79–010

Calendar No. 915

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–467

AMENDING THE NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES ACT TO

PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPORT OF NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE SURVIVAL SCHOOLS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2688]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill

(S. 2688) to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide

for the support of Native American Language Survival Schools, and

for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably

thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 2688, the Native American Languages Act

Amendments Act of 2000, is to encourage and support development

of Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests to support revitalization of Native American

languages and to address the effects of past discrimination against

Native American language speakers.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

After the American Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Peace Commissioners to bring an end to the Indian wars.

The 1868 Report of the Indian Peace Commissioners concluded the

following:

Now, by educating the children of these tribes in the

English language these differences would have disappeared, and civilization would have followed at once.

* * * Through sameness of language is produced sameness of sentiment, and thought; customs and habits are

2

1 Reyhner, Jon. (1996). Rationale and Needs for Stabilizing Indigenous Languages. In G.

Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Center for Excellence in Education,

Northern Arizona University.

molded and assimilated in the same way, and thus in process of time the differences producing trouble would have

been gradually obliterated. * * * In the difference of language today lies two-thirds of our trouble. * * * Schools

should be established, which children should be required

to attend; their barbarous dialect should be blotted out and

the English language substituted.1

As recommended by the Peace Commissioners, a system of offreservation boarding schools was initiated in the 1880s as part of

the United States’ forced assimilation policies towards Native

Americans. Native American children were forcibly taken from

their families, transported hundreds of miles to schools where their

hair was cut, notwithstanding the religious importance of hair

length in most native cultures, their clothes were replaced with

military-style uniforms, and they were forbidden to speak their native languages or practice their religions. Although this effort to

eradicate Indian culture was not successful, it did separate several

generations of Native Americans from their native languages.

Over the years, Federal Indian policy has vacillated between the

assimilationist sentiment reflected in the 1868 Report of the Indian

Peace Commissioners and self-determination at the other end of

the spectrum. The most recent shift to the self-determination policy

came in the late 1960’s with the end of the Termination Era, a

time in which Federal policy sought the termination of Indian reservations as well as the termination of the United States’ relationship with Indian tribal governments. Since then, Native American

communities have begun to rebuild what the Federal government

attempted to destroy by establishing schools where Native American children are taught all subjects in their native language. Native American language immersion schooling in the United States

was pioneered by Native Hawaiians with the formation of the ‘Aha

Pu ̄nana Leo (Language Nest) in 1983, following the Ma ̄oir language

nest model of New Zealand.

At the request of the Native American Language Issues Institute,

Senator Inouye introduced legislation that was to become the Native American Languages Act of 1990. The Act officially repudiated

the policies of the past and declared that ‘‘it is the policy of the

United States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native

American languages.’’ Although this was an important step towards assuring the preservation and revitalization of Native American languages, the Act did not dedicate any financial resources to

the effort.

Despite the lack of funds allocated to implement the new policy,

the National Park Service (NPS) awarded Historic Preservation

Fund Grants to Federally-recognized tribes under the authority of

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The purpose of the

grants was to support Native American language retention and revitalization. Between Fiscal Years 1990 and 1994, NPS awarded 49

grants for a total amount of $1,474,900. Although NPS still awards

Historic Preservation Fund Grants for projects such as cultural reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:26 Oct 05, 2000 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR467.XXX pfrm04 PsN: SR467
3

source inventories, ethnobotany surveys, and oral history documentation, Native American language retention and revitalization

projects are no longer funded.

The Committee on Indian Affairs moved to address the lack of

resources with the passage of the Native American Languages Act

of 1992. The Act amended the Native American Programs Act of

1974 to establish a grant program under the Department of Health

and Human Services’ Administration for Native Americans (ANA)

to support Native American language projects. Since 1994, the

ANA has awarded grants for the purpose of assisting Native Americans in assuring the survival and continuing vitality of their languages. Grants are provided under two categories: Category I Planning Grants are used to conduct the assessment and planning

needed to identify the current status of the Native American language(s) to be addressed and to establish long-range community

language goals; Category II Design and/or Implementation Grants

enable communities to design and/or implement a language program or programs that will contribute to the achievement of the

community’s long-range language goal(s). Between Fiscal Years

1994 and 2000, ANA awarded 166 grants for a total amount of

$13,740,084. During this same time period, the total number of applicants was 737 and the total amount sought by applicants was

$63,629,144.

With the help of ANA funding, private institutions, and sometimes with no assistance other than the dedication of volunteers,

Native American communities across the United States have struggled to establish schools that will provide instruction to their children in their native language and in a manner that respects their

culture. Today, in addition to the Native Hawaiian schools, Native

American language immersion schools have been established by the

Navajo Nation, the Mississippi Bank of Choctaw, the Mohawk,

Northern Arapaho, and Blackfeet tribes, the Yup’ik Eskimos of

Alaska, various California tribes, and the Cochiti Pueblo.

At the request of linguists, parents and teachers involved in Native American language schools, Senator Inouye introduced S. 2688

to address the need for more funding directed specifically at providing support for Native American language schools. The areas of

complement between the ANA grant program and the S. 2688

grant program include language documentation, teacher, staff and

community training, and curriculum development. Activities ANA

does not fund, that the S. 2688 program would authorize funding

for, include:

• instruction of students through the use of a Native American language;

• school administration costs;

• rental, lease, purchase, construction, maintenance or repair of educational facilities;

• conferences for Native American language school teachers

and school administrators;

• educational exchange among Native American language

teachers and school administrators (e.g., cross-training);

• establishment of three demonstration programs that will

provide assistance to Native American Language Nests and

Survival Schools;

• followup data collection and analysis on students;

4

• transportation, purchase of basic materials, boarding and

food services for enrolled students;

• full or partial scholarships and fellowships to colleges and

universities for the professional development of faculty and

staff or parents of enrolled students; and

• activities to revive languages that are being lost or have

been lost because of the lack or absence of native language

speakers.

It is important to note that Native American language schools

are eligible for grants under the Bilingual Education Act, but the

main purpose of bilingual education programs is to help students

master English. Although these programs serve Native American

populations, the Act does not recognize the need to, or importance

of, supporting the survival of Native American languages.

Similarly, there is Federal funding available to support teaching

Native American languages as foreign languages. Although this

funding supports cultural enrichment, teaching a Native American

language in the same way that a foreign language is taught generally does not produce fluent speakers, much less allow the language to survive or reestablish inter-generational transmission.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 2688 was introduced on June 7, 2000 by Senator Inouye for

himself and Senators Akaka, Cochran, Dodd, Kennedy, Murray,

and Schumer. Senators Boxer, Bryan, Campbell, Daschle, and Reid

were later added as cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On July 20, 2000, the Committee held a

hearing on S. 2688, at which representatives of the Administration,

Native American language schools, and linguists testified in support of the bill.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

The Committee on Indian Affairs, in an open business session on

September 27, 2000, adopted an amendment-in-the-nature-of-a-substitute to S. 2688 by voice vote and ordered the bill, as amended,

reported favorably to the Senate.

SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT

S. 2688, as amended and reported by the Committee on Indian

Affairs on September 27, 2000, would establish a grant program to

be administered by the U.S. Department of Education to support

the development of Native American Language Nests and Native

American Language Survival Schools. Grants are authorized to establish Native American Language Nest programs that would provide instruction and child care for students under the age of 7

through the use of a Native American language. S. 2688 authorizes

funds to support the development of Native American Language

Survival Schools to provide instruction through the use of a Native

American language or languages for students from infancy through

grade 12. In addition, the bill authorizes the establishment of three

demonstration programs that will provide assistance to Native

American Language Nests and Native American Language Survival Schools.

5

At the July 20, 2000, hearing on S. 2688, several concerns regarding the bill were expressed by witnesses. Below is a brief discussion of the concerns that were raised and how those concerns

are addressed in the substitute amendment.

The Administration’s testimony expressed concern regarding four

areas: (1) English fluency and academic success, (2) the requirement that students of Native American Language Survival Schools

achieve fluency in a Native American language within 3 years of

enrollment, (3) school finance and governance, and (4) research and

evaluation.

The Committee agrees that English fluency is important to the

future success of Native American students, however, as illustrated

in the testimony of several hearing witnesses, Native American

language immersion schools in no way threaten a student’s acquisition of English. On the contrary, the research indicates that immersion students perform better on achievement measures—including standardized assessments of English—than students in

English-only classrooms, as discussed in Dr. Teresa McCarty’s testimony.

Native American students have the highest school failure and

dropout rates in the nation and are heavily over represented in

special education programs. The current methods of educating Native American children are not working. As stated by Dr. McCarty,

‘‘* * * the proposed amendments are not about saving indigenous

languages as if they were endangered species. These amendments

are about building the intellectual and social-linguistic abilities of

indigenous children in ways that strengthen them, their families

and communities.’’ The amendment-in-the-nature-of-a-substitute to

S. 2688 adopted by the Committee states that one of the purposes

of the bill is to ‘‘demonstrate the positive effects of Native American Language Survival Schools on the academic success of Native

American students and their mastery of standard English.’’

The concern of the Administration and witnesses to the bill’s requirement that students of Native American Language Survival

Schools achieve fluency in a Native American language within 3

years of enrollment stemmed from a confusion over the interpretation of the term ‘‘fluency.’’ The Committee has addressed this concern by including language in the amendment-in-the-nature-of-asubstitute, which states that Native American Language Survival

Schools must ‘‘ensure that within 3 years of enrollment, all students achieve functional fluency appropriate to the unique circumstances and endangerment status of the Native American language with the ultimate goal of academic or cognitive fluency.’’

The Administration’s concerns regarding school finance and governance included the types of schools that would be eligible to receive funding under the proposed legislation. The amendment-inthe-nature-of-a-substitute includes public schools under the definition of ‘‘Native American Language Educational Organization,’’

thereby making public schools eligible to receive funding.

The Administration and other witnesses suggested the addition

of a research and evaluation component to the bill. The amendment-in-the-nature-of-a-substitute authorizes the demonstration

programs to ‘‘conduct followup data collection and analysis on students while they are in school to assess how Survival School students are performing in comparison to other students, as well as

6

identify instructional methods that are working and those methods

which may not be working.’’ In addition, the results of this research

will be widely disseminated through the national clearinghouse

that would be created by the demonstration programs.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT

Sec. 1. Short title

S. 2688 may be cited as the Native American Languages Act

Amendments Act of 2000.

Sec. 2. Purpose

The purpose of the bill is to encourage and support development

of Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests to address the effects of past discrimination

against Native American language speakers and to support revitalization of such languages. In addition, the bill seeks to demonstrate

the positive effects of Native American Language Survival Schools

on the academic success of Native American students and their

mastery of standard English; to encourage family involvement in

the Native American Language Survival Schools; to encourage educational exchange among Native American Language Survival

Schools; to provide support for Native American Language Survival

School facilities and endowments; to support the development of

local and national models for teaching Native American students;

and to develop a support center system for Native American Survival Schools at the university level.

Sec. 3. Definitions

This section contains definitions for the following terms: Indian,

Indian tribal government, Indian tribe, Indian reservation, Native

American, Native American language, Native American Language

College, Native American Language Educational Organization, Native American Language Nest, Native American Language Survival

School, Native American Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, Secretary, traditional leaders, and tribal organization.

Sec. 4. Native American language nests and survival schools

This section of the bill amends the Native American Languages

Act by adding the following new sections:

Sec. 108. Native American language nests

This section authorizes funds to establish Native American Language Nest programs for students under the age of 7 and their

families. Native American Language Nest programs must provide

instruction and child care through the use of a Native American

language for at least 10 children for at least 700 hours per year

per student; provide compulsory classes in a Native American language for parents of enrolled students; provide compulsory monthly

meetings for parents and other family members of enrolled students; provide a preference in enrollment for students and families

who are fluent in a Native American language; receive at least 5%

of its funding from another source, which may include Federalfunded programs, such as Head Start; and ensure that a Native

7

American language becomes the dominant medium of instruction

within a period of six years of funding under this Act.

Sec. 109. Native American language survival schools

This section authorizes funds to operate, expand, and increase

Native American Language Survival Schools for Native American

children and Native American language-speaking children. In order

to receive funds, eligible organizations must have at least three

years experience in operating and administering a Native American Language Survival School, a Native American Language Nest,

or other educational programs in which instruction is conducted in

a Native American language; and include students who are subject

to State compulsory education laws; and may include students from

infancy through grade 12, as well as their families.

In order to receive funding, Native American Language Survival

Schools must provide not less than 700 hours of instruction per

student conducted annually through a Native American language

or languages for at least 15 students who do not regularly attend

another school; provide direct educational services and school support services such as transportation and food service; provide direct

or indirect educational and support services for the families of enrolled students; and ensure that students who are not Native

American language speakers achieve functional fluency in a Native

American language within 3 years of enrollment. In addition, funds

may be used for curriculum development and community language

uses development; teacher, staff and community resource development; and rental, lease, purchase, construction, maintenance or repair of educational facilities.

Sec. 110. Assistance

This section authorizes the establishment of three demonstration

programs that will provide assistance to Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests. The

three demonstration programs are the Native Language College of

the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the Alaska Native Language Center of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, and the Piegan Institute in Browning, Montana.

Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations

This section authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may

be necessary to carry out the activities authorized under the Act

for fiscal years 2001 through 2006.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 2688, as amended, as provided by the

Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:

8

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, September 29, 2000.

Hon. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2688, the Native American

Language Act Amendments Act of 2000.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Kalcevic.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 2688—Native American Language Act Amendments Act of 2000

Summary: S. 2688 would authorize the appropriation of such

sums as may be necessary for a new grant program for native language schools and related programs for Native Americans. The

grants would be authorized through 2006, administered by the Secretary of Education, and subject to the availability of appropriated

funds. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that spending to implement the bill would total about $43

million over the 2001–2005 period. S. 2688 would not affect direct

spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply

to the bill.

S. 2688 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

and would impose no costs on state or local governments. Implementing this bill would benefit tribal governments, and any resulting costs to those governments would be incurred voluntarily.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2688 is shown in the following table. The costs

of this legislation fall within budget function 500 (education, employment training, and social services).

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF S. 2688

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................................. 0 7 8 12 18 23

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 0 1 6 8 12 17

Basis if estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2688 will be enacted early in October 2000 and that

the funds necessary to implement the bill will be appropriated by

early in each fiscal year. Estimated outlays reflect the spending

rates of other Indian education grant programs of the Department

of Education.

This bill would authorize such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 for federal grants to Native American

organizations for the purpose of operating Native American language survival schools and Native American language nests. The

9

language survival schools enroll children eligible for elementary or

secondary education and use the native language as the dominant

language for instruction. To be eligible for funds, a school would

have to have at least three years of experience in operating a program in which the instruction is conducted in the native language,

and the program would have to provide for a minimum of 700

hours of instruction per student annually for at least 15 students.

As defined by the bill, Native American language nests would be

full-time programs targeted at children below the age of seven, in

which native language and culture would be taught and supporting

services to their families would be provided. To be eligible for funding, nests would have to enroll at least 10 children and provide at

least 5 percent of the operating funds from other sources, including

other federal grants. The bill would also authorize demonstration

grants for three entities to assist Native American organizations

with the establishment of language survival schools and nests.

Those organizations are the Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke‘elikolani College

of the University of Hawaii at Hilo in consortium with the ‘Aha

Punana Leo, Inc., the Alaska Native Language Center of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, and the Piegan Institute of Browning, Montana.

The purposes and uses of the funds authorized by this bill are

very broadly defined; thus, the costs are difficult to estimate. CBO

used data obtained from the Department of Education and various

Native American organizations currently involved in similar programs to estimate the potential cost of the bill.

CBO estimates that implementing this bill would require appro- priations of $7 million in 2001 and $67 million over the 2001–2005

period. As many as 10 language survival schools could meet the

three-year requirement today, and as many as 40 schools are in

various stages of formation. CBO assumes that the existing schools

would participate beginning in 2001. Participation by new schools

would be phased in slowly, and CBO assumes that the additional

40 schools would participate with at least one operational classroom by 2006, the last year of the authorization. CBO further assumes that the bill would cover the current operating budgets of

these schools. Based on information for the current schools, the

language survival schools are assumed to be small, serve fewer

than 100 children each, and have annual costs of about $250,000

when fully operational.

Few Native American language nest programs exist today. CBO

assumes that, by the end of the authorization period, about onethird of all of the 185 federally-recognized Native American tribal

organizations and the Native Hawaiian organizations would establish a nest program serving about 30 children and their parents.

Based upon data for similar existing programs, the annual costs

per nest are expected to total about $250,000.

S. 2688 would also authorize funds for three demonstration programs. Based on information from the three entities, CBO estimates that the cost of these grants would be $3 million in 2001,

including about $1 million in one-time expenses. After 2001, annual costs would be $2 million to $3 million annually.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: S. 2688

contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and

10

would impose no costs on state or local governments. CBO estimates that tribal organizations would receive $43 million over the

next five years to support tribal schools providing instruction using

Native American languages. Any costs associated with receipt of

those funds would be incurred voluntarily.

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 2688 contains no private-sector mandates as defined on UMRA.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Kalcevic. Impact

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins.

Impact on the Private Sector: Nabeel Alsalam.

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for

Budget Analysis.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying

out the bill, S. 2688, as amended. The Committee finds that the

regulatory impact of S. 2688, as amended, will be minimal.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee received the statement of the Honorable Mike

Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, on July 20, 2000, regarding S.

2688.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COHEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

EDUCATION FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am

pleased to be here to discuss the importance of preserving

Native American Languages and the Administration’s

views on S. 2688, the Native American Languages Act

Amendments Act of 2000.

Preserving Native American languages is important for

many reasons, including the contribution this can make to

improving education for Native American students. Overall, the education performance of Native American students lags significantly behind the performance of their

peers nationwide. Only 48 percent of American Indian

fourth graders scored ‘‘at or above the basic level’’ on the

1994 NAEP reading assessment, as compared to 60 percent of all fourth graders nationwide. Low achievement

levels, in turn, are matched by high dropout rates. The annual high school dropout rate for American Indian teenagers (5.9 percent) in 1996–7 was nearly twice the national

average (3.2 percent).

The achievement gap that exists between Native American and non-Native American students is influenced by a

number of factors, including inadequate school resources,

high rates of family poverty, and high student absenteeism. In addition, Native American cultures and languages

are often undervalued in schools serving Native American

11

students, causing these young people to feel disconnected

from their heritage. We know from research and experience that individuals who are strongly rooted in their

past—who know where they come from—are often best

equipped to face the future.

That is why preserving Native American languages is so

crucial—to better connect Native American students to

their own past, and to help better prepare them for a future in which education and learning are more important

than ever.

As you know, U.S. Education Secretary Richard W. Riley

has proposed expanding the number of schools that enable

students to be educated in English and their native language, otherwise know as dual language schools. In a

speech this past March, Secretary Riley called for increasing the number of dual language schools from 260 today

to 1,000 by the year 2005.

The Clinton Administration has been a strong supporter

of improving educational opportunities for all Americans,

and Native American students in particular. In fiscal year

2001, President Clinton requested $1.2 billion dollars in

additional funding for new and existing programs across

the Federal government designed to serve Native-Americans.

I am extremely pleased that the Senate—through its

current appropriations bill—has proposed funding levels

for three Administration program priorities that are identical to amounts requested in the president’s 2001 budget:

Indian Education Grants to Local Educational Agencies

(LEAs) ($92.8 million), the American Indian Teacher Corps

($10 million), and a new American Indian Administrator

Corps ($5 million). The Administration is encouraged that

the House has matched your commitment level for grants

to LEAs and the Teacher Corps, and hope that they will

provide funding for the new Administrator Corps program.

President Clinton has also proposed $1.3 billion for a

new School Renovation Loan and Grant program, which

includes $50 million targeted directly to Impact Aid school

districts that have at least 50 percent of their children residing on Indian lands. Unfortunately, both the House and

Senate bills reported out of the Appropriations Committee

this may provide no funding for this initiative. The Senate

bill potentially does allocate some funding that could be

used for school modernization and repairs, which is a step

in the right direction. However, the Senate bill would consolidate under a block grant two of our most important national priorities—school construction and class size reduction—with no assurances that the funds would be used for

either purpose.

In addition, the Administration has proposed $460 million for the Bilingual Education programs funded under

Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA). Many Title VII grantees provide educational services to schools serving Native American students. The Senate and House levels for Title VII fall $17 million and $54

12

million below the President’s request, respectively. We look

forward to working with members of this Committee and

others in Congress to secure funding for these and other

crucial programs for Native American students.

THE CHALLENGE: PRESERVING NATIVE LANGUAGES

American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians,

and Native American Pacific Islanders are faced with the

growing challenge of preventing the loss of their native

languages. Michael Krauss of the Linguistic Society of

America estimates that of the 175 indigenous languages

still spoken in the United States, ninety percent are atrisk of extinction. For example, of the 20 native languages

still spoken in Alaska, only Central Yupik and St. Lawrence Island Yupik are being passed on to the next generation.

Many of those languages not currently seen by linguists

to be in immediate danger of extinction are projected to

reach this status in the future. Even among the Navajo

tribe, the single largest American Indian community in the

United States, the number of tribal members who speak

Navajo is decreasing annually. According to U.S. Census

data, the number of Navajos living on their reservation—

age five or older—who speak only English nearly doubled

between 1980 (7.2 percent) and 1990 (15.0 percent).

In the past, the Federal government promoted policies

that worked to undermine the survival of Native American

languages. Starting in the 1880s, many Native Americans

were educated in schools where they were punished for

speaking their native language. Albert Kneale—a teacher

at a Native American boarding school in the early 1900s—

explained that in the schools, ‘‘children were taught to despise every custom of their forefathers, including religion,

language, songs, dress, ideas, (and) methods of living.’’ In

a recent interview, one elderly Native American woman—

Celene Not Help Him—recalled the punishment she received for speaking in her native language as a schoolgirl

in the 1930s: ‘‘We talk Indian in the classroom, they’ll

* * * bend a ruler and hit you in the mouth.’’ Unfortunately, we are still living with the consequences of these

policies.

However, more recently, Congress has established a government grant policy aimed at preventing further Native

American language extinction. The Native American Language Act of 1990 declared it ‘‘the official policy of the

United States government to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use,

practice, and develop Native languages.’’

The Native American Languages Act was amended in

1992 to establish a grant program under the Department

of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support native

language projects. The Administration for Native Americans (ANA)—part of HHS—has funded grants to tribal

governments and Native Hawaiian groups since 1994.

ANA funds projects in language immersion, curriculum deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:26 Oct 05, 2000 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR467.XXX pfrm04 PsN: SR467
13

velopment, and development of language dictionaries and

CD–ROMS. Since 1994, ANA has funded 166 awards for a

total of $12.1 million.

The Department of Education has also provided funding

to strengthen students’ native language skills under our

Bilingual Education Program. The statutory language in

Title VII of ESEA currently supports funding for bilingual

education programs that ‘‘may also develop the native language skills of limited English proficient students, or ancestral languages of American Indians, Alaska Natives,

Native Hawaiians and the residents of the outlying areas.’’ Currently, 64 separate Title VII grants provide over $6

million in funding annually to schools and school districts

serving American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Pacific Islanders.

Through a Title VII grant, the Department of Education

has provided funding for a professional development, distance-learning project based at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff involving seven Navajo Nation school districts. Through this Title VII Teacher and Personnel grant,

university faculty, masters fellows, and mentor K–12

teachers are collaborating over a five-year period to increase the ability of Navajo teachers to provide high-quality education to Native American students.

In addition, the Department of Education has provided

nearly $800,000 in FY1999 and FY2000 through the Native Hawaiian Education Act (ESEA, Title IX, Part B) for

the development of K–12 audio-visual and computer curricula for the statewide Hawaiian Medium education program. The videos developed through this grant cover topics

such as grammar, and cultural traditions, while one of the

CDs is a compilation of Native Hawaiian songs. The grant

was awarded to Aha Punana Leo, Inc., in Hawaii, one of

the organizations testifying before this committee today.

The Education Department’s Public Charter Schools program, which helps finance the design and start-up of more

than 100 charter schools nationwide, has also helped promote education in Native American language and culture.

Located on the Navajo Nation, the Tolani Elementary

School will receive $300,000 in funding over a two-year period beginning in FY2000 to support a learning environment grounded in traditional Navajo culture. Classes in

Navajo language and culture will be offered at each grade

level. Community leaders will serve as tutors, mentors,

and counselors for the students in this predominantly Navajo school.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON S. 2688

Despite these important efforts, there is still more to be

done. That is why we support the goal and intent of the

proposed Native American Language Act Amendments Act

of 2000, as well as the overall approach of providing funding to schools that will intensively educate students in Native American languages. However, there are some areas

of S. 2688 that are problematic and could, we believe, be

14

strengthened. We look forward to working with this committee in attempt to address these issues. Let me briefly

discuss some of the chief concerns.

Instruction in Native languages and English, and High

Standards. The Native American Language Act Amendments Act would provide funding to Native American Survival Schools to promote student acquisition of their native

language. It would require that schools provide at least 20

hours per week of instruction and not less than 35 weeks

per year in Native languages and that the students not be

enrolled in any other school.

Even though gaining fluency in a native language is the

primary and essential objective of this proposed bill, we

also need to ensure that students who attend these schools

are also fully prepared for the future by becoming both fluent in English and academically proficient.

Just as we must honor the past by acting aggressively

to preserve Native languages, we must provide Native

American students with the English skills necessary to

fully participate in the great American and global society.

We do not believe there is a necessary trade-off between

Native language instruction and the development of

English language proficiency. In fact, properly done, duallanguage schools can help students leave school proficient

not only in academic subjects, but also conversant in two

languages.

Evidence suggests the dual immersion approach results

in improved native language fluency, English language

competency, and cognitive ability. Children exposed to two

languages at an early age are more flexible, creative, and

achieve higher cognitive development at an early age than

children who learn only one language. Active use of native

languages in the classroom allows students to retain ties

to their culture and their past, while literacy skills in a

first or native language can increase second language acquisition. In addition, studies have consistently shown that

immersion students do at least as well, and in some instances even surpass, comparable non-immersion students

on measures of verbal and mathematics skills. As a result,

the Department believes it is necessary that the bill also

support the goal of English language proficiency.

All students, including Native American students,

should be held to high academic standards. Under the Improving America Schools Act of 1994, all BIA schools had

to adopt new content standards. Bureau schools were

given the choice to adopt the voluntary national standards,

adopt State standards, or develop their own standards (so

long as they were as rigorous as the State or national

standards). Most BIA schools have chosen to adopt the

standards of the state where the school is located. Students attending schools funded under this legislation must

have the same opportunities as their state student counterparts to achieve academically.

I would like to raise an additional point regarding the

way in which language proficiency is addressed in the proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:26 Oct 05, 2000 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR467.XXX pfrm04 PsN: SR467
15

posed legislation. According to section 8 (c)(1)(D) of S.

2688, a Native Language Survival School receiving Federal

funds shall ‘‘ensure that students who are not Native

American language speakers achieve fluency in a Native

American language within 3 years of enrollment.’’ The requirement is significantly more rigorous than the provision

in existing ESEA Title I law that deals with English language learning for students who speak English as a second

language. We must take into account the reality that individual students learn at different rates based on various

factors, such as the level of fluency upon entering schools,

literacy in their native language, and their motivation to

learn languages.

School Finance and Governance. Under S. 2688, tribes

and institutions of higher education (IHEs) can apply for

funds, while the eligibility of State Educational Agencies

(SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) is unclear.

This raises some questions concerning school finance and

governance. Who pays for operational cost? Who makes decisions about teacher qualifications? What core academic

subjects should be taught? The Department of Education

would like to work with Members of this Committee to

clarify the types of schools that would be eligible to receive

funding under the proposed legislation. It is not clear

whether native Language Survival Schools are to be public

schools governed and operated by either a LEA or a tribe,

or whether they could be public schools or independent private schools. The resolution of this issue will have important consequences for this program, and for the students

who attend the schools. For example, public schools operated by LEAs or tribes receive other Federal education

funds, while private schools only indirectly benefit from

Federal programs. Public schools, operated by LEAs, must

meet a range of State requirements ranging from the establishment of academic standards for all students to the

qualifications of the teachers in the schools.

Research and Evaluation. S. 2688 would be strengthened

by the addition of a research and evaluation component.

There is still much we need to learn about how best to

teach Native American languages in school. Therefore, it is

important to evaluate the programs supported under the

proposed Act, to identify and document effective educational methods practiced at Native American Language

Survival Schools, and disseminate these as widely as possible, to the schools and to Tribal Colleges and other institutions of higher education preparing the next generation

of Native American teachers. Further, funds should be

made available to support research on issues that are important to meet the objectives of this proposal, such as research on Native Language retention. Funds should also

be made available for the development of tapes,

orthographies, dictionaries, and materials development in

native languages.

16

CONCLUSION

The Administration is committed to ensuring that Native American students receive a high-quality education in

not only English, but also their language and culture.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

I am willing to answer any questions you many have concerning my testimony.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill are

required to be set out in the accompanying Committee report. The

Committee states that the enactment of S. 2688 will result in the

following amendment to P.L. 101–477 (104 Stat. 1153). Deletions

are in brackets; new material is in italic.

øDEFINITIONS

øSEC. 103. For purposes of this title—

ø(1) The term ‘‘Native American’’ means an Indian, Native

Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander.

ø(2) The term ‘‘Indian’’ has the meaning given to such term

under section 5351(4) of the Indian Education Act of 1988 (25

U.S.C. 2651(4)).

ø(3) The term ‘‘Native Hawaiian’’ has the meaning given to

such term by section 4009 of Public Law 100–297 (20 U.S.C.

4909).

ø(4) The term ‘‘Native American Pacific Islander’’ means any

descendent of the aboriginal people of any island in the Pacific

Ocean that is a territory or possession of the United States.

ø(5) The terms ‘‘Indian tribe’’ and ‘‘tribal organization’’ have

the respective meaning given to each of such terms under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

ø(6) The term ‘‘Native American language’’ means the historical, traditional languages spoken by Native Americans.

ø(7) The term ‘‘traditional leaders’’ includes Native Americans who have special expertise in Native American culture

and Native American languages.

ø(8) The term ‘‘Indian reservation’’ has the same meaning

given to the term ‘‘reservation’’ under section 3 of the Indian

Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452).¿

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 103. In this Act:

(1) INDIAN.—The term ‘‘Indian’’ has the meaning given that

term in section 9161 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7881).

(2) INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘Indian tribal

government’’ has the meaning given that term in section 502 of

Public Law 95–134 (42 U.S.C. 4368b).

(3) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ has the meaning

given that term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination

and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

17

(4) INDIAN RESERVATION.—The term ‘‘Indian reservation’’ has

the meaning given the term ‘‘reservation’’ in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452).

(5) NATIVE AMERICAN.—The term ‘‘Native American’’ means

an Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander.

(6) NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE.—The term ‘‘Native American language’’ means the historical, traditional languages spoken by Native Americans.

(7) NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE COLLEGE.—The term ‘‘Native

American Language College’’ means—

(A) a tribally-controlled community college or university

(as defined in section 2 of the Tribally-Controlled Community College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C.

1801)), or a college applying for a Native American Language Survival School in a Native American language

which that college regularly offers as part of its curriculum

and which has the support of an Indian tribal government

traditionally affiliated with that Native American language; or government traditionally affiliated with that Native American language; or

(B) Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke’elikolani College.

(8) NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZA- TION.—The term ‘‘Native American Language Educational Organizations’’ means an organization that—

(A) is governed by a board consisting primarily of Native

Americans and as many speakers of 1 or more Native

Americans languages as possible;

(B) is currently providing instruction through the use of

a Native American language to at least 10 preschool, elementary or high school students for at least 700 hours of

instruction per year per student; and

(C) has provided such instruction for at least 10 preschool, elementary or high school students through a Native

American language for at least 700 hours per year per student for not less than 3 years prior to applying for a grant

under this Act.

(D) may be a public school that meets the requirements

of (A), (B) and (C) above.

(9) NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE NEST.—The term ‘‘Native

American Language Nest’’ means a site-based educational program enrolling families with children below the age of 7 which

is conducted through a Native American language for at least

700 hours per year per student with the specific goal of

strengthening, revitalizing, or re-establishing a Native American language and culture as a living language and culture of

daily life.

(10) NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE SURVIVAL SCHOOL.—The

term ‘‘Native American Language Survival School’’ means a

Native American language dominant site-based educational

program which expands from a Native American Language

Nest, either as a separate entity or inclusive of a Native American Language Nest, to enroll families with children eligible for

elementary or secondary education and which provides a complete education through a Native American language with the

18

specific goal of strengthening, revitalizing, or reestablishing a

Native American language and culture as a living language

and culture of daily life.

(11) NATIVE AMERICAN PACIFIC ISLANDER.—The term ‘‘Native

American Pacific Islander’’ means any descendant of the aboriginal people of any island in the Pacific Ocean that is a territory or possession of the United States.

(12) NATIVE HAWAIIAN.—The term ‘‘Native Hawaiian’’ has the

meaning given that term in section 9212 of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7912).

(13) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Department of Education.

(14) TRADITIONAL LEADERS.—The term ‘‘traditional leaders’’

includes Native Americans who have special expertise in Native

American culture and Native American languages.

(15) TRIBAL ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘tribal organization’’

has the meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

* * * * * * *

GENERAL AUTHORITY

NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE NESTS

SEC. 108. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide funds, through grant or contract, to Native American Language

Educational Organizations, Native American Language Colleges,

Indian tribal governments, organizations that demonstrate the potential to become Native American Language Educational Organizations, or a consortia of such organizations, colleges, or tribal governments for the purpose of establishing Native American Language

Nest programs for students below the age of 7 and their families.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—A Native American Language Nest program

receiving funds under this section shall—

(1) provide instruction and child care through the use of a

Native American language for at least 10 children below the

age of 7 for at least 700 hours per year per student;

(2) provide compulsory classes for parents of students enrolled

in a Native American Language Nest in a Native American language, including Native American language-speaking parents;

(3) provide compulsory monthly meetings for parents and

other family members of students enrolled in a Native American Language Nest;

(4) provide a preference in enrollment for students and families who are fluent in a Native American language;

(5) receive at least 5 percent of its funding from another

source, which may included Federally-funded programs, such

as a Head Star program funded under the Head Start Act (42

U.S.C. 9801 et seq.); and

(6) ensure that a Native American language becomes the

dominant medium of instruction in the Native American Language Nest with within a period of six years of funding under

this Act.

19

NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE SURVIVAL SCHOOLS

SEC. 109. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide funds, through grant or contract, to Native American Language

Educational Organizations, Native American Language Colleges,

Indian tribal governments, or a consortia of such organizations, colleges, or tribal governments to operate, expand, and increase Native

American Language Survival Schools throughout the United States

and its territories for Native American children and Native American language-speaking children, including the provision of direct

educational services and school support services.

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—As a condition of receiving funds under subsection (a), a Native American Language Educational Organization,

a Native American Language College, an Indian tribal government,

or a consortia of such organizations, colleges, or tribal

governments—

(1) shall—

(A) have at least 3 years experience in operating and administering a Native American Language Survival School,

a Native American Language Nest, or other educational

programs in which instruction is conducted in a Native

American language; and

(B) include students who are subject to State compulsory

education laws; and

(2) may include students from infancy through grade 12, as

well as their families.

(c) PRIORITY.—In making grants or entering into contracts, the

Secretary shall give priority to:

(1) the provision of direct educational services;

(2) applicants with the support of the appropriate tribal government or governments; and

(3) applicants that have researched language revitalization

and the unique characteristics and circumstances of the languages of their schools.

(d) USE OF FUNDS.—

(1) REQUIRED USES.—A Native American Language Survival

School receiving funds under this section shall—

(A) consist of not less than 700 hours of instruction per

student conducted annually through a Native American

language or languages for at least 15 students for whom a

Native American Language Survival School is their principal place of instruction;

(B) provide direct educational services and school support

services to students that may also include—

(i) support services for children with special needs;

(ii) transportation;

(iii) boarding;

(iv) food service;

(v) teacher and staff housing;

(vi) purchase of basic materials

(vii) adaptation of teaching materials;

(viii) translation and development; or

(ix) other appropriate services;

(C) provide direct or indirect educational and support

services for the families of enrolled students on site,

20

through colleges, or through other means to increase their

knowledge and use of the Native American language and

culture, and may impose a requirement of family participation as a condition of student enrollment; and

(D) ensure that within 3 years of enrollment all students

achieve functional fluency appropriate to the unique circumstances and endangerment status of the Native American language with the ultimate goal of academic/cognitive

fluency.

(2) PERMISSIBLE USES.—A Native American Language Survival School receiving funds under this section may—

(A) include Native American Language Nests and other

educational programs for students who are not Native

American language speakers but who seek to establish fluency through instruction in a Native American language or

to re-establish fluency as descendants of Native American

language speakers;

(B) provide instruction through more than one language;

(C) provide instruction through a regional program (as

opposed to one site) to better serve geographically dispersed

students;

(D) include a program of concurrent and summer college

or university education course enrollment for secondary

school students enrolled in Native American Language Survival Schools, as appropriate;

(E) provide special support for Native American languages for which there are very few or no remaining Native

American language speakers;

(F) develop comprehensive curricula in Native American

language instruction and instruction through Native American languages, including:

(i) curricula that can be used by public schools for

instruction through a Native American language or

teaching Native American languages as subjects;

(ii) community Native American language use in

communities served by Native American Language

Survival Schools; and

(iii) knowledge of a specific Native American language gained through research for the purpose of directly aiding the development of curriculum materials.

(G) provide programs in pre-service and in-service teacher training, staff training, personnel development programs, programs to upgrade teacher and staff skills, and

community resource development training, that shall include a program component which has as its objective increased Native American language speaking proficiency for

teachers and staff employed in Native American Language

Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests.

Programs may include—

(i) visits or exchanges among Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests of school or nest teachers, staff, students,

or families of students;

(ii) participation in conference or special non-degree

programs focusing on the use of a Native American

21

language or languages of the education of students,

teachers, staff, students, or families of students;

(iii) full or partial scholarships and fellowships to

colleges or universities for the professional development

of faculty and staff, and to meet requirements for the

involvement of the family or the community of Native

American Language Survival Schools students in Native American Language Survival Schools, and to develop resource persons for Native American Language

Nests programs in public schools. A recipient of a fellowship or scholarship awarded under the authority of

this subsection who is enrolled in a program leading to

a degree or certificate shall—

(I) be trained in the Native American Language

Nests of the Native American Language Survival

Schools, if such program is available through that

Native American Language Survival Schools;

(II) complete a minimum annual number of

hours in Native American language study or training during the period of the fellowship or scholarship; and

(III) enter into a contract which obligates the recipient to provide his or her professional services,

either during the fellowship or scholarship period

or upon completion of a degree or certificate, in

Native American language instruction in the Native American language associated with the Native

American Language Survival Schools in which the

service obligation is to be fulfilled.

(iv) training in the language and culture associated

with a Native American Language Survival School either under community or academic experts in programs which may include credit courses;

(v) structuring of personnel operations to support Native American language and cultural fluency and program effectiveness;

(vi) Native American language planning, documentation, reference material and archives development; and

(vii) recruitment for participation in teacher, staff,

student, and community development.

(H) rent, lease, purchase, construct, maintain or repair

educational facilities to ensure the academic achievement of

Native American Language Survival School students.

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS REGARDING LINGUISTICS ASSISTANCE

SEC. 110. (a) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall

provide funds, through grant or contract, for the establishment of 3

demonstration programs that will provide assistance to Native

American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests. Such demonstration programs shall be established

at—

(1) Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke‘elikolani College of the University of

Hawaii at Hilo, in consortium with the ‘Aha Punana Leo, Inc.,

and with other entities if deemed appropriate by such College,

to—

22

(A) conduct a demonstration program in the development

and operation of the various components of a regional Native American Language Survival School program and college level Native American language teaching and use that

is supportive of Native American Language Survival

Schools; and

(B) provide assistance in the establishment, operation,

and administration of Native American Language Nests

and Native American Language Survival Schools by such

means as training, hosting informational visits to demonstration sites, and providing a national clearinghouse for

data and information relevant to teaching Native American

languages, outreach, courses, conferences, and other means;

and

(2) Piegan Institute of Browning, Montana to demonstrate the

operation of a Native American Language Nest and Survival

School; and

(3) the Alaska Native Language Center of the University of

Alaska at Fairbanks, in consortium with other entities as

deemed appropriate by such Center, to conduct a demonstration

program, training, outreach, conferences, visitation programs,

and other assistance in developing orthographies, resource materials, language documentation, language preservation, material archiving, and community support development.

(b) USE OF TECHNOLOGY.—The demonstration programs authorized to be established under this section may employ synchronic and

asynchronic telecommunications and other appropriate means to

maintain coordination and cooperation with one another and with

participating Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests.

(c) DIRECTION TO THE SECRETARY.—The demonstration programs

authorized to be established under this section shall provide direction to the Secretary in developing a site visit evaluation of Native

American Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests.

(d) FOLLOW-UP AND DATA COLLECTION.—The demonstration programs authorized to be established under this section may conduct

follow-up data collection and analysis on students while they are in

school to assess how Survival School students are performing in

comparison to other students, as well as identify instructional methods that are working and those which may not be working.

(e) ENDOWMENTS AND FACILITIES.—The demonstration programs

authorized to be established under this section may establish endowments for the purpose of furthering their activities relative to the

study and preservation of Native American languages, and may use

funds to provide for the rental, lease, purchase, construction, maintenance, and repair of facilities.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 111. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as

may be necessary to carry out the activities authorized by this Act

for fiscal years 2001 through 2006.

Æ