasing tribal access to work with school administrators and 

teachers so school staff understand the significance of a holistic education rooted in 

the local Native culture and language. 

Native languages are not only crucial for protecting and strengthening Native culture and increasing family engagement, a curriculum steeped in linguistic tradition 

also raises student achievement by helping the child learn in a familiar environment. To support such initiatives, this Committee should move Senate Bill 1948— 

the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act—so that eligible schools 

may participate in a grant program that provides new funds to develop and maintain Native language programs. Immersion programs increase Native student success rates by providing a well-rounded education that includes mathematic and language arts, while also strengthening Native traditions. Further, sustainable funding 

for immersion programs would generate data to help education stakeholders create 

best practice models for educating Native students. 

IV. Reduce Inequitable Regulation 

Increasing self-determination for tribes to administer services and work with local 

stakeholders will not succeed unless there are fewer restrictions on tribes to engage 

their public schools. Native students often transfer between public, charter, and BIE 

schools that serve their community. This constant mobility creates information gaps, 

as systems are not required to track and coordinate student data when students 

transfer. 

Provided the same access as local education agencies, tribes and their education 

agencies can better track and measure their student populations when provided parity in access. With a more complete database, tribes can utilize and create data 

pools where information is deficient. Unfortunately, the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) exclude tribes from equitably accessing their Native student’s records. Amending FERPA to provide basic parity for tribes to access data 

would create accurate student statistics that help create more effective models for 

addressing issues that decrease Native student achievement rates. 

Likewise, Native-serving programs in public schools must not be restrictive due 

to agency implementation. Rather, they must function as Congress originally intended. Title VII administered by ED provides supplemental grants to ensure programs serving Native students meet basic elementary and secondary educational 

needs as well as address the unique culturally-related academic needs of Native 

children. Citing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Office 

of Indian Education within ED utilizes systems that measure Native student academic achievement as the benchmark for Title VII programmatic success. 

This measurement system functions contrary to congressional intent for Title VII. 

Under the current iteration of ESEA, the law stipulates that Title VII formula grant 

programmatic success is based on supporting cultural education and creating a presence for Native education. This cultural presence creates a unique focus in a school 

district or school in order to work in concert with ESEA, rather than directly increasing the academic achievement of Native students. Congress should ensure that 

eligible entities receiving Title VII funds have the ability to serve Native students 

as law stipulates—not as ED interprets. Providing this oversight will ensure restrictive barriers are diminished in Native-serving schools and that more appropriate 

evaluation tools are utilized to measure an important Native-serving program. 

60 

* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee files. 

V. Elevate the National Advisory Council on Indian Education 

The Federal Government must recognize and support tribal self-determination in 

education as well as entities that represent and work to improve Native education. 

For too long, ED, the Administration, and Congress have ignored the annual reports 

of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE). As the body that 

works to advise the Secretary of Education on Native issues, NACIE must be elevated. 

We request this Committee work to provide oversight to ED, so that NACIE has 

the opportunity to annually meet with the Secretary as well as the President. Further, their annual reports to Congress seldom receive response and issues continue 

to persist from year to year without being addressed. We call on this Committee to 

ensure Congress provides a response to their report and work with the White House 

Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education and the Office of Indian 

Education within ED to ensure the Secretary responds to the annual NACIE report. 

In this vein, NIEA supports and includes the 2013 NACIE Report into the record 

in hopes of raising awareness of their issues. 

Conclusion 

We also include the 112th Congressional legislation, the Native Culture Language, and Access for Success in Schools (CLASS) Act—Senate Bill 1262, as an addendum. * This comprehensive bill included Native stakeholder’s requests for needed 

legislative reform under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so that Native students and tribes have increased parity to participate in Native-serving education systems, such as public schools. Because the Senate’s ESEA reauthorization—the Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013—passed out of the Senate 

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, we recommend this 

Committee work to include CLASS Act technical amendments in the chance the 

ESEA bill moves to the Senate floor for consideration. 

NIEA appreciates the continued support of this Committee and we look forward 

to working closely with its members under the leadership of Chairman Tester and 

Ranking Member Barrasso. We share your commitment to Native education and 

strengthening our partnership to ensure Native-serving public schools are as effective as possible. To achieve this, there must be collaboration among all entities that 

touch a child’s life and at all levels—tribal, federal, state, and local. It is difficult 

to speak of increasing the success of Native students when addressing only one part 

of the education system, so we must work with all systems since our students frequently move between schools during their scholastic career. While this hearing focused on public schools, NIEA is happy to see the Committee highlight the need for 

parity in all systems serving our children. Only by working with all stakeholders 

will we increase our students’ preparedness for success no matter where they learn. 

Once again, thank you for this opportunity. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

BRENT D. GISH

Question. What standards and best practices exist for public schools to assess 

highly qualified teachers of Native languages and culture so that Alaska Native/ 

American Indian pupils (indeed all students) may learn of and in Native language 

and culture? 

Answer. A growing number of states are now recognizing the value and need to 

imbed Native language and culture into diverse classroom settings to provide cultural relevance and to support Native language preservation. It has been a great 

challenge to identify and recruit highly qualified Native language and culture teachers. Very few college programs offer licensure in Native languages and the demand 

far exceeds availability. States have relied on tribes to identify, assess competency, 

and recommend licensing. Through Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), the 

state then grants a license to teach in the language specialty area. 

In addition to a shortage of highly qualified teachers, there exists a shortage of 

Native language curriculum, learning materials and support policies, ie accepting 

Native language and culture course work for graduation credit. It is acknowledged 

that this area of high need is being addressed by tribal education departments, tribal colleges, state and private universities, and for profit companies but there is a 

backlog of need for quality materials that fit under the umbrella of ‘‘common core 

standards’’. 

61 

* The information reffered to has been retained in Committee files.

Currently there is limited research and proven practice in the area of Native language and culture, the principles of quality instruction apply to this unique discipline as it does for all other disciplines. It is my belief that the teachers of Native 

language and culture who are licensed by tribes would benefit greatly by enrolling 

in courses that address proven practices in pedagogy ie, behavior management, differentiated instruction, assessment, data analysis, etc. Further, I highly support and 

encourage Congress/SCIA to support tribes, states and local school districts in their 

quest for high performing schools where all students are valued as demonstrated 

by the teaching of Native language and practicing cultural relevance for all learners. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

DANIEL HUDSON

Question. What standards and best practices exist for public schools to assess 

highly qualified teachers of Native languages and culture so that Alaska Native/ 

American Indian pupils (indeed all students) may learn of and in Native language 

and culture? 

Answer. First, teachers of Native language and culture may very well not fit the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) definition of ‘‘highly qualified’’. 

These instructors, at least in the states of Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico and Arizona, are initially licensed and renewed for classroom instruction by each state, but 

required competency for such licensure is determined by their individual Tribe. (See 

Appendix A for these documents.) * Regarding renewal, Montana and Arizona require sixty hours of additional instructor work during the license periods, for license 

renewal; the other two States noted do not, to the best of my knowledge, require 

additional training for license renewal. 

It should be noted that this does not necessarily imply a diminished instructional 

person as regards the ‘‘highly qualified’’ term vis-a`-vis Native language and culture 

instructors. Usually an instructor has to have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in 

their teaching area and today, pass the Praxis test in their subject area to confirm 

competence. For a Native language and culture instructor, there simply does not 

exist coursework or indeed professors at the collegiate level for them to attain a college-conferred Bachelor’s degree in, say, Arapaho language and culture, let alone the 

Praxis test to confirm competency in that instructional area (One might contrast 

this to a college degree for Spanish language instruction, which is indeed available 

and instructional competency is capable of being tested.) Thus coursework competency in Native language and culture is and currently has to be determined by 

each instructors’ Tribal certification mechanism. 

Past the point of initial competency, then, which has to be verified by the Native 

Tribe and their respective competency requirements, other assessments of classroom 

teachers can certainly be applied to Native language and culture instructors in the 

same manner as other subject areas. Such things as classroom management, student involvement in the course material, presentation of course material, and so on 

can be assessed as for any other instructor. It might be noted that currently these 

assessments are performed with a school district level selected assessment mechanism, and the yearly number of such assessments is determined by each individual 

state. Wyoming, for example, requires teachers to be formally assessed not less than 

twice a year for the first three years of their employment, while such teachers are 

not tenured. After tenure has been granted, formal assessment is then required not 

less than once a year. Logically, assessments could be performed more often than 

these standards for all certified instructors (teachers) including Native language and 

culture instructors, and frankly, best practice would indicate more frequent informal 

assessments can be provided during the first few years of an instructor’s employment with the intent to provide assistance and guidance to a beginning teacher; this 

would also include Native language and culture instructors for their coursework delivery. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

MANDY SMOKER BROADDUS

Question. What standards and best practices exist for public schools to assess 

highly qualified teachers of Native languages and culture so that Alaska Native/ 

American Indian pupils (indeed all students) may learn of and in Native language 

and culture? 

62 

Answer. The Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI), in recognition of the status as sovereign nations held by American Indian tribes, divests authority to recognize and approve all teachers of Native language/culture to that tribal group. OPI 

allows tribes to create their own process for determining what standards are used 

to determine who is a ‘‘highly qualified’’ instructor of a Native language. The OPI 

receives that information from each tribe, and awards a Class 7 certification for Native American Language and Culture. 

However, because Montana’s constitutional mandate, known as Indian Education 

for All, requires that ALL teachers at ALL grade levels include appropriate and authentic American Indian content (including history, culture, contemporary issues, 

etc.), OPI actively provides professional development, resources and materials to all 

teachers and districts across the state. The OPI leads this effort through funding 

from the state legislature but does not assess whether individuals are highly qualified as a result. OPI efforts require that any and all teachers should feel comfortable 

and at ease in teaching American Indian content so that this important work can 

reach as many Montana students as possible. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP TO

WILLIAM MENDOZA

Question 1. In November last year I went to the visit Cannon Ball Elementary 

School which is located within the Standing Rock reservation. The school is in 

dreadful condition; full of mold, rats, a leaking roof, lack of safe playground equipment. It is 100 percent federally impacted and so there is no taxable state land 

nearby to support this school and thus heavily relies on Impact Aid. This is also 

one of the lowest performing schools in North Dakota. I am concerned about the 

message we send children about how they are valued when they show up to learn 

in these conditions. What is the White House Initiative doing to improve the conditions of facilities for federally impacted schools like Cannon Ball? 

Answer. We have also heard from tribes about the poor condition of certain 

schools on reservations, including tribally-controlled schools funded by BIE as well 

as public schools. For the public schools, section 8007 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) authorizes the Department of Education 

(‘‘ED’’ or ‘‘Department’’) to make grants to support school construction in local school 

districts that educate federally connected students or have federally owned land. 

The authorizing law provides that 40 percent of program funds are for formula 

grants and 60 percent for competitive grants; however, Congress routinely overrides 

this statutory allocation. In the last five years, formula construction grants under 

Section 8007(a) were funded in Fiscal Years (FY) 2010, 2011, and 2014, while competitive grants under Section 8007(b) were funded in Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013. 

Formula construction grants generally go to more districts in smaller amounts, typically in the tens of thousands of dollars, whereas competitive grants go to fewer districts in larger amounts, and recently ranged up to $6 million. The Solen (North Dakota) School District received a competitive grant in FY 2010 to fix a leaking roof 

and a malfunctioning HVAC system at Cannon Ball Elementary School. By August 

of 2012, the district had used the $215,000 award to completely replace the roof over 

part of the school, install new shingles on other portions of the roof, and replace 

its HVAC system. It has not applied for a competitive award since. For FY 2015, the Administration has requested $17.4 million for this construction 

program, the same as the 2014 level. These funds would be used entirely for competitive grants and would be available for two years, which is consistent with the 

Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal, which would eliminate the formula 

component of the program. By awarding funds through a competitive process, the 

Department can ensure that districts with the greatest needs receive sufficient 

funds to make emergency repairs. 

With regard to other sources of funds to improve school facilities, most Department formula grant statutes do not authorize the use of funds for construction purposes. However, there are specific uses that are possible under various programs. 

The Department is considering working with the BIE to issue guidance to both public and BIE-funded schools on how to leverage existing federal funding streams to 

improve school facilities. 

Question 2. In November 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order requiring Departments and Agencies to submit a consultation policy within 90 days. 

In the last five years, many federal agencies have been able to develop and implement a tribal consultation policy. Has the Department of Education developed a consultation policy? 

Question 2a. If there is a draft, would it be possible to share with the Committee? 

63 

Question 2b. What is the timeline for finalizing the policy? 

Answer. Yes, the Department has an existing consultation policy, developed in 

2001, which we have attached. The Department is developing a revised consultation 

policy and we are consulting with tribal leaders and tribal communities on the revised draft. We will provide you with a copy as soon as it is completed. 

Question 3. In your testimony you talk about the vital role the National Advisory 

Council on Indian Education (NACIE) plays in addressing the unique needs of Native students. NACIE submits an annual report to Congress on specific ways to improve education outcomes for Native students. When the annual report is submitted 

each year, how do you respond? 

Question 3a. Can you discuss the steps the White House Initiative is taking to 

help implement their specific recommendations? 

Answer. We are currently working on a formal response to the list of recommendations that NACIE submitted to the Department. In addition to providing 

support to NACIE in the development of its report to Congress each year, the White 

House Initiative (‘‘WHIAIANE’’ or ‘‘Initiative’’) works closely with various agencies 

and offices to address NACIE’s specific recommendations. For example, the Initiative works closely with the Executive Office of the President to help ensure American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) participation in the development and implementation of key Administration priorities. The Initiative also works to strengthen 

the relationship between the Department of Education’s Office of Indian Education 

(ED/OIE), and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (DoI/ 

BIE), to draw upon each agency’s expertise and resources to help improve AI/AN 

education. 

The Department’s work is directly and indirectly addressing NACIE’s specific recommendations. With respect to the recommendations on which the Department can 

have an impact (grouped by subject area), we are doing the following: 

• NACIE’s priority to raise the profile of Indian education. The Department has 

taken steps to strengthen partnerships among the Federal government, tribes, and 

States. In 2009, President Obama issued a Memorandum to the heads of executive 

departments and agencies emphasizing his commitment to regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications. The Memorandum called for complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order (EO) 13175. It also directed each agency to submit a detailed plan of action to implement the policies and directives of EO 13175. The Department was quick to respond to the Memorandum by conducting ten tribal consultations with tribal leaders and tribal communities in 2010–11. Since then, we 

have held over 30 national consultations with tribes and tribal communities around 

the country. More information on these consultations can be found at: 

www.edtribalconsultations.org. 

Additionally, in 2012, the Department led development of two major Memoranda 

of Agreements (MOA) regarding: (1) strengthening coordination and collaboration 

between DOI and ED; and (2) DOI, HHS, and ED working together to encourage 

programs and projects that include instruction in, and preservation of, native languages. In addition to developing a course of action, these memoranda provide a 

framework for collaboration and coordination across Federal agencies to help expand 

educational opportunities, improve outcomes for all AI/AN students, and help preserve and revitalize native languages. 

The Initiative leads the DOI–ED Joint Committee on Indian Education (Committee), which includes tribal leaders from the Tribal Education Budget Council. 

The Committee was formed as a result of the 2012 ED–DOI Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU leverages the expertise of both departments to improve 

educational opportunities and outcomes for AI/AN students. The Committee is developing plans to implement seven specific goals and activities that are outlined in 

the MOU. 

The President’s Interagency Working Group on Indian Education (IWG) was established by EO 13592. The IWG held its inaugural meeting in 2013. Senior Administration Officials from 29 agencies came together to begin interagency implementation of the EO. The departments are developing four-year plans that will focus on 

expanding educational opportunities and improving outcomes for AI/AN students, 

including helping ensure the opportunity to learn their native languages. 

The Native Language Working Group derives from a Memorandum of Agreement 

on Native Languages among ED, the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Administration for Children and Families, and DOI/BIE. We are working to achieve 

the goals of that Memorandum. In addition to developing a course of action, the 

MOA provides a framework for collaboration and coordination across Federal agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
64 

cies and we have already taken significant steps in helping to support the preservation and revitalization of native languages. 

• NACIE’s call for the preservation and adequate funding for all Indian education 

programs. The Department has demonstrated strong support for AI/AN students 

through formula and competitive grants to help meet their unique needs. Approximately one-half of the $1.2 billion in Impact Aid Basic Support Payments for FY 

2014 will be distributed to districts that provide free public education to children 

living on Indian lands. Title VII, Part A, of the ESEA provides formula grants to 

over 1,300 school districts that educate AI/AN students totaling approximately $100 

million for FY 2014. The funds must be used to meet the needs of those students, 

including language and cultural needs, to help them succeed in school. Additionally, 

several competitive programs that help improve the quality of education for Indian 

students and prepare and train Indians to serve as teachers and school administrators are supported through Title VII, Part A , including Demonstration Grants (Section 7121); Professional Development Grants (Section 7122); and the State Tribal 

Education Partnership (STEP) program (Section 7131). Moreover, the Alaska Native 

Education (ANE) program supports activities that provide educational opportunities 

that are culturally relevant and beneficial to Alaska Native Students and the community. In 2013, there were 57 active ANE grants for a total investment of $31.5 

million. 

The Department also granted approximately $138.3 million to tribal colleges and 

universities (TCUs) in FY 2012. This funding was dedicated to four activities: (1) 

improving and strengthening the academic quality, institutional management, and 

fiscal stability of TCUs; (2) grants and loan assistance authorized under Title IV of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to help TCU students pay for college; (3) 

grants to prepare and train AI/ANs to serve as teachers and education professionals; 

and, (4) grants to Federally recognized Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska 

Native entities, and eligible BIE-funded schools to improve career and technical education (CTE) programs for AI/ANs. 

• NACIE’s prioritization of early childhood education. The Department has ensured that tribes and Indian organizations are eligible early-learning providers in 

the upcoming competition for Preschool Development Grants . We intend for highquality preschool programs to be located in regionally diverse communities or consortia of communities in cities, towns, counties, neighborhood, districts, and rural 

or tribal areas, with a high level of need or distress as determined by the State. 

Programs must use early learning standards that are developmentally, culturally, 

and linguistically appropriate. Our intention is that programs serving Indian children would support native or home languages. 

• NACIE’s recommendation that the Department place a high priority on improving technical assistance to Indian Country. ED’s OIE provided approximately $993,000 in FY 2012 funds to three Regional Comprehensive Centers to improve 

outcomes for AI/AN students by providing technical assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs). This support will amount to nearly $5 million in technical assistance services, including working with States to help them gain a better understanding of the issues and challenges facing AI/AN students, building 

cultural competency among staff, and delivering instruction that is culturally 

appropriate for students. ED also continues to partner with the National Congress of American Indians, the largest member organization of AI/AN educators 

and advocates in the country, to deliver high-quality technical assistance during 

their annual convention. The fourth annual ED Technical Assistance Day, 

‘‘Strong Partnerships, Successful Students,’’ brought over 300 AI/AN educators 

and advocates together with ED Senior Officials and program staff to engage 

on the Administration’s reform agenda, initiatives, programs, and funds available to support AI/AN students. 

• NACIE’s priority regarding the advancement of intergovernmental collaboration. 

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have convened an American Indian Education Study Group (Study Group), which is 

charged with finding solutions to the challenges faced by BIE-funded schools. 

Since September 2013, the Study Group has developed a draft framework for 

education reform and conducted numerous listening sessions with tribal leaders 

and representatives throughout Indian Country to determine how to build the 

capacity of tribes to operate high-performing schools that ensure that all BIE 

students are well-prepared for college, careers, and tribal and global citizenship. 

In response to the many insightful comments presented at the listening sessions, the Study Group developed and released a draft framework based on four 

pillars of educational reform: (1) Effective Teachers and Principals—Help Tribes 

identify, recruit, retain, and empower diverse, highly effective teachers and 

65 

principals to maximize achievement in all tribally controlled schools; (2) Agile 

Organizational Environment—Build responsive organizations that provide resources, direction, and services to Tribes so they can help their students attain 

high-levels of student achievement; (3) Budget Aligned to Capacity Building— 

Develop a budget that is aligned to, and supports, BIE’s new mission of tribal 

capacity-building and scaling up best practices; and 4) Comprehensive Support 

Through Partnerships—Foster parental, community, and organizational partnerships to provide the emotional and social supports BIE students need in 

order to be ready to learn. In April and May of 2014, the Secretaries conducted 

consultation on the draft framework and provided tribal leaders with an update 

on the work of the Study Group. The Secretaries are reviewing the recommendations from these consultations. 

With regard to public schools serving Indian students, see ‘‘NACIE’s priority to 

raise the profile of Indian education,’’ above, for discussion of recent interagency efforts. 

Question 4. An overarching concern from Native education advocates is the need 

to elevate Indian education issues. The President has sanctioned numerous Advisory 

Councils for other minority groups, yet the data indicates that Native students are 

the lowest performing group served in our public schools. How is the White House 

Initiative working to elevate NACIE’s work in the Department of Education so the 

Secretary and President use them as a resource for public education and Native 

education issues? 

Answer. In addition to other responsibilities, NACIE serves as the advisory council to the Initiative, in accordance with Section 5(a) of EO 13592. The Initiative has 

taken a number of significant steps to directly and indirectly engage with NACIE 

to implement EO 13592. The Initiative has worked closely with NACIE, and with 

the Office of Indian Education within the Department, with other Federal agencies 

and offices, especially with DoI/BIE and HHS, and the Executive Office of the President to help ensure AI/AN participation in the development and implementation of 

key Administration priorities. 

The President’s Interagency Working Group on Indian Education has also brought 

together Senior Administration Officials from 29 federal agencies to implement the 

President’s Executive Order. The development of the Federal agencies’ two-part, 4- 

year plans is under way and will focus on the agencies’ efforts to help expand educational opportunities and improve educational outcomes for all AI/AN students. We 

look forward to providing you these plans when they are completed. 

Question 4a. What structural changes within the Department of Education are 

being made to make Indian students a higher priority? 

Answer. The establishment of the 2012 MOA with DOI has elevated the educational issues regarding Indian students within ED. Based on the MOA, we have 

established a Joint Committee on Indian Education, consisting of high-level officials 

from DOI and ED and additional subcommittee members, which includes tribal 

leaders from the Tribal Education Budget Council. We have established structured 

committee meetings that meet at least quarterly to work on the goals and specific 

activities designed to reach the stated goals to improve Indian education. The goals 

address several major areas that will also strengthen the relationship between ED 

and BIE to help improve primary, secondary, and postsecondary education for AI/ 

AN children and young adults. 

Major areas addressed by the goals include: increasing educational opportunities 

and educational outcomes of AI/AN students; enhancing tribal sovereignty to build 

the capacity of tribal education agencies (TEAs); streamlining the agreement process 

for educational studies conducted on tribal lands; partnerships to help increase students completing college; and expanding and merging databases between ED and 

BIE to share and implement best practices. Currently, the subcommittees are working on clarifying the goals and developing long- and short-term solutions. After the 

subcommittees complete this work, a final report will be developed and submitted 

to the Secretaries for further action, which will include approval for prioritized implementation. 

Question 5. The President’s FY 2015 budget slightly increases its support for historically black colleges and universities to $309 million, while Hispanic-serving institutions would receive $207 million. TRIO and GEAR UP would continue at $838 

million and $302 million. In comparison, tribal colleges would only receive $55 million. The Federal Government has a documented trust and treaty responsibility to 

tribes which makes it unique. Tribal colleges play a huge role in ensuring student 

success at four year institutions, as well as assisting parents to obtain their GEDs 

and continue their education, which we know is important to ensuring their children 

succeed academically. How is the White House Initiative working to ensure there 

66 

is more parity in the President’s budget to better match the support given to other 

minority higher education programs? Answer. The FY 2015 request would provide a total of $530 million in competitive funding and $255 million in mandatory funding for the programs for minority-serving institutions under Titles III and V of the HEA. The President recognizes that 

the colleges that participate in these programs, including tribal colleges, play a 

unique and vital role in providing higher education opportunity to institutions that 

enroll a large proportion of minority and disadvantaged students. However, due to 

current budgetary constraints, the fiscal year 2015 request would maintain discretionary funding at the fiscal year 2014 level for these programs. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Title III/Title V minority-serving institutions 

programs includes an increase because fiscal year 2014 funding for the mandatory 

programs (mostly Titles III and V programs) reflected the 7.2 percent sequester that 

went into effect on October 1, 2013, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(P.L. 112–25). The 2015 President’s Budget does not reflect a sequester for these 

programs, resulting in a small increase in funding over the 2014 mandatory levels. 

The FY 2015 request for discretionary funding for the vast majority of Higher 

Education programs, including the Federal TRIO Programs and Gaining Early 

Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), is the same as 

provided by Congress in the FY 2014 appropriation. The TRIO and GEAR UP programs, for which Tribal Colleges are eligible, collectively serve and assist hundreds 

of thousands of low-income individuals, first-generation college students to help 

them prepare for, enter, and complete college and graduate studies. In FY 2013, fifteen Tribal Colleges and Universities received support from the TRIO programs and 

the GEAR UP program totaling approximately $4 million. 

The 2015 request for ED’s Higher Education Programs supports programs that 

help achieve the President’s goal that, by 2020, America will once again have the 

highest proportion of college graduates in the world. To support this goal, the request includes a number of grant initiatives to improve affordability, quality, and 

success in postsecondary education that Tribal Colleges would be eligible to apply 

for, including: the First in the World fund, which would make competitive awards 

to institutions of higher education to encourage innovation; College Success Grants 

for Minority-Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

which would be made available through competitive grants to support implementation of sustainable strategies for reducing costs and improving outcomes for students; and the College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus that would reward colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of low- and moderate-income students on time and that would encourage all institutions to improve 

performance. Tribal colleges or universities would also be eligible for funds in States 

that receive grants under the Administration’s proposed State Higher Education 

Performance Fund to support, reform, and improve the performance of their public 

higher education systems. 

In FY 2015, the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native 

Education will continue to coordinate with the National Advisory Council on Indian 

Education and the White House Council on Native American Affairs; assist the Department as liaison between the executive branch and the tribal colleges; and work 

with other Federal agencies, as well as other public and private partners, to 

strengthen the capacity of these institutions, which we regard as vital in providing 

higher education opportunity to these institutions. 

Question 5a. United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) is one of two tribal technical 

colleges authorized and funded under Title V of the Tribal College Act to provide 

postsecondary career and technical education. UTTC provides comprehensive education and training programs to Indian students from more than 75 tribes. For several years, UTTC has sought forward funding of its programs to bring it on par with 

the other tribal colleges nationwide that received forward funding, at the Administration’s request, in fiscal year 2010. What steps will the Administration take to 

make sure UTTC is forward funded like the other tribal colleges? 

Answer. The Department has not requested forward funding for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, authorized under Section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, 

because the timing of the forward-funded appropriation and corresponding awards 

under the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is similar to the timing of the appropriations for Department of Education’s Section 117 program. For example, FY 2014 

current funding for Section 117 recipients, which provides funds for the 2014–15 

school year, became available on October 1, 2013, well in advance of the 2014–15 

school year. The 2014 forward funding for the BIE tribal colleges, which is also for 

the 2014–15 school year, will become available on July 1, 2014, and awarded to recipients before the school year starts. 

67 

The key factor in determining the TCPCTI award schedule is the statutory requirement to partially base award amounts on the most recent school year’s Indian 

student counts. For example, to determine how much funding each grantee would 

receive from the FY 2014 appropriation to carry out activities during school year 

2014–15, we must use Indian student counts based on summer, fall, spring, and 

continuing education enrollment from school year 2013–14 to make FY 2014 awards 

for the 2014–15 school year. Generally, the Department requests Indian student 

count data from grantees in June. After grantees submit the counts, Department 

staff review the data to determine if there were significant increases or decreases 

and then follow up with the institutions to verify the information. On occasion, the 

institutions have revised their student counts as a result of these follow-up conversations. Once we have final student counts, we run the formula to determine 

grant award amounts. 

In addition, ED regulations require that, before making continuation grant 

awards, the Department must also determine that grantees have made substantial 

progress toward meeting the targets and projected outcomes they proposed in their 

applications, and that they have used funds in a manner that is consistent with 

their approved applications and budgets. We also must negotiate between program 

staff and grantees regarding budgets and uses of funds for the subsequent school 

year. Generally, all of these activities require several weeks of back-and-forth communications between program staff and the grantees during the summer months 

(again, the process can’t start until we receive updated student counts, which are 

not available until the end of the previous school year), with final grant awards 

made in August or September. 

In recognition of the fact that at least one grantee conducts preliminary schoolyear activities in mid-summer (before final grant awards are made), we often make 

partial grant awards to the grantees earlier in the summer to assist them in carrying out these early school-year activities. 

Question 6. In your written testimony you highlight the President’s grant funding 

initiatives. I support the concept of rewarding high performance but oftentimes low 

performing schools are low performing simply because they lack resources. These 

low performing schools in North Dakota often have high percentage of Native students and are in remote areas so they do not have the resources to put together 

competitive grant applications. What is the White House Initiative doing to expand 

formula-funded programming to target areas of the country with the highest need? 

Answer. The Administration firmly believes that all children deserve a world-class 

education, regardless of their race, ethnicity, disability, native language, income 

level, or Zip Code. The focus should be on schools and students who are at risk, and 

on meaningful reforms that will help these students succeed. Historically, the Federal role in education has been to provide funding for students who need it most, 

and the fiscal year 2015 budget continues to protect the formula funding that supports millions of disadvantaged and vulnerable learners throughout the country, including Indian students receiving support through Title VII, Part A of the ESEA. 

Title VII provides formula grants to over 1300 LEAs (as well as BIE-funded triballycontrolled schools, and some tribes that apply in lieu of the LEA) in their efforts 

to reform elementary and secondary school programs that serve Indian students. 

The Office of Indian Education (OIE) has implemented recent changes to this formula grant program that emphasize the use of funds for culturally-responsive education practices and local coordination among federally-funded education programs 

in schools for the benefit of Indian students. 

The lion’s share of the FY 2015 budget request for K–12 programs-nearly 90 percent of K–12 discretionary spending-goes to formula funds. At the same time, competitive funds can drive positive change and there is a role for competitive funding 

in education reform. The Department can target specific areas and reforms through 

competitive awards that support State and school district reforms, which will also 

help them, and other States and districts, use their formula funds more effectively 

for kids. 

Question 7. The KIDS COUNT® policy report, Race for Results: Building a Path 

to Opportunity for All Children report makes four policy recommendations to help 

ensure that all children and their families, independent of race and ethnicity, 

achieve their full potential. The report suggests we need to: (1) Gather and analyze 

racial and ethnic data; (2) Use data to target investments; (3) Develop and implement promising and proven programs/practices; and (4) Connect vulnerable groups 

to new jobs and opportunities. How does the White House Initiative use this kind 

of report to advocate for developing programs which follow these kinds of recommendations? 

68 

Answer. The Department considers input and policy recommendations, such as 

those recommended by the KIDS COUNT policy report, from a broad range of stakeholders in developing programs. These take the form of reports and policy briefs, 

public comments on blog posts, letters and e-mails, public testimony, and meetings. 

In developing programs, we use various communication tools to publicly encourage 

all interested parties to submit opinions, ideas, suggestions, and comments pertaining to a particular program. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

WILLIAM MENDOZA

Question 1. We are concerned about the lack of AN/AI teachers prepared and able 

to be hired and retained, especially by LEAs with large AN/AI student populations. 

Do you have any estimates on the proportion of AN/AI teachers compared with AN/ 

AI pupils in public schools in states with high AN/AI populations? 

Answer. We have very limited data on the proportion of AI/AN teachers in 12 selected states with relatively high AI/AN enrollments. In those states, the proportion 

of AI/AN students averages 4.8 percent, and the proportion of AI/AN teachers averages 1.8 percent. Please see table provided separately. 

Question 2. What are the Administration’s efforts to strengthen the pipeline for 

AN/AI teachers to be recruited by public schools? 

Answer. In our 2010 proposal for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), we envisioned continuation of formula and competitive 

grants to provide strong support to help meet the unique needs of AI/AN students. 

The Department’s proposal would provide greater flexibility in the use of funds to 

carry out programs such as Native language immersion and Native language restoration programs, as well as to develop tribal specific standards and assessments. 

The proposal would also improve access to funds for Indian tribes under other ESEA 

programs, and would recognize and strengthen the role of tribal education departments in coordinating and implementing services and programs for Indian students 

within their jurisdictions. However, because the ESEA has not been reauthorized, 

our vision for improving AI/AN programs through greater flexibility and access to 

funds has not come to fruition. 

The Office of Indian Education (OIE), in the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE), administers Indian Education Professional Development (PD) 

Grants under Title VII–A–2 of the ESEA. The purpose of the PD grant program is 

to prepare and train American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) professionals to increase the number of qualified individuals in professions that serve AI/AN populations across the United States, primarily as teachers, school administrators, teacher aides, language instructors, and ancillary education personnel. OIE awards 

grants to institutions of higher education that then provide supplemental funding 

and support to undergraduate and graduate students who are pursuing degrees and/ 

or certificates in education. The participants who accept funding and training under 

this program must perform work that benefits Native people, and is related to their 

training, or repay the assistance. 

The Department is in the initial stage of rulemaking, and has consulted to amend 

the current regulations for the PD program. The Department consulted with AI/AN 

tribes to better understand specific barriers that affect teacher recruitment and 

preparation. The feedback that the Department received through consultation is 

currently informing the rulemaking for this program. For example, the Department 

learned that providing more information about the ‘‘payback’’ requirements would 

help prospective participants make more informed decisions about participating in 

the program. The Department will provide the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

the committee as soon as it is publicly available. 

Question 2a. How successful are the loan repayment programs? 

Answer. For OIE’s PD program, the Department developed a web-based data collection system to track and monitor participants’ compliance with the work-related 

payback requirement, facilitate grantee reporting of student training costs, and capture data required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA). This system collects real-time data from the field that provides the Department with an opportunity to identify ways to provide more timely and relevant technical assistance, which is expected to improve grantee performance. A link to the 

new PD payback system is included here: https://pdp.ed.gov/OIE/. Regarding the 

success of the PD program, see the statistics below. 

i. How many teachers does it incentivize? 

69 

Answer. Over the past five years of the PD program: 40 grants were awarded; 100 

percent of participants who exited or completed their program of study are completing the required payback; 44 percent of participants (148) who have exited or 

completed their program of study are completing or have completed a work-related 

payback. 

ii.Is the funding fully spent every year? 

Answer. Yes, all funds appropriated for this program were obligated to grantees. 

Question 2b. What suggestions do you have to bolster this program or other efforts 

to increase the preparation of AN/AI teachers for public schools? 

Answer. As explained above, the Department is engaging in rulemaking to further 

strengthen OIE’s PD program and help more participants find jobs in schools serving Indian children. In addition, as stated above, the Department, in its 2010 proposal for reauthorizing the ESEA, proposed continuation of both formula and competitive grants to provide strong support to help meet the unique needs of AI/AN 

students. The Department’s proposal would provide greater flexibility in the use of 

funds to carry out programs such as Native language immersion and Native language restoration programs, as well as to develop tribal-specific standards and assessments. The proposal would also improve access to funds for Indian tribes under 

other ESEA programs, and would recognize and strengthen the role of tribal education departments in coordinating and implementing services and programs for Indian students within their jurisdictions. 

Question 3. What else can the Administration do to help LEAs on/near reservations recruit and retain teachers? 

Answer. In addition to the discretionary grant program described above, the Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) program, authorized by Title VII of the ESEA, provides grants to over 1,300 local educational 

agencies (as well as BIE-funded tribally controlled schools, and some tribes that 

apply in lieu of the LEA) in their efforts to reform elementary and secondary school 

programs that serve Indian students. All grantees are required to provide any needed professional development to ensure that teachers and other school professionals 

who are new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children, 

and that all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted by the grant have 

been properly trained to carry out those programs. Some examples of the types of 

professional development that have been funded by Title VII include integrating Indian-specific content into the general curriculum, Indian Education-specific PD (e.g. 

instruction in specific language or Indian curricula), and cultural awareness education and sensitivity training. 

The Department also administers the Title II, Part A program, the purpose of 

which is to improve the academic achievement of all students by helping schools and 

districts improve teacher and principal quality and to ensure that all teachers are 

highly qualified. Through the program, State and local educational agencies (SEAs 

and LEAs), and State agencies for higher education (SAHEs) receive funds on a formula basis. Eligible partnerships consisting of high-need LEAs and institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) receive funds that are competitively awarded by the SAHE. 

While these funds can be used to support preparation of AI/AN teachers for public 

schools, the programs do not target any particular group of teachers and funds are 

not designed to support teacher preparation programs. The focus is on supporting 

all classroom teachers, particularly teachers who are not deemed highly qualified. 

However, the BIE receives funds for the Title II, Part A program and carries out 

activities consistent with the goals of the program, targeting teachers in BIE-funded 

schools. 

The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is another program designed to support teachers. One of the key features of the TIF program is to take teachers who may be 

effective and move them to being identified as highly effective by supporting them 

with professional development, and teaching in high-need schools. There are TIF 

projects, such as the grant awarded to the Maricopa (AZ) County Education Service 

Agency, that help support teachers of AI/AN students. 

In addition to teacher-related programs administered by OESE , the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funds discretionary grants through its Personnel 

Development Program (PDP) to prepare personnel for careers in the field of special 

education, early childhood, and related services. These PDP grants pay for tuition, 

fees, and books, for example, to help ensure that students complete the program. 

In a recent Fiscal Year, 82 American Indian or Alaska Native scholars were enrolled 

in OSEP-funded programs that lead to degrees (bachelor’s through doctoral levels) 

and/or certification or licensure. 

Question 4. What is the Administration doing to disseminate best practices so that 

LEAs serving AN/AI students can benefit from successful approaches elsewhere? 

70 

Answer. The Department supports a network of regional comprehensive and content centers that are committed to supporting the technical and information needs 

of SEAs and LEAs in the dissemination of best practices, including SEAs and LEAs 

serving AI/AN educators and students. The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders 

(GTL Center), a federally supported content center, is based at the American Institutes for Research and funded through a cooperative agreement by ED’s Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education. The GTL Center is dedicated to supporting 

State education leaders in their efforts to grow and retain great teachers and leaders for all students. The GTL Center continues the work of the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (TQ Center) and expands its focus to provide 

technical assistance and on-line resources designed to build systems that: 

• Support the implementation of college and career standards; 

• Ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders; 

• Recruit, retain, reward, and support effective educators; 

• Develop coherent human capital management systems; 

• Create safe academic environments that increase student learning through positive behavior management and appropriate discipline; and, 

• Use data to guide professional development and improve instruction. 

For the past 11 years, Tribal Colleges and Universities and other institutions with 

high American Indian enrollments have been a priority for the Monarch Technical 

Assistance Center funded by OSEP. The goal has been to create new programs, 

strengthen existing programs, add specialized strands, facilitate collaborations 

among 2-year and 4-year institutions, and design program structures that will bolster recruitment and retention of American Indian students who seek degrees and 

certification to teach children and youth with disabilities in their home communities. 

Specific foci of the Monarch Center’s technical assistance to Tribal Colleges and 

Universities include: 

• Preparation for approval by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 

Education (NCATE); 

• Development of new elementary education/early childhood education program 

including program design, state approval process, course design, and practicum 

site development; 

• Facilitation of articulation agreements between 2-year and 4-year colleges/universities; 

• Creation of a para-educator program to prepare for serving individuals with disabilities; 

• Establishing a licensure program that previously depended on outside non-Tribal college for enrollment; 

• Provision of leadership and facilitating a process toward creation of a Tribal 

Colleges and Universities Consortium (TCUC) for Teacher Education that will 

facilitate intercampus collaboration 

The Monarch Center has serviced 17 Tribal Colleges and Universities and 1 Alaska Native IHE. 

Finally, the RESPECT Initiative, captured in the RESPECT Blueprint for Transforming Teaching, seeks to work with educators to rebuild the teaching profession 

along the entire spectrum of recruitment, preparation, professional development, 

compensation, and retention by advocating a higher bar for entry into the field, the 

establishment of more excellent teacher-training programs, and the development of 

meaningful career-advancement opportunities that offer competitive compensation 

and opportunities for increasingly impactful roles and responsibilities. The goal is 

to establish a teaching profession—including teachers on or near reservations—that 

is prepared and empowered to help our students meet the demands of the 21st Century. 

Over the past four years, this Administration has begun laying the foundation for 

RESPECT, including by making some progress on the seven critical elements set 

forth in the Blueprint. To more fully realize the RESPECT vision, the President has 

proposed $5 billion in one-time 2015 mandatory funds to provide targeted support 

for teachers and school leaders by improving preparation and early career assistance, giving teachers and leaders opportunities to develop and advance as they lead 

the transition to college- and career-ready standards, and ensuring that teachers 

have a supportive work environment built around shared collaboration. This request 

would support up to 1,000 grants to States and districts to invest in needed imVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:47 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 089678 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89678.TXT JACK
71 

provements to the education profession, reaching up to 1.6 million teachers. We 

have held hundreds of conversations with thousands of educators on how they can 

implement RESPECT-like changes in their local contexts and provided capacitybuilding resources via www.ed.gov/teaching. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. LISA MURKOWSKI TO

WILLIAM MENDOZA

Question 1. Many tribal organizations in Alaska have contacted me in frustration 

because, despite working with tribal children in the public schools, they are often 

unable to get the district to share the students’ data with them. I am told that the 

Department has provided guidance to districts that they may provide student data 

to tribes in such circumstances. Has the Department considered offering stronger 

guidance, or promulgating regulations that would require districts to do so? If not, 

why not? 

Answer. Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known 

as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)’’ does not require educational agencies or institutions to disclose students’ education records to others 

(and permits them to do so only under certain specific circumstances), and the Department cannot require districts to disclose education records under FERPA. Instead, FERPA generally permits educational agencies and institutions to disclose 

student’s education records to others only if the educational agencies and institutions obtain the written consent of eligible students or their parents to do so, unless 

an exception to the general requirement of consent applies. FERPA applies to educational agencies and institutions that receive funds under any program administered by the Secretary of Education. When a student reaches 18 years of age or attends a postsecondary institution, the student becomes an ‘‘eligible student’’ and all 

FERPA rights transfer from the parents to the student. 

In the preamble to the December 2, 2011, Federal Register notice that revised the 

FERPA regulations, the Department addressed a number of FERPA issues relevant 

to tribal organizations. The Notice referenced the agreement between the DOI and 

ED concerning transfers of funds under the ESEA. Under that agreement, ED treats 

the BIE as a ‘‘State educational agency’’ (SEA) for monitoring and compliance purposes, and each BIE school is treated as an LEA. The Department further indicated 

in the 2011 Notice that we similarly would treat BIE schools as ‘‘educational agencies or institutions’’ under FERPA and would treat the BIE as a ‘‘State or local educational authority’’ under FERPA. Further, we indicated that we did not consider 

TEAs to be a ‘‘State or local educational authority’’ under FERPA. The Department 

also explained that, because we had not proposed to define the term ‘‘State and local 

educational authorities’’ in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we declined to regulate on this without providing the public with notice and the opportunity to comment. 

The Department, however, implemented a significant change that impacts tribal 

organizations in the Department’s 2011 amendment to the FERPA regulations. The 

Department interpreted the audit and evaluation exception to consent in FERPA to 

permit State and local educational authorities, such as SEAs and LEAs, to designate 

as their ‘‘authorized representative’’ any individual or entity to assist in the audit 

or evaluation of Federal- or State-supported education programs, as long as certain 

conditions are met. Accordingly, an SEA or LEA that would like to work with a TEA 

to audit or evaluate the effectiveness of a Federal- or State-supported education program may do so and disclose education records to the TEA serving as the SEA’s or 

LEA’s ‘‘authorized representative’’ under the ‘‘audit and evaluation’’ exception to 

consent in FERPA. The parties would be required to enter into a written agreement 

that stipulates, in part, that the TEA may use any PII from education records only 

for the purpose of the audit or evaluation, must protect the PII from further disclosure, and must destroy the PII when it is no longer needed for the purpose for 

which it was disclosed. 

In the most recent Memorandum of Agreement between the Department and the 

BIE (December 3, 2012), the Department agreed to work with SEAs to promote 

greater communication between SEAs and tribes, between SEAs and BIE-funded 

schools, and between tribal governments and BIE-funded schools concerning tribal 

access to education records of students who are tribal members, consistent with 

FERPA and other privacy protections. The Department agreed to communicate that: 

FERPA does not prohibit data-sharing with tribes or TEAs if required steps and 

safeguards are followed; while FERPA generally prohibits the disclosure of PII from 

students’ education records without parental consent, an LEA or SEA may release 

information on students to a tribe or TEA in non-personally identifiable form; and 

72 

an LEA or an SEA may designate an Indian tribe or TEA as its authorized representative to audit or evaluate Federal or State-supported education programs, 

under the conditions set forth in the Department’s FERPA regulations. (see 34 CFR 

§ § 99.3, 99.31(a)(3), 99.35). The BIE similarly agreed to work to promote greater 

communication between BIE-operated schools and tribes concerning tribal access to 

the education records of students who are tribal members. 

The Department has conducted several public information sessions that address 

these FERPA-tribal issues. At the annual National Indian Education Association 

conference, which grantees of the Department’s Indian Education formula grants attend, the Department sponsors a series of workshops though video-teleconference 

with presenters from the Department. For the last several years, the Department’s 

Family Compliance Office (FPCO) has presented by teleconference a Q/A session on 

FERPA. In addition, on March 20, 2014, the Department conducted a webinar on 

FERPA specifically for State Tribal Educational Partnership (STEP) grantees. During the webinar, which was attended by representatives of tribes, school districts, 

and States, the FPCO addressed the various ways in which school districts or states 

can share data on tribal students consistent with FERPA. 

The Department also addressed data sharing with TEAs under FERPA in the 

STEP Grant competition FY 2012 Frequently Asked Questions, available at: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/step/faq.html#9. The Department’s Office of Indian Education (OIE), working with the FPCO, also plans to issue further guidance to Department grantees regarding options for data-sharing with tribal entities under 

FERPA. 

Question 2. Why does the Department house Title VII Part A Indian Education 

program staff in the Office of Indian Education and Title VII Part C Alaska Native 

Educational Equity Program (ANEP) staff in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education? If the Department has decided not to locate ANEP program staff 

under OIE, please explain why. 

Answer. The Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), authorized under Title 

VII, Part C of the ESEA is administered by the Academic Improvement and Teacher 

Quality (AITQ) section of the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE). The Office of Indian Education (OIE) is also located in OESE. 

The Department is committed to administering programs in as seamless a manner 

as possible while, at the same time, working together to continually improve crossprogram coordination, collaboration, and overall program effectiveness. For example, 

the policy decisionmaking process for all Indian education programs authorized 

under Title VII of the ESEA includes an inter- and intra-program staff team with 

representatives from the WHIAIANE, the OIE, and staff who administer the ANEP 

and the Native Hawaiian program. 

Question 3. Neither the 2011 National Indian Education Study nor the recently 

released Office of Civil Rights data breaks out the data for Alaska Native students 

as distinct from the American Indian/Alaska Native subgroup. Does the Department 

have plans to change that? If so, please describe them. 

Answer. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for establishing government-wide standards for reporting data by race and ethnicity. In 

1997, OMB published revised standards for the collection of data on race and ethnicity. In accordance with these standards, the Department published final guidance 

in the Federal Register on October 19, 2007 on the collection and reporting of racial 

and ethnic data by educational institutions and other grantees. The 2007 Final 

Guidance applies to all major Department of Education data collections, including 

the Civil Rights Data Collection. 

One of the data categories included in the Department’s 2007 Final Guidance is 

the category of American Indian/Alaska Native. The Department’s 2007 Guidance 

did not provide for separate reporting for Alaska Native students. Therefore, the 

Civil Rights Data Collection collects data on the combined category of American Indian/Alaska Native and does not collect separate data for Alaska Natives. 

The first year for full implementation of the requirements of the 2007 Final Guidance was the 2011–2012 school year. This gave States and school districts time to 

implement the necessary changes to their data-collection and recordkeeping systems. 

Ultimately, the Department’s final requirements aim to strike the balance between minimizing the burden for local education agencies while also ensuring the 

availability of high-quality racial and ethnic data for carrying out the Department’s 

responsibilities in areas including civil rights enforcement, program monitoring, the 

identification and placement of students in special education, research and statistical analysis, and accountability for student achievement. We are not planning to 

change the guidance at this time. However, so long as they can still aggregate the 

73 

data into the format required by ED, schools districts and States already have the 

flexibility to collect racial and ethnic data on sub-categories of students to better 

meet the needs of their local communities. 

Question 4. In your written testimony, you noted that since the President signed 

Executive Order 13592, the following actions have occurred: the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education was formed and has engaged 

in Listening Sessions with tribes. The President’s Interagency Working Group on Indian Education has been formed and 29 agencies met in 2013 to begin interagency 

implementation of the Executive Order. The Native Languages Working Group was 

formed and is planning a Native American Languages Summit for this June to discuss ways to measure successful Native language preservation and acquisition. A 

joint DOl-ED Committee on Indian Education has been formed, which has developed 

a Memorandum of Understanding to leverage both departments’ expertise. The joint 

Committee has also ‘‘started working on developing plans to implement seven specific goals and activities’’. After the formation of all of these groups, the listening 

sessions, and the work to develop plans and summits, what, specifically, has resulted that has impacted schools, tribes, and, most importantly, American Indian/ 

Alaska Native students, in public schools across America? 

Answer. In addition to working closely with the Executive Office of the President 

to help ensure AI/AN participation in the development and implementation of key 

Administration priorities, the WHIAIANE coordinates with the Department’s Director of Indian Education on programs administered by the Department and also 

serves as a liaison with other executive branch agencies on AI/AN issues and advises those agencies on how they might help to promote AI/AN educational opportunities. 

Through these efforts, the OIE has made several important changes to the application for Title VII formula grants for FY 2014 in order to emphasize the statutory 

requirement that grant funds be used as part of a comprehensive program to meet 

the culturally-related academic needs of Indian students, including the language 

and cultural needs of the children. In 2013, there were approximately 1,300 Title 

VII programs and 500,000 students served nationwide. 

The Interagency Working Group on Indian Education has developed the tools to 

gather information from agencies and is working with agencies to develop and submit their Federal agency plans. Each agency’s plan includes annual performance indicators and appropriate measurable objectives with which the agency will measure 

its success as well as information on how the agency intends to increase the capacity of educational agencies and institutions, including public schools and tribal colleges and universities, to deliver high-quality education and related social services 

to all AI/AN students. 

To gather the information needed to achieve the seven goals of the MOA, the 

Joint Committee created an assessment document that was disseminated throughout all three agencies. We have received responses to the assessment document and 

have begun to review the information. 

In addition to the Native Language Summit, the Native Language Workgroup 

(NLW) has developed a resource assessment document to gather information from 

federal agencies to identify barriers, levers, and best practices within each agency 

that will help the Federal agencies further the goals described in the MOA. These 

findings are being reviewed and will be used to replicate successful programs, implement quality-improvement efforts, and disseminate information and provide technical assistance to Federal, State, and tribal governments; schools; or other entities 

carrying out Native language activities. 

The NLW is identifying research that explores educational attainment and Native 

language retention and/or revitalization and is reviewing current training and technical assistance related to Native language preservation and maintenance. The 

NLW is gathering data about effective or exemplary Native language instruction, 

both in terms of the administration of funds and programs, as well as program impact on educational achievement. 

Also, the Office of Postsecondary Education has included an Invitational Priority 

to support activities that strengthen Native language preservation and revitalization in institutions of higher education in the Title III Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-Serving Institutions 2014 grant competition. 

Consistent with the President’s ESEA reauthorization blueprint, a pilot competition was designed to increase the role of TEAs in meeting the educational needs of 

students attending public schools on tribal reservations. The State Tribal Education 

Program (STEP) is the result of this effort. Through ED’s Investing in Innovation 

program, the Parents as Teachers National Center replicated a program called 

BabyFACE. The evidence-supported, home-based service of the successful Family 

and Child Education (FACE) program serves approximately 1,000 children annually 

74 

over the five-year grant in 22 BIE-funded schools. In year three, nearly 900 families 

were served by parent educators at the 22 BIE sites through home visitations where 

children received books and annual health screenings. 

Question 5. You referenced the National Advisory Council on Indian Education in 

your written testimony as playing ‘‘a vital role in how we address the unique needs 

of Al/AN students.’’ Please describe which NACIE recommendations have been 

adopted or otherwise acted upon and which recommendations have been either been 

rejected or not acted upon during this Administration. 

Answer. Please see the response above to question 3 from Senator Heitkamp 

Question 6. You noted in your testimony that the President has requested funding 

for a number of new programs, including Race to the Top Equity and Opportunity, 

College Success Grants for Minority-Serving Institutions Initiative, and First in the 

World. You also spoke about Impact Aid, Title VII and Title II programs that serve 

American Indian and Alaska Native students. The Committee has been informed by 

witnesses at today’s hearing of the importance of Impact Aid funding in schools’ efforts to improve American Indian and Alaska Native students’ outcomes. Yet, the 

President has proposed to flat fund Impact Aid Basic Support Payments, Payments 

for Students with Disabilities, Facilities Maintenance, and Construction in FY15. 

Which of the proposed new programs could be put aside in order to increase funds 

for Impact Aid and other Title programs that have been shown to be so important 

to serving Native students? 

Answer. The President’s Budget Request reflects the Administration’s best effort 

to balance existing commitments with support for innovation aimed at addressing 

gaps in current Federal education programs. We continue to believe that Congress 

should fund our proposed Race to the Top incentives that target the many inequities 

in educational opportunity identified by the Equity Commission and amplified in recent data from the Civil Rights Data Collection, the related expansion of support 

for minority-serving institutions, and First in the World efforts to improve postsecondary outcomes through increased emphasis on college affordability and completion. We also believe that each of these initiatives holds the potential to deliver benefits for American Indian and Alaska Native students. 

Attachments 

75 


409c1.eps
76 


409c2.eps
77 


409c3.eps
78 

Æ 


409c4.eps