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

44–214 PDF 2008

CHALLENGES FACING BUREAU OF

INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS IN

IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Serial No. 110–108

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

[Vacancy]

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

[Vacancy] 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on September 9, 2008 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .......................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Ashby, Cornelia, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .......................................... 7

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

Dudro, Anne, Chief of Staff, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education ........................................................ 22

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

Gilbert, Dr. Willard Sakiestewa, president, National Indian Education 

Association ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Additional material submitted for the record ......................................... 11

Hamilton, Theodore, executive director, Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium ................................................................................................................ 27

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

Holder, Stanley, Chief, Division of Performance and Accountability, Bureau of Indian Education, Department of the Interior .............................. 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

(1)

CHALLENGES FACING BUREAU OF

INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS IN 

IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Scott, Kucinich, Grijalva, 

Payne, Holt, Woolsey, Castle, and Ehlers. 

Also present: Representative Herseth Sandlin. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Catherine Brown, 

Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Lloyd Horwich, Policy 

Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secretary Education; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Jessica 

Kahanek, Press Assistant; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Margaret 

Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; 

Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Chad Miller, 

Minority Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief 

Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority 

Staff Director. 

Chairman KILDEE [presiding]. A quorum being present, the hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to Committee 

Rule 12, any member may submit an opening statement in writing 

which will be part of the permanent record. And I recognize myself 

for an opening statement. 

I am pleased to welcome the public and our witnesses to this 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood Elementary and 

Secondary Education, ‘‘Challenges Facing Bureau of Indian Education Schools In Improving Student Achievement.’’

Last year, we held a hearing at the Gila River Indian Community in the district of our fellow subcommittee member, Mr. 

Grijalva. That hearing was on how the No Child Left Behind Act 

has impacted Indian education generally. 

2

Today’s hearing is on issues facing Bureau of Indian Educationfunded schools specifically. 

Nearly 50,000 students, 10 percent of all Indian students, attend 

one of the 184 BIE schools. Of the 184, BIE operates 61 directly, 

and contractors operate the other 123. 

It was in the early days of my tenure here in Congress that we 

began to encourage the contract schools. Al Quie, who used to sit 

right here, Al Quie, who later on became governor of Minnesota, 

played a very important role in that. And I think Al Quie and the 

governor sitting next to me right now have both illustrated through 

those 32 years that Indian education has been a real genuine bipartisan concern. 

I have had an abiding interest in Indian education since my election to the Michigan legislature in 1964. In Michigan, I wrote the 

Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver Act to bring the state into compliance with its treaty obligations. 

The Act provides for a tuition-free education for Michigan Indians at Michigan public colleges. Jackie Vaughn, who has gone on 

to his eternal reward, and I wrote that bill and the governor signed 

the bill. A Democratic Legislature passed it, signed by a Republican governor. Again, illustrating that we have a bipartisan concern with our obligations to America’s first citizens. 

Today, I am able to express my interest not only through my 

chairmanship of this subcommittee but also as the founder and 

Democratic chairman of the House Native American Caucus and as 

a member of the Natural Resources Committee. 

I often say that land and language are the two anchors for protecting tribal sovereignty. A third anchor for protecting tribe sovereignty is education. 

History has presented us with unique challenges in providing 

every Indian child with the education he or she needs to better 

their and their family’s station in life. But in one respect, the challenge facing tribes is the same challenge faced anywhere in the 

United States—our success to the 21st century economy is directly 

tied to our ability to produce a high quality labor force. 

And that ability is, of course, directly tied to our ability to meet 

the challenge of providing every child, including every Indian child, 

with a world-class education. And that is why we are here today. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide us 

with insight on the unique challenges facing BIE schools and improving student education. 

Because, while the need for education may be the same everywhere, the way to educate children is not. Our witnesses will discuss a recent Government Accountability Office report on how to 

improve BIE’s assistance to tribes to help them implement academic accountability systems under NCLB to take into account Indian culture and languages. 

The report describes a number of shortcomings in that assistance. 

Moving forward, we must clarify the roles and responsibilities of 

the many agencies involved—the Departments of the Interior and 

Education, States, and tribes. 

And, in particular, we must ensure that the tribes, which are 

sovereign entities, are full partners in the process. The law conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
3

templates that the federal government will work with the tribes, 

not dictate to the tribes and that the process will work out a system that is relevant to the unique situation of the tribes including 

their culture and language. 

Some of our witnesses also will discuss the need to increase federal support for Indian education, and that also is critical. 

So I look forward to the testimony, and it is my pleasure to yield 

to my good friend, the governor of Delaware, Mr. Castle. 

[The statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

I’m pleased to welcome the public and our witnesses to this hearing of the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education—‘‘Challenges 

Facing Bureau of Indian Education Schools in improving Student Achievement.’’

Last year, we held a hearing at the Gila River Indian Community—in the district 

of our fellow subcommittee member, Mr. Grijalva. That hearing was on how the No 

Child Left Behind Act has impacted Indian education, generally. 

Today’s hearing is on issues facing Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools 

specifically. Nearly 50,000 students—10 percent of all Indian students—attend one 

of the 184 BIE schools. Of the 184, BIE operates 61 directly and contracts with 

tribes to operate the other 123. I have had an abiding interest in Indian education 

since my election to the Michigan Legislature in 1964. In Michigan, I wrote the 

Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver Act—to bring the state into compliance with its 

treaty obligations. The act provides for a tuition-free education for qualified Michigan Indians at Michigan’s public colleges. Today, I am able to express that interest 

not only though my chairmanship of this subcommittee, but also as the founder and 

Democratic Chairman of the House Native American Caucus, and as a member of 

the Natural Resources Committee. I often say that land and language are the two 

anchors for protecting tribal sovereignty. A third anchor for protecting tribal sovereignty is education. 

History has presented us with unique challenges in providing every Indian child 

with the education he or she needs to better their and their family’s station in life. 

But, in one respect, the challenge facing tribes is the same challenge faced anywhere in the United States. 

Our success in the 21st century economy is directly tied to our ability to produce 

a high quality labor force. And that ability is, of course, directly tied to our ability 

to meet the challenge of providing every child—including every Indian child—with 

a world-class education. 

And that is why we are here today. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide us with insight on 

the unique challenges facing BIE schools in improving student achievement. Because, while the need for education may be the same everywhere, the way to educate children is not. Our witnesses will discuss a recent government accountability 

office report on how to improve BIE’s assistance to tribes to help them implement 

academic accountability systems under NCLB that take into account Indian culture 

and languages. 

The report identifies a number of shortcomings in that assistance. Moving forward, we must clarify the roles and responsibilities of the many agencies involved—

the Departments of the Interior and Education, states, and tribes. 

And, in particular, we must ensure that the tribes—which are sovereign entities—

are full partners in the process. 

The law contemplates that the federal government will work with the tribes, not 

dictate to the tribes. Some of our witnesses also will discuss the need to increase 

federal support for Indian education, and that also is critical. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

Thank you for your interest in education and, particularly, Indian 

education. You are deeply steeped in this, and for that, we are all 

very appreciative. 

4

And we thank our witnesses for being here for making themselves available to us today. I look forward to your testimony, as 

a matter of fact. 

As most of you know, the federal government, through the U.S. 

Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education, which is the 

BIE we are referring to, providing educational assistance to Indian 

children to ensure that they receive a high quality education comparable to their peers. 

Currently, the BIE-funded education system for Indian students 

includes 174 schools and 14 peripheral dormitories for students attending public schools nearby. 

The No Child Left Behind Act requires states in the BIE to define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly 

progress towards meeting the goal of 100 percent academic proficiency. 

In June of this year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

which we know as GAO, issued a report that examined how the 

BIE and Indian tribes have implemented the requirements of No 

Child Left Behind. The report, entitled ‘‘Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems,’’ found that BIE and almost all of its schools 

have adopted state definitions of AYP. 

The report did note, however, that the BIE has not completed 

agreements with several key states, delineating terms that BIEfunded schools access to the state assessment systems. As the BIE 

moves forward with the process of improving student academic 

achievement and as No Child Left Behind is considered for reauthorization, I believe, as many proponents of American education 

do, that we must explore options which can provide additional flexibility to BIE schools in helping them meet the law’s requirements. 

Although I believe strongly that the BIE should continue to have 

the flexibility necessary to develop assessments that accurately 

measure student achievement, Congress must work to ensure that 

we and the BIE remain committed to the high standards and quality all students and schools should be held to. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about what is 

happening on the ground regarding this issue. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Castle follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Castle, Senior Republican, Subcommittee 

on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning and thank you Chairman Kildee for holding today’s hearing on the 

important topic of ‘‘Challenges Facing Bureau of Indian Education Schools in Improving Student Achievement.’’ I would also like to thank today’s witnesses for sharing their time and expertise with the Subcommittee on this issue. 

As most of you know, the federal government, through the U.S. Department of 

Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), provides educational assistance to Indian children to ensure that they receive a high quality education comparable to 

their peers. Currently, the BIE-funded education system for Indian students includes 174 schools and 14 ‘‘peripheral dormitories’’ for students attending public 

schools nearby. 

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires states and the BIE to define and 

determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards 

meeting the goal of 100 percent academic proficiency. 

In June of this year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a 

report that examined how the BIE and Indian tribes have implemented the requireVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
5

ments of NCLB. The report, entitled ‘‘Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help 

Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems,’’ found that BIE 

and almost all of its schools have adopted State definitions of AYP. The report did 

note, however, that the BIE has not completed agreements with several key states 

delineating the terms of BIE-funded schools’ access to the state assessment systems. 

As the BIE moves forward with the process of improving student academic 

achievement, and as NCLB is considered for reauthorization, I believe, as many proponents of Indian education do, that we must explore options which can provide additional flexibility to BIE schools in helping them meet the law’s requirements. 

Although I believe strongly that the BIE should continue to have the flexibility 

necessary to develop assessments that accurately measure student achievement, 

Congress must work to ensure we and the BIE remain committed to the high standards and quality all students and schools should be held to. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about what is happening on the 

ground regarding this issue. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle. 

I would now like to introduce the very distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this morning. 

Cornelia Ashby is director of education, workforce, and income 

security issues for the Government Accountability Office. Ms. 

Ashby joined GAO in 1973. 

In 1992, she was selected for GAO’s senior executive candidate 

development program and in 1994, was appointed an associate director for education and employment issues. 

She began her current position in the year 2000. 

Dr. WILLARD GILBERT IS PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN

EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND A PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AT

NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. 

Dr. Gilbert is an expert on integrating native language, culture, 

and traditions into school curriculum, a critical issue in Indian education. 

Stan Holder is the chief of the Bureau of Indian Education’s Division of Performance and Accountability where he administers all 

programs funded under NCLB for the Bureau. 

He has published research on instructional and behavioral programs that improve student achievement and behavioral outcomes. 

He also is a former vice president of the Wichita and affiliated 

tribes. 

Anne Dudro is chief of staff for the Department of Education’s 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Ms. Dudro joined 

the Department in 2005, and is a special assistant to the secretary. 

She also was appointed that year as a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 33rd General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 

I now ask unanimous consent to yield to Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to introduce our next witness, Ted Hamilton. 

In yielding, I would like to note that it is my pleasure to serve 

with Representative Herseth Sandlin both on the Natural Resources Committee and the Native American Caucus. She is an 

outstanding advocate on education and Indian issues. 

I yield to her. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman 

Kildee and Ranking Member Castle, for holding this very important hearing, for your extraordinary leadership on this issue, and 

for allowing me a chance to join you on the dais for the purposes 

6

of introducing a fellow South Dakotan and a leader in Indian education, Mr. Ted Hamilton. 

Mr. Hamilton is the executive director of the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium, also referred to as OSEC. He has 22 years of 

experience working with tribal colleges, grant schools, and public 

schools across the Great Plains. 

Mr. Hamilton was one of the founders of OSEC. It started nearly 

10 years ago. Based on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, OSEC 

is comprised of numerous tribal colleges and tribal schools and provides a range of valuable services to these schools. 

Through his work with schools eager to develop an alternative 

adequate yearly progress standard, Mr. Hamilton has become intimately familiar with the impacts of No Child Left Behind in Bureau of Indian Education schools. 

I know you will appreciate his insights and perspective on the 

matters before the subcommittee today. 

With 22 schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education in 

South Dakota, the topics that will be addressed today are of critical 

importance to the native communities in my state. 

In March of 2006, Chairman George Miller and I conducted a series of visits to Indian country schools in southwestern South Dakota. After meeting with educators, administrators, students, and 

concerned community members, two themes emerged: the importance of considering native culture within achievement and accountability standards and the unique management challenges created by the BIE’s authority over much NCLB implementation. 

As we all know, the federal government has a unique government-to-government relationship with American Indian tribes, and 

this relationship is based on the United States Constitution and 

hundreds of treaties signed by tribes and the U.S. Government. 

Education is one treaty-based responsibility. The GAO study confirms what schools in my district have reported: the federal government still has work to do to better uphold its trust responsibilities 

with regard to Indian education. 

When we consider that only 31 percent of BIE schools, less than 

one in three, met adequate yearly progress in 2007, it is clear that 

Congress must work to address the challenges facing these schools. 

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Education 

should continue to engage with tribes in a manner that respects 

tribal sovereignty and empowers tribal self-determination. 

So, again, thank you for holding this hearing, for allowing me to 

introduce Mr. Hamilton this morning. I commend his testimony. 

To all of you on the subcommittee, this hearing is a truly important step toward assessing the impact of NCLB in Indian country 

and guiding our future actions to further improve education of native students across the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

And, again, welcome to all our witnesses. For those of you who 

have not testified before this subcommittee before, I will explain 

our lighting system and the 5-minute rule. 

Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes for presentation or questioning. The green light will be illuminated when you 

begin to speak. When you see the yellow light, it means that you 

7

have 1 minute remaining. When you see the red light, it means 

your time has expired and you need to conclude your testimony. 

There is no ejection seat there, so you may finish up your sentence or your paragraph and conclude. 

Please be certain as you are testifying to turn on and speak into 

the microphone in front of you and turn it off when you are finished. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Cornelia Ashby, director 

of education, workforce, and income security issues with the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. 

You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges tribal groups 

and BIE schools face with respect to the measurement of Indian 

students’ academic progress. My testimony is based largely on our 

June 2008 report on this topic. 

As a condition for receiving grants under NCLBA, schools, including BIE schools, must measure yearly progress in meeting academic standards in math, reading, and science. In 2005, as required by NCLBA, the Secretary of the Interior determined that to 

measure such progress, each BIE school would use the definition 

of adequate yearly progress of the state in which the school is located. 

Recognizing that students in BIE schools may have unique needs 

and special circumstances, NCLBA allows tribal groups to waive all 

or part of the secretary’s definition of AYP and propose an alternative. 

Under BIE regulations, the definition of AYP covers the academic standards and assessments used in measuring academic 

progress. Although all of the 174 BIE schools have measured academic progress—almost all have measured academic progress in accordance with their state’s definition of AYP. 

To establish the terms under which BIE schools access assessments and scoring arrangements, BIE has established memorandums of understanding with about half of the 23 states that have 

BIE schools. 

While the remaining states, with the exception of California, 

have allowed BIE schools access to their assessments, without 

MOUs, there is increased risk that the terms of access will change. 

California officials have not given the two BIE schools in the state 

access to the state assessment because they fear a breach in security. They only administer the assessments to public schools in 

California. 

However, state officials were willing to make an exception for 

BIE schools, but requested a $1 million bond in security. BIE and 

education officials are trying to work with the state to resolve the 

issue. 

Three tribal groups, the Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium known as OSEC, and the Miccosukee, representing BIE schools in five states and about 44 percent of BIE 

8

students are in the early stages of developing alternative definitions of AYP. 

Officials from the Navajo Nation with BIE schools in three states 

have requested technical assistance for developing an alternative 

definition of AYP, citing the desire to include cultural components 

in the standards and assessments, compare the progress of Navajo 

students across states, and develop a Navajo-specific measure that 

could influence AYP determination regardless of the state in which 

the school is located. 

OSEC seeks to develop alternative standards and alternative assessment to improve student performance, define the graduation 

rates to include 6 years rather than 4, and replace the attendance 

component with a language and culture component. 

The Miccosukee Tribe of Florida is considering options for developing an alternative assessment in developing standards for 

Miccosukee culture and language to serve as the additional AYP indicator in lieu of attendance for their students in third to eighth 

grade. 

Other tribal groups have not pursued alternatives for various 

reasons including the desire to remain compatible with public 

schools in their state and potential challenges and resources required to develop alternatives. 

For example, officials representing BIE schools in California, 

Mississippi, and Washington told us that it was important that 

their schools be compatible with the local public schools. In addition, school and Department of Education officials and BIE education line officers identified several potential challenges the tribal 

groups might encounter, including not enough of the specialized 

knowledge required and funding and extensive time commitments 

that might not be sustainable given changes in leadership in both 

the tribal and BIE levels. 

The three tribal groups seeking alternatives reported a lack of 

federal guidance on the alternative development process and frustration with the pace and quality of communication with BIE. But 

they have more recently reported receiving some assistance from 

BIE and Education. 

BIE’s education line officers, who are the tribal group’s primary 

contact for information on developing an alternative, generally indicated they had not received guidance or training on this provision. 

In communicating with tribal groups regarding alternative AYP 

definitions, BIE did not consistently apply its processes for providing accurate and timely responses. 

In our June 2008 report, we made recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior related to BIE’s ensuring access to state assessments, guidance and training on the process for seeking alternatives, and communication with tribal groups seeking alternative 

definitions for AYP by establishing internal time frames and processes. 

Interior agreed with our recommendations and reported taking 

actions in response to them. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Ashby may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:]

9

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081125t.pdf 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much for your testimony, and 

we will look forward to questioning. 

Dr. Gilbert? 

STATEMENT OF WILLARD SAKIESTEWA GILBERT, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

Dr. GILBERT. Thank you, Chairman Kildee for championing on 

behalf of native children. I thank you for your support, and we 

greatly appreciate it. 

My name is Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, president of the National Indian Education Association. I am also a member of the 

Hopi tribe. 

Today, I would like to share NIEA’s membership concerns regarding the disparity in academic achievement between schools 

funded and operated by BIE and other schools. 

NIEA has held 12 field hearings on reauthorization of NCLBA 

and recently conducted four of its five regional hearings on issues 

that impact native students who attend BIE-funded schools. 

Well over 200 witnesses have testified and have submitted written testimony regarding challenges our native students have encountered by NCLBA, school transportation, construction, maintenance, and facilities needs as well as JOM and tribal education department funding and other pressing issues. 

The following is a summary of their testimony. 

There is little collaboration between the Departments of Education and Interior in helping BIE students meet requirements of 

NCLB. For the past 3 years, only 30 percent of BIE schools made 

AYP goals established by the states in which the goals were located. 

In 2004, the executive order was signed that directed the two departments to work together to assist American Indian and Alaska 

native students in meeting the challenging students academic 

standards of NCLB Act of 2001 in a manner that is consistent with 

tribal traditions, languages, and cultures. 

NIEA encourages a stronger relationship between the two departments given the limited capacity of BIE and the larger pool of 

expertise in education and increasing academic achievement that is 

available at the Department of Education. 

In particular, NIEA would like for the Department of Education 

to serve as technical advisers to the BIE regional and education 

line officers when the expertise is not available at the BIE on how 

to improve academic achievement and in development of tribal 

standards and assessments that are culturally and linguistically 

appropriate. 

BIE should strongly support culturally-based education and native language instruction. Current research demonstrates that cultural education can be successfully integrated into the classroom in 

a manner that would provide native students with instruction in 

the core subject areas based upon cultural values and beliefs. 

NIEA proposed amendments to Title VII to provide for more emphasis on meeting the unique cultural, language, and educational 

10

needs of Indian students through enrichment programs that supplement other NCLB programs and will result in successful academic achievement of Indian students. 

As reported by the National Indian Education Study of 2007 Part 

II, BIE students are receiving some exposure to instruction in native language and cultural topics. NIEA believes that these schools 

will be models for successful integration of native language immersion programs and culturally-based education if given the opportunity, support, and resources need to implement these types of 

programs that have demonstrated academic success. 

But lack of new construction and the poor facilities and maintenance of BIE schools negatively impact the achievement of BIE students. 

In March of 2008, the consensus building initiative issued a report that stated in their findings that the conditions of BIE 

schools—that many schools are ill-equipped for the information age 

and aging or poor design may lead to a substandard educational 

environment. 

Operation and maintenance needs are not matched by operation 

and maintenance annual funding. And, overall, overcrowding is a 

major concern and a source of accelerating physical decline. 

On the average, BIE education buildings are 60 years old, but 40 

years is the average age for public schools serving the general population. 

According to the Hopi tribe chairman, students are at extremely 

higher risk because of exposure to hazardous materials in their 

school facilities. In recent years, they have experienced severe reductions in annual appropriations for the building operations, 

maintenance, and repairs program which then results in the everincreasing number of projects placed in the facilities, maintenance 

inventory system. 

While waiting for funding, Hopi students and staff were subjected to exposure to hazardous materials, but all the schools have 

asbestos and radon issues, which puts the students and staff at 

risk. 

The research on school building conditions and student outcomes 

find a consistent relationship between poor facilities and poor performance. A recent study has shown that students attending school 

in newer, better facilities score 5 to 17 points higher on standardized tests than those attending in substandard buildings. 

It is unjust to expect our students to succeed academically if we 

fail to provide them about a proper learning environment to be successful. 

As reported by a witness at regional hearings in South Dakota—

Wounded Knee, located on Pine Ridge Reservation, runs 13 bus 

routes every day traveling an average of 1,575 miles per school 

day, totaling 267,715 miles annually. 

In conclusion, NIEA is committed to accountability, high standards, and rigorous education. And I would like to leave one word 

with you, and that is, this is a testimony given by a third grader, 

Samantha Todechine Navajo. 

And she said: ‘‘Good afternoon. My name is Samantha Todechine. 

I am from the Near To Water Clan. I go to school at Black Mesa 

Community School. 

11

During the winter, when it rains, the road gets muddy. The bus 

driver always tries to stay on the road, but we always slide off the 

road. 

This past winter was terrible. I live across the wash. The bus 

couldn’t get across the wash to pick us up. So me and my two sisters had to walk about a mile to meet the bus. 

I was crossing the wash when I lost both of my shoes in the mud. 

The bus driver and my sister helped me cross the wash and tried 

to find my shoes.’’

Also, Chairman, for the record, we would like to submit our transcripts from the testimonies and also our NCLB amendments. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Without objection, they will be included in the 

record. 

[The material may be accessed at the following Internet address:] 

http://www.niea.org/issues/policy.php 

Dr. GILBERT. Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Gilbert follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, President, National 

Indian Education Association 

Chairman Kildee and other Members of the Education and Labor Subcommittee 

on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the National Indian Education Association with regard to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and challenges facing BIE 

schools in improving student achievement. I would like to give a special thank you 

to Chairman Kildee for being such a great champion for ensuring that the educational needs of Native students and their communities are met. Indian Country 

has no greater friend in the Congress than Chairman Kildee. 

Founded in 1969, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) is the largest 

organization in the nation dedicated to Native education advocacy issues and embraces a membership of nearly 4,000 American Indian, Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian educators, tribal leaders, school administrators, teachers, elders, parents, 

and students. 

NIEA makes every effort to advocate for the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of Native students. NIEA works to ensure that the federal 

government upholds its responsibility for the education of Native students through 

the provision of direct educational services. The trust relationship of the United 

States government includes the responsibility of ensuring educational quality and 

access for American Indians. Recognizing and validating the cultural, social and linguistic needs of American Indians is critical to guaranteeing the continuity of their 

communities. The way in which instruction and educational services is provided is 

critical to the achievement of our students to attain the same academic standards 

as students nation-wide. 

NIEA is committed to accountability, high standards, and the rigorous education 

of our children and will continue to hold the BIE accountable for ensuring that BIE 

students meet their academic potential with educational programs that consider 

their cultures, languages, backgrounds, and identities. We believe with good faith 

collaboration that we can provide our children with an education that honors their 

Native identities while simultaneously preparing them for successful futures by providing them with opportunities to incorporate into the curriculum their rich cultural 

heritages, languages, and traditions. 

There are only two educational systems for which the federal government has direct responsibility: the Department of Defense schools and federally and tribally operated schools that serve American Indian students through the (BIE) within the 

Department of the Interior (DOI). The federally supported Indian education system 

includes 48,000 elementary and secondary students, 29 tribal colleges, universities 

and post-secondary schools. Approximately 10% of Native children attend BIE 

12

schools while the remaining 90% attend public schools supported through the Department of Education (DOE). 

NIEA’s membership is concerned about the disparity in academic achievement between schools funded and operated by BIE and other schools. As a result of these 

concerns, NIEA scheduled five field hearings this year throughout Indian Country. 

We have already held hearings in Rapid City, South Dakota, Seattle, Washington, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Window Rock, Arizona. The purpose of these NIEA 

facilitated sessions has been to gather information on the challenges faced by BIE 

schools, including how NCLB is being implemented, and additional concerns of BIE 

schools impacting the achievement of their students. Testimony from the witnesses 

focused on the following topics: 1) NCLB and Adequate Yearly Progress, 2) Indian 

school construction and facilities maintenance, and 3) student transportation. Additionally, testimony regarding services and funding for Johnson O’Malley programs 

and tribal colleges was offered. These sessions served as a focused follow up discussion to the eleven field hearings NIEA held in 2005 on the implementation of NCLB 

in Indian Country. The sessions in 2005 served as the basis for the legislative language NIEA has proposed for inclusion in the bill to reauthorize NCLB. 

This past June, the GAO issued the report, Bureau of Indian Schools: Improving 

Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems pursuant to a request of Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee, Representative Grijalva, and Representative Herseth Sandlin. This report highlighted 

many challenges that BIE and DOE schools, tribal communities, and Indian students face under the Act and raised questions about the effectiveness of the BIE 

and the Department of Education in providing educational services to Indian students. 

The following is a summary of the concerns NIEA has heard throughout the past 

few years on BIE schools and student achievement. NIEA has provided recommendations for some of the concerns raised, including legislative amendments to 

NCLB provided to the Committee in March of 2007. 

Stronger Cooperation Between the Departments of Education and Interior 

Executive Order 13336, signed by President Bush in April of 2004, directed the 

DOE and DOI, among other Federal agencies, to work together to ‘‘assist American 

Indian and Alaska Native students in meeting the challenging student academic 

standards of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) in a manner that is consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.’’ 1

DOE funds the education of Native American students by operating Native American-targeted programs and setting aside funds within programs open to all students and transferring these funds to the BIA for BIE managed schools. Often, that 

is where the interaction between the two Departments ends, despite the directive 

given in the Executive Order for the agencies to work together. NIEA encourages 

a stronger relationship between the two Departments given the limited capacity of 

BIE and the larger pool of expertise in education available at DOE. In particular, 

NIEA recommends that DOE serve as technical advisors to the BIE Regional and 

Education Line Offices when the expertise is not available at the BIE on how to 

improve academic achievement and in the development of tribal standards and assessments. 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

For the past three school years, only 30% of BIE schools made theAYP goals established by the state in which the school was located. DOE statistics indicate that 

student performance at BIE schools is lower than for students in public schools. In 

response to the lack of performance at BIE schools, DOI has launched the Improving Indian Education Initiative to help BIE students meet AYP under NCLB. NIEA 

commends BIE for this effort and hopes to see positive gains in BIE student academic achievement as a result. However, NIEA remains concerned about the applicability of state standards to Native children attending BIE schools given the limited, if any, opportunities Tribes have had in the development of these standards. 

Tribal communities are in the best position to determine the needs and the appropriate assessment methods for Native students. NIEA’s amendments to NCLB provide for the ability of a consortium of tribes, BIE funded schools, or school boards 

to apply for a waiver of the definition of AYP. As the law is currently written, a 

single tribe, school board or BIE funded school may apply for a waiver, however, 

considering the significant amount of time and resources needed to successfully submit an application, very few tribes, if any, have been able to submit an application 

on their own. 

Additionally, NIEA supports a structured process with BIE that provides deadlines for the BIE to respond to tribes that submit an application to waive the definiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
13

tion of AYP, in addition to an appeals process. As reported in the GAO report ‘‘one 

tribal group alerted BIE of its intent to use an alternative assessment as early as 

October 2006 but did not receive any response from BIE until June 2007 and technical assistance was not provided until November 2007.’’ 2

Other challenges that have prevented tribes from applying for an alternative definition of AYP include the lack of technical assistance provided to the tribe from the 

BIE, the lack of funding available to develop the standards and assessments, and 

the lengthy commitment needed to navigate the process to complete the application.3 NIEA supports a defined process that provides a timeline in reviewing the applications for alternative definitions of AYP and collaboration between DOE and 

BIE to provide technical assistance to tribes seeking to apply and develop an alternate definition of AYP. 

Increased Collaboration among Tribes, States, and the Federal Government 

For tribes that are unable to develop their own standards and assessments and 

must use the state definitions, states should be required to involve tribes located 

within their boundaries in the development of state plans to allow for the coordination of activities under the different titles of NCLB. As documented in the GAO report, more often than not, states develop the standards without consultation and inclusion of the tribal communities although the BIE and ‘‘almost all of the 174 BIE 

schools have adopted state definitions of AYP’’.4

NIEA seeks stronger emphasis in encouraging states, tribal governments and 

communities, neighboring areas, and the federal government to work together in developing the educational standards and related assessments under Title I.5 NIEA’s 

proposed amendments to the NCLB provide for the inclusion of tribal input in the 

development of the various state, local educational agency, and school plans. Further, NIEA supports the strengthening of NCLB to provide resources for collaboration among tribes, states, and the federal government to allow for increased opportunities in the development of standards that recognize the cultural backgrounds of 

Native students. NIEA supports assessments that consider the cultural and educational needs of Native students. Additionally, NIEA’s amendments promote coordination of programs across Titles I and VII to foster better programming to meet the 

unique cultural, language, and educational needs of Indian students. 

Culturally Relevant Programs 

Current research demonstrates that cultural education can be successfully integrated into the classroom in a manner that would provide Native students with instruction in the core subject areas based upon cultural values and beliefs. Math, 

reading, language arts, history, science, physical education, music, cultural arts and 

other subjects may be taught in curricula instilled in Native traditional and cultural 

concepts and knowledge. The National Science Foundation funded Native Science 

Connections Research Project at Northern Arizona University, is a research model 

that successfully integrated native language, culture and traditions into BIA funded 

schools’ science elementary curriculum. On-going analysis of data revealed increased 

student mastery of science and math concepts, deeper levels of student engagement 

in science and math and increased student achievement in math and science.6

Title VII of NCLB recognizes that Native children have unique educational needs 

due to their cultures and backgrounds. The purpose of Title VII 7 of NCLB is to provide culturally based educational approaches for Native students. These approaches 

have been proven to increase student performance and success as well as awareness 

and knowledge of student cultures and histories. In general, these approaches include recognizing and utilizing native languages as a first or second language, pedagogy that incorporates traditional cultural characteristics and involves teaching 

strategies that are harmonious with the native culture knowledge and contemporary 

ways of knowing and learning. It also includes curricula based upon native culture 

that utilizes legends, oral histories, songs and fundamental beliefs and values of the 

community. In addition, it involves parents, elders and cultural experts as well as 

other community members’ participation in educating native children utilizing the 

social and political mores of the community.8 Part A of Title VII deals specifically 

with the education of American Indians and Parts B and C address the educational 

needs of Native Hawaiian and Alaskan Native students. NIEA has proposed amendments to focus the purpose of Title VII to include both academic achievement 

through culturally based education and to increase the cultural and traditional 

knowledge base of Indian students. 

As stated above, Part A of Title VII contains provisions for American Indian Education and provides supplemental grants to the BIE and local educational agencies, 

tribes, Native organizations, educational organizations, and others to provide programs and activities to meet academic, cultural, and language needs of Native chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
14

dren. Native learning is strengthened through instruction that integrates traditional 

cultural practices with basic skills and embraces the knowledge of the environment, 

Native fine arts and crafts, leadership, character education and citizenship. 

The National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II reported that there is a higher 

percentage of students in schools with a high density of Indian student population 

that receive instruction on topics related to native cultures as compared to students 

in low density Indian student population schools.9 Students attending BIE schools 

fall within the high density schools definition. Additionally, the report goes on to 

state that higher percentages of BIE school students than public school students 

had teachers who reported integrating Native culture and history into their curriculum. ‘‘For example, higher percentages of fourth- and eighth graders in BIE 

schools than in public schools had teachers who said the integration of AI/AN culture and history into their curriculum occurred ‘‘almost every day.’’ 10 The study also 

noted that ‘‘teachers’ reliance on AI/AN content or cultural standards for reading/

language arts instruction was reported for higher percentages of BIE school students than for their peers in public schools.’’ 11

NIEA believes that the BIE should expand upon the culturally based instruction 

currently taking place in BIE schools by promoting stronger integration of Native 

cultures and languages into the curriculum. Given that Native children are performing at far lower academic achievement levels than other categories of students, 

Title VII programs should be expanded and strengthened to ensure that No Child 

Left Behind also means No Culture Left Behind through the use of culturally based 

education to meet the unique educational needs of Native students. NIEA’s proposed 

amendments to Title VII provide for more emphasis on meeting the unique cultural, 

language and educational needs of Indian students through enrichment programs 

that supplement other NCLB programs and will result in improved academic 

achievement of Indian students 

Native Language Programs 

Native language immersions programs have fostered higher academic achievement and interest in learning from American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. Studies have shown that while Native American children and 

youth have often experienced stagnant educational achievement, those in Native 

language immersion programs have demonstrated remarkable promise in educational achievement.12 National studies on language learning and educational 

achievement indicate the more language learning, the higher the academic achievement. Native language immersion programs provide a proven method to enable Native students to achieve academically in the areas of math, reading, and science as 

well as in other content areas. For many Native students living in rural and isolated 

areas, subjects that are taught in non-cultural pedagogies and removed from a tribal 

perspective are often lost on Native students due to the non-relevance of the materials to their environment, lives and identities. 

The National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II reported that 16% of fourth 

grade BIE students had teachers who used Native languages frequently during instruction compared to one percent of the public school students.13 NIEA is pleased 

that BIE students are receiving some exposure and instruction in Native languages 

and supports stronger Native language curriculum at BIE schools. NIEA believes 

that BIE schools could be the models for successful integration of Native language 

immersion programs and culturally based education if given the opportunity and 

support needed to implement these specific types of programs. 

Indian School Construction 

In 1997, GAO issued a report ‘‘Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools 

Funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs’’ that documented an inventory of repair 

needs for education facilities totaling $754 million. In 2004 the backlog for construction and repair was reported to have grown to $942 million. 

More recently, in March of 2008, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) with the 

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution issued a Final Convening Report: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Bureau of Indian Affairs-Funded 

Schools Facilities Construction. CBI reported in their findings of the conditions of 

the schools that ‘‘many schools are ill equipped for the information age’’, ‘‘security 

needs and related funding are major sources of concern for many schools’’, ‘‘aging 

or poor design may lead to a substandard educational environment’’, ‘‘operation and 

maintenance needs are not matched by operation and maintenance annual funding’’, 

and ‘‘overcrowding is a major concern and a source of accelerating physical decline.’’ 14 Additionally, the report stated in the findings that the Facility Management Information System (FMIS) doesn’t sufficiently allow for educational programVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
15

ming needs, including libraries, adequately sized classrooms and gymnasiums, wiring to allow for technological needs and partitions and noise reducing walls.15

Testifying at the NIEA sponsored BIA/BIE Regional Hearing in Navajo Nation/

Window Rock, AZ, Hopi Tribal Chairman, Benjamin Nuvamsa stated, ‘‘our students 

are at extremely high risk because of exposure to hazardous materials in our school 

facilities * * * [recently] severe reductions in annual appropriations for the building 

Operations, Maintenance and Repairs (OM&R) program results in the ever-increasing number of projects placed in the Facilities Maintenance Inventory System 

(FMIS). While waiting for funding, our students and staff are subjected to exposure 

to hazardous materials * * * almost all schools have asbestos and radon issues 

which puts the students and staff at risk.’’ 16

The amount of funding over the past few years have failed to fund tribes at the 

rate of inflation, once again exacerbating the hardships faced by Native American 

students. Further, the funding that has been allocated over the past few years will 

not keep pace with the tremendous backlog of Indian schools and facilities in need 

of replacement or repair. The Mandaree Day School located in Mandaree, North Dakota has taken out a loan in the amount of $3 million to cover the costs of building 

a new education facility. The Mandaree Day School could not wait any longer for 

the funding from DOI to build their school. The loan only covers the facility structure and the 210 children attending this school have no playground and the teachers do not have a paved parking lot. 

The purpose of education construction is to permit BIA to provide structurally 

sound buildings in which Native American children can learn without leaking roofs 

and peeling paint. It is unjust to expect our students to succeed academically, if we 

fail to provide them with a proper environment to achieve success. 

Indian Education Facilities Improvement and Repair Funding 

The continued deterioration of facilities on Indian land is not only a federal responsibility; it has become a liability of the federal government. Old and exceeding 

their life expectancy by decades, BIA schools require consistent increases in facilities maintenance without offsetting decreases in other programs, if 48,000 Indian 

students are to be educated in structurally sound schools. 

Of the 4,495 education buildings in the BIA inventory, half are more than 30 

years old and more than 20% are older than fifty years. On average, BIE education 

buildings are 60 years old; while, 40 years is the average age for public schools serving the general population. 65% of BIE school administrators report the physical 

condition of one or more school buildings as inadequate. Although education construction has improved a bit over the last few years, the deferred maintenance backlog is still estimated to be over $500 million and increases annually by $56.5 million. As noted by the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in its Committee 

Report accompanying the FY 2006 Interior appropriations bill, ‘‘much remains to be 

done.’’ Of the 184 BIE schools, 1⁄3 of the schools are in poor condition and in need 

of either replacement or substantial repair. 

School Transportation 

Student transportation impacts student attendance and the ability of school districts to offer educational programs. BIE provides extensive student transportation 

required of largely rural and widely dispersed school service populations. According 

to the FY 2009 DOI Budget Request, Departmental Highlights, during the current 

school year, BIE-funded school buses will travel nearly 15 million miles, often over 

gravel or dirt roads. As reported by a witness during the session NIEA held in 

Rapid City, South Dakota, the Little Wound School, located on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, runs thirteen bus routes each day during which the buses 

travel on average, 1,575 miles per school day totaling 267,750 miles annually for 

‘‘regular bus runs not including activity runs.’’ 17 An additional seven buses run each 

day for the after school activities for athletic trips, field trips, activity runs, medical 

trips, etc., totaling 106,083 miles per year. In addition, Navajo Nation’s Black Mesa 

Community School Principal Marie Rose testified that ‘‘students ride the bus four 

hours a day. However, when it rains or snows the average bus ride is seven hours 

a day, if the roads are in drivable condition, which many times are they are not.’’ 18

The FY 2009 DOI Budget Request notes that the condition of roads often traveled 

by BIE-funded school buses increases the wear and tear on vehicles, requiring more 

routine maintenance and more frequent replacement of vehicles by BIE compared 

to other school systems and further notes that the remote location of the BIE 

schools also results in higher fuel costs relative to other locales. 

The cost of fuel is steadily rising and transportation costs is a major concern for 

a number of school districts that serve American Indian and Alaska Native students 

and if assistance is not available through federal or state resources, the high cost 

16

of transporting students in rural areas may offset precious funding that could potentially be used for instructional purposes. Little Wound School has reported that a 

shortfall of $170,411.15 for transportation funding ‘‘has had a tremendous effect on 

our budget.’’19

Johnson O’Malley Funding 

President Bush continues to attempt elimination of Johnson 0’Malley (JOM) 

grants and NIEA and the Johnson O’Malley Association Board urge Congress to 

continue supporting these programs crucial to Indian students. 

Although the purpose of JOM funding administered by the BIA is to support Indian students in public schools, we find that JOM programs have an impact on the 

education of many of the Indian students attending BIE schools due to the transitory nature of Indian students between BIE and public schools. 

JOM grants are the cornerstone for many Indian communities in meeting the 

unique and specialized educational needs of Native students who attend public 

schools. Many Indian children live in rural or remote areas with high rates of poverty and unemployment. JOM helps to level the field by providing Indian students 

with programs that help them stay in school and attain academic success. Even 

though JOM funding is extremely limited due to BIA budget constraints, it is being 

used across the country in a variety of basic as well as innovative ways to assist 

Indian students to achieve academically. JOM funding provides vital programs designed to build self-esteem, confidence, and cultural awareness so that Indian students may develop and mature to become productive and contributing citizens within their communities and society respectively. For example, JOM funds help students achieve and succeed by providing such services as: eyeglasses and contacts, 

resume counseling, college counseling, culturally based tutoring, summer school, 

scholastic testing fees, school supplies, transition programs, musical instruments, 

Native youth leadership programs, student incentive programs, financial aid counseling, fees for athletic equipment and activities, caps and gowns, art and writing 

competitions, etc. Other programs administered by the federal government, such as 

NCLB funding at DOE, do not allow funding for these types of activities. 

For example, in Vinita, Oklahoma, Native students have benefited in a variety of 

ways through its JOM program funds. by providing ‘‘opportunities and activities 

that assist in the development of the students leadership skills, enhances their selfesteem, provides cultural education and pride and provides assistance to extremely 

stretched parent budgets so their children have cultural educational opportunities 

that they might not otherwise have. These activities have involved the students, 

parents, community, schools and representatives from the Cherokee Nation. Increased enrollments at Vinita have seen an increased need for additional JOM funding therefore cutting the JOM funding would be detrimental to all Native students 

including those in Vinita.’’ 20

Under-funding of JOM is exacerbated by certain factors. In 1995, a freeze was imposed on JOM funding through DOI, limiting funds to a tribe based upon its population count in 1995. The freeze prohibits additional tribes from receiving JOM 

funding and does not recognize increased costs due to inflation and accounting for 

population growth. NIEA urges that the JOM funding freeze be lifted and that other 

formula-driven and head count-based grants be analyzed to ensure that tribes are 

receiving funding for their student populations at a level that will provide access 

to a high quality education. 

Tribal Education Departments 

As mandated in many treaties and as authorized in several federal statutes, the 

education of Indian children is an important role of Indian tribes. The involvement 

of tribes in their children’s educational future is key to the educational achievement 

of Indian children. Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) provide tribes with the opportunities to become actively involved in the education of their children. The authorization for TED funding in DOI and in DOE is contained in Title VII, Section 

7135 of NCLB. Despite this authorization and several other prior statutes, federal 

funds have never been appropriated for TEDs. The use of TEDs would provide tribes 

with greater ability to meet the educational needs of their students and would ensure that tribes can more readily improve the education of their youngest members. 

TEDs develop educational policies and systems for Indian communities that are 

attuned to the cultural and specialized academic needs of Indian students. TEDs 

partner with the federal government and state governments and schools to improve 

education for tribal students. NIEA requests that both DOI and DOE fund tribal 

education departments. 

17

Conclusion 

As part of its efforts on reauthorization, NIEA will continue to perform as much 

outreach as possible so that Congress can better understand the needs of Native 

students, thereby allowing student needs to be addressed during reauthorization of 

NCLB. I speak to you on behalf of all our Native children and the need to ensure 

their successful academic achievement. We, NIEA’s membership, are their voice and 

as President of NIEA, I am obligated and privileged to advocate for their future. 

I would like to leave with this last thought by Charles Eastman (Santee). ‘‘The 

public position of the Indian has always been entirely dependent upon our private 

virtue. We are never permitted to forget that we do not live for ourselves alone, but 

also for our tribe and clan. Every child, from the first days of learning, is a public 

servant in training.’’

NIEA thanks the Committee for its tremendous efforts on behalf of Native communities. With your support we are hopeful that we can improve the programs and 

funding for education that Native communities deserve. 

Kwakwha! 

ENDNOTES

1 Executive Order No. 13336, American Indian and Alaska Native Education (April 30, 2004). 

2 United States Government Accountability Office,(June 2008). Bureau of Indian Education 

Schools, Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic 

Accountability Systems, p. 8. 3 Ibid, p. 5. 

4 United States Government Accountability Office (June 2008). Bureau of Indian Education 

Schools, Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic 

Accountability Systems, p. 4. 5 NIEA’s Amendments to the No Child Left Behind Act, March 2007. 

6The Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind in Indian Country: Hearing before the U.S. 

House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (testimony of Dr. Willard Sakiestewa Gilbert, President-Elect, National Indian Education Association). 7Title VII of the No Child Left Behind Act incorporates the Indian Education Act of 1972. 

8Demmert, W. G. & Towner, J. C. (2003). A Review of the Research Literature on the Influences of Culturally Based Education on the Academic Performance of Native American Students. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland OR 9 National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II. 

10 National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II, p. 39. 11 National Indian Education Study 2007: Part II, p. 40. 12Pease-Pretty on Top, J. (2003). Native American Language Immersion: Innovative Native 

Education for Children & Families. American Indian College Fund: Denver, Colorado. 13 National Indian Education Study: Part II, p. 38. 14The Consensus Building Institute with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (March 5, 2008). Final Convening Report: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Bureau 

of Indian Affairs—Funded School Facilities Construction, pp. 16-18. 15 Ibid,. p. 19. 16 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education: Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Widow Rock, AZ (August 21, 2008) (testimony of Benjamin 

Nuvamsa, Hopi Tribal Chairman). 17 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education Transportation Cost Funding: 

Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Rapid City, SD, (July 10, 2008) (testimony of Janice Richards, President, Little Wound School). 18 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education: Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Widow Rock, AZ (August 21, 2008) (testimony of Marie Rose, Black 

Mesa Community School Principal, Navajo Nation). 19 Ibid., p. 3. 20 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education: Hearings before the National Indian Education Association, Widow Rock, AZ (2008) (written testimony submitted by Lisa TriceTurtle, Cherokee Nation). 

Chairman KILDEE. Stan Holder? 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY R. HOLDER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF 

PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, BUREAU OF INDIAN 

EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. HOLDER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. My name is Stan Holder. I am the chief of the division 

of performance and accountability for the Bureau of Indian Education in the Department of Interior. 

18

I am pleased to be here to speak on behalf of the department 

concerning the recent GAO report entitled, ‘‘Bureau of Indian Education Schools; Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some 

Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability System.’’

The division of performance and accountability acts as the state 

educational agency for the Bureau of Indian Education. As such, 

the division is responsible for oversight and supervision for 184 instructional and residential programs in 23 states. 

Fifty-nine of the programs are operated by the BIE, and 125 are 

tribally operated under the provisions of Public Law 107-110 and 

Public Law 93-638. 

The GAO report states accurately that BIE has attempted to negotiate MOUs with all 23 states to facilitate the assessment process. This process is mandated by the final rule for implementation 

of No Child Left Behind. 

Today, BIE has been successful in acquiring 11 MOUs with 

states that have BIE instructional programs. BIE shares the GAO’s 

concern for gaining MOUs with the 12 remaining states. BIE has 

encountered varying responses from the states that range from silence to unreasonable conditions. 

Two states that have presented unique barriers are California 

and New Mexico. California’s initial response to the BIE’s proposal 

to establish an MOU contained the requirement for a $1 million 

bond to be put in place to ensure test item security. 

Negotiations were stagnant until 2 months ago when, with the 

assistance of the Department of Education, dialogue was reestablished with the California Office of Assessment. BIE would like to 

achieve a reasonable agreement and have an MOU in place in the 

not-too-distant future. 

The state of New Mexico initially agreed to and signed an MOU 

with BIE. Shortly thereafter, New Mexico rescinded the MOU and 

then insisted that BIE consult with a New Mexico tribe to establish 

an MOU with the state. 

This presents an issue since BIE is required to utilize New Mexico’s assessment process under the final rule. The final rule was the 

result of the negotiated rulemaking which is supposed to be the 

highest form of consultation. 

The GAO report also addresses some of the issues encountered 

in BIE’s effort to provide technical assistance to tribally-controlled 

schools that have requested alternate AYP progress definition 

waivers. 

To date, there have been three such requests. The three requests 

are from the Navajo Nation, the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, and 

the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium or OSEC, which is made 

up of 17 tribally-operated schools in North and South Dakota. 

The BIE and representatives of the Department of Education 

met with the Navajo Nation within days of the Nation’s initial request. The BIE has also provided technical assistance to the Navajo 

Nation via a contractor. BIE has not received additional correspondence or requests from the Navajo Nation or the Dine’ Department of Education that acts on behalf of the Navajo Nation. 

The BIE and the Department of Education have had various 

meetings and site visits with the Miccosukee tribal school, tribal 

elected officials, and their tribal attorneys. The BIE and the DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
19

partment of Education have provided technical assistance to the 

tribe via site visits and through a contractor. 

The most recent communication that we received from the tribe 

was a call from the Miccosukee tribal school’s administrator stating 

that the school and the tribe did not require any further technical 

assistance from the BIE. 

BIE staff have traveled to South Dakota to meet with the Oceti 

Sakowin Consortium representatives beginning in 2005 to assist 

OSEC in developing their initial request for an alternative AYP 

definition waiver. 

The BIE and the Department of Education have met with OSEC 

representatives to explain and provide technical assistance on a 

waiver request process and a peer review process for establishing 

an alternative assessment. 

BIE has also provided technical assistance to OSEC through a 

contractor. Most recently, the BIE transferred funds to OSEC’s fiscal agent for the purpose of initiating development of a Dakota, 

Lakota, and Nakota language assessment process to carry out the 

community activities and meetings necessary to develop that assessment and to carry out legal research on proposed changes to 

the BIE accountability workbook in an effort to expedite that process. 

The BIE is addressing the four recommendations made in the 

GAO report which is stated in my written testimony. 

In closing, I would like to state that the education of Indian children is critical to improving the quality of life of Indian communities. Assessments and resulting AYP determinations are valuable 

measures used to determine the quality of instruction in the classroom. 

These measures provide administrators and teachers the opportunity to improve instruction so that students can achieve academic success. 

NCLB has provided a framework and goals for all students to be 

proficient in math and reading by 2014. Indian students in BIE 

and public schools face unique challenges—poverty, loss of identity, 

and isolated communities are but a few of these challenges. 

However, our children will compete for employment, post-secondary education opportunities, and career opportunities on a global scale. 

It is all of our responsibility to ensure that they are prepared to 

meet these challenges. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I will 

be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Holder follows:]

Prepared Statement of Stanley Holder, Chief, Division of Performance and 

Accountability, Bureau of Indian Education, Department of the Interior 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Stan 

Holder, and I am the Chief, Division of Performance and Accountability for the Bureau of Indian Education at the Department of the Interior (Department). I am 

pleased to be here today to speak on behalf of the Department about the recent 

GAO report entitled, Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems. (GAO-08-679) 

20

Background 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) was established on August 29, 2006. The 

BIE is the former Office of Indian Education Programs, which was renamed in 2006 

to reflect the parallel purpose and organizational structure BIE has in relation to 

other programs within Indian Affairs. The BIE supports education programs and 

manages residential facilities for Indian students of federally recognized tribes at 

184 elementary and secondary schools, and dormitories. The BIE operates 59 

schools and dormitories with the remaining 125 operated by the tribes through contracts or grants. These schools are located on 63 reservations in 23 states. The BIE 

has the responsibilities of a State Educational Agency (SEA) for this nationwide 

school system. 

During the 2007 to 2008 school year, BIE-funded schools served approximately 

44,000 Indian students and residential boarders; however, less than 10 percent of 

all American Indian children in the United States attend BIE-funded schools. Approximately 5,000 teachers, professional staff, principals, school administrators, and 

support personnel work within the BIE-operated schools. 

GAO Report 

The ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’’ (NCLB), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), emphasizes accountability for results in improving the academic success of students served by these programs. The 

statute requires schools receiving ESEA, Title I funds to achieve adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) based on annual targets towards the goal of all students achieving 

academic proficiency in reading and mathematics by school year 2013-2014. Under 

the statute, a school’s achievement of its annual AYP targets is based primarily on 

student assessment results broken out by race and ethnicity, poverty, disability status, and limited-English-proficiency status. 

The NCLB required the Department of the Interior to undertake formal negotiated rulemaking to create regulations in certain areas, including regulations defining AYP for BIE-funded schools. A team comprised of federal officials, tribal leaders, 

and Indian education professionals developed the regulations through ‘‘consensus’’ 

decision-making. All twenty-five committee members agreed to the final negotiated 

product. These regulations became effective on May 31, 2005. 

The regulations defining AYP, mentioned above, provided that tribally-controlled 

schools would implement the definition of the State in which the particular school 

was located but could waive all or part of the State definition and propose an alternative definition. The alternative definition would be subject to approval of the Secretaries of the Interior and Education. 

On June 27, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report 

entitled Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement 

Academic Accountability Systems. The report identifies the challenges associated 

with the implementation of the AYP final rule. It also included four recommendations that I would like to discuss briefly. 

Recommendation—establish Memoranda of Understanding with States that lack 

agreements with the BIE 

There are currently 23 different State definitions of AYP being applied throughout 

the BIE school system, leaving the BIE without a single standard AYP determination process. Instead, the BIE’s responsibility was to approach the States with the 

expectation that the States would enter into a written agreement to provide assessments and scoring results, and, in some cases provide AYP determinations for BIEfunded schools in their respective States. 

Currently, the BIE has 11 MOUs in place with the following states: Idaho, Iowa, 

Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. The BIE continues to pursue MOUs with the following 12 

states: Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

New Mexico (once signed and then rescinded), North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and 

Wisconsin, in order to complete an MOU with each. 

One of the recommendations contained in the GAO report is that the BIE finalize 

the remaining 12 MOUs. GAO is concerned that States without an MOU could 

change policies regarding access to State assessments and scoring services. The BIE 

agrees that MOUs should be entered into with the remaining States. We are working with tribal governments in pursuing negotiations with these States. 

Recommendation—provide assistance to tribally controlled schools seeking a different 

definition of AYP 

Another issue raised by the GAO is its concern regarding the assistance provided 

to Tribes that would prefer to pursue an alternate AYP definition waiver. Two 

21

tribes, the Navajo Nation and the Miccosukee Tribe, and one tribal consortium, the 

Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium (OSEC), have begun to develop alternatives 

to State AYP definitions, in part, to make standards and assessments reflect their 

tribal culture. The report states that the two tribes and the tribal consortium identified a lack of federal guidance and communication, including having received limited 

technical assistance from the BIE. 

In response, the BIE has contracted with Research in Action, Inc to provide technical assistance to the Navajo Nation and OSEC to organize the Tribes alternate 

AYP definition initiatives and expedite the process. The contractor has identified the 

need for both the OSEC and the Navajo Nation to develop focused purposes, expected outcomes, and the administrative infrastructure needed to work with an assessment vendor. This development structure will also assist tribal groups in understanding the need for an administrative infrastructure to initiate and maintain an 

assessment system. 

Navajo Nation 

The Navajo Nation submitted a request for an alternate AYP definition waiver 

request to BIE in November 2007. BIE responded and attempted to set a date for 

an initial meeting with the Navajo Nation on November 15, 2007. Representatives 

from the BIE and the Department of Education met with Navajo Nation representatives on March 6, 2008, as an initial step in the technical-assistance process. The 

Department of Education’s representatives explained the requirements for developing, administering, and maintaining a standards and assessment system, including the external peer review of each assessment system to ensure that it meets the 

requirements of the ESEA. 

The Navajo Nation discussed the conceptual framework they would use to assess 

students. The frame work was based on standards and assessments that would have 

the results weighted on social pathology that exists in reservation communities. 

Both BIE and the Department of Education provided guidance as to the difficulty 

that would be embedded in such an approach. Also expressed was the concern that 

adding weight based upon the proposed process would minimize the identification 

of these social issues and could possibly decrease efforts to address the therapeutic 

and rehabilitative services to address them. The BIE has not received further correspondence or requests from the Navajo Nation for alternate AYP definition waiver 

purposes. The BIE consultant, Research In Action is still available to the Navajo 

Nation for technical assistance, upon request. 

Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium (OSEC) 

OSEC made its initial request on August 6, 2006. BIE staff have met with OSEC 

to explain the process and to establish tasks and timelines to facilitate its request. 

We are waiting for the OSEC to provide a focused process that would pass the peer 

review process in the Standards and Assessment Peer Review Guidance dated April 

2004 (and updated December 2007) and distributed by the U.S. Department of Education (Education) for all State and tribe standards and assessments systems. 

Extensive discussions have taken place between the BIE and OSEC to arrive at 

objectives that are in compliance with statute and can be accomplished and supported by the current structure of the BIE. For example, OSEC’s most recent request is to (1) extend the time frame for all students to be proficient by 2014 to 

2018; and (2) extend the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) to reflect this change 

These changes are statutory and would require amendments to the ESEA. 

Miccosukee Tribe 

The Miccosukee Tribe submitted a request for an alternate AYP definition waiver 

to BIE in 2007. The Tribe also requested that the school be held harmless for AYPdetermination purposes until the alternate AYP definition was granted. The BIE 

has honored this request with the expectation that the Tribe would move quickly 

to request the amendment to the State Accountability Workbook, develop standards 

and assessments, and prepare for peer review. 

The BIE and the Department of Education met with the Miccosukee Tribe in the 

State of Florida on November 20, 2007, and again on February 8, 2008, to provide 

technical assistance and an overview of the requirements for a standards and assessment system, and an overview of the peer review requirements. In addition, the 

BIE has offered ongoing technical assistance to the Tribe through the BIE contractor, Research in Action. 

The Miccosukee Tribe has communicated verbally to the BIE that it does not need 

further technical assistance in the form of funding or contractual support and that 

the Tribal Council has determined that the Tribe will absorb the cost and be responsible for developing the request. As of this date, BIE has not received any further 

22

information. However, a determination will have to be made concerning how long 

a school can be held harmless for an AYP determination. 

Recommendation—provide guidelines and training to tribally controlled schools seeking an alternative definition of AYP 

Another recommendation in the GAO report was for the BIE to provide guidelines 

and training to tribally controlled schools on the process for seeking and approving 

alternatives to defining AYP. As mentioned above, we are assisting tribally controlled schools in pursuing alternate AYP definition waivers. We are providing guidance and training through presentations at national education meetings and conferences throughout Indian Country. In addition, the BIE is working on formalizing 

its guidance and training and will provide it to the public on its website when 

ready. 

Recommendation—BIE should establish internal response time frames and process 

to ensure timely responses to tribal groups requesting assistance 

The GAO recommended that the BIE establish internal response times and processes. The BIE is logging in all correspondence and responses, including e-mails, regarding technical assistance requests. Upon the receipt of a technical assistance request, the BIE will identify and provide a point person to work with the Tribe on 

its request. A consultant will provide guidance and a project- management document identifying the activities and timelines for the technical assistance with the 

tribal entity. BIE will require that a progress report be provided at regular intervals 

and Education Line Officers will receive training on standards, assessments, and accountability expectations for alternate AYP definitions. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I would like to state that the education of our children is everyone’s 

responsibility. Assessments, and the resulting AYP determinations, are one important measure used to determine the quality education children are receiving. They 

provide administrators and teachers the opportunity to improve and tailor instruction to raise achievement and close achievement gaps. NCLB has provided the 

frame work and goals to facilitate this process. It is up to us, working together, to 

set the standards and use the information we receive from assessments, to facilitate 

improved instruction and truly close the achievement gap for Indian students. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

And Ms. Dudro? 

STATEMENT OF ANNE CAMPBELL DUDRO, CHIEF OF STAFF, 

OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. DUDRO. Good morning. Thank you Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and all the members of the subcommittee for 

inviting the U.S. Department of Education to share with you what 

we are doing to improve the education of Indian children and provide technical assistance to tribal schools. 

My name is Anne Dudro. I am the chief of staff for the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education, and I am pleased to be 

here today to speak on behalf of the department about the recent 

GAO report entitled, ‘‘Bureau of Indian Education Schools (sic): Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement (sic) Academic Accountability Systems.’’

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended and 

reauthorized by No Child Left Behind of 2001 provides federal aid 

for disadvantaged students to state and local education agencies as 

well as the Bureau of Indian Education. 

Specifically, there are several requirements to which states and 

the BIE receiving Title I funds must adhere. They are: Develop 

academic content and student achievement standards, measure 

23

student proficiency in reading, math, and science with assessments 

aligned with these standards, and determine whether schools are 

making adequate yearly progress with the goal that all students 

will meet or exceed the state’s proficient level of academic achievement in reading and mathematics by 2014. 

The ESEA requires the Secretary of the Interior to adopt a definition of AYP and use it to make accountability determinations for 

all BIE-funded schools. 

In 2005, after negotiated rulemaking, the Department of the Interior published a final rule establishing the definition of AYP for 

BIE-funded schools as the definition of AYP used by the state in 

which a BIE-funded school is located. 

However, in recognition of the sovereign nation of tribes, the 

SEA allows the governing body or school board of a BIE-funded 

school to apply for a waiver from all or part of the state’s definition 

of AYP and propose an alternative definition. 

Such alternatives are subject to the approval of the Secretaries 

of Interior and Education. 

In February of 2007, the two agencies signed an agreement to establish basic procedures for the review and approval of any alternative definitions of AYP submitted to the Interior by BIE-funded 

schools. 

Over the past year, the Department of Education has worked 

with BIE to provide technical assistance to three tribal groups that 

have requested alternatives to state AYP definitions, particularly 

in the form of developing new standards and assessments that include components of native culture. 

On August 23rd of 2007, GAO held an entrance conference with 

the department. At that time, the department had not been informed of any tribal requests for technical assistance related to alternative definitions. 

On September 6th of the same year, the department was subsequently informed of the request of the Miccosukee Tribe and a consortium of the Dakota Tribes, the OSEC. Upon receiving the formal 

request from Miccosukee and after follow-up conversations with the 

BIE, three staff persons from the department traveled to the 

Miccosukee Reservation in Florida on November 20th to provide 

technical assistance. 

Nine days later, the department staff participated in a similar 

meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota, to provide technical assistance to the OSEC. 

Upon the conclusion of these two meetings, the department contracted with an external expert, who is a former assessment director for a state educational agency, to provide additional technical 

assistance to both tribal groups. 

Shortly thereafter, on December 5th, the Department was also 

informed of a request from the Navajo Nation for technical assistance during a Title I monitoring visit to Albuquerque. 

On March 6th, the department staff and the contractor participated in the technical assistance meeting with the Navajo Tribe in 

New Mexico. The Navajo meeting focused on a conceptual framework for their assessment and accountability systems. We have received no additional communication regarding any subsequent 

meeting. 

24

The request from the OSEC and the Navajo Nations for alternatives to state definitions of adequate yearly progress include consideration of both an accountability component and a standards assessment component, while the request from the Miccosukee focuses solely on the development and implementation of new assessments. 

There are seven requirements as outlined in statute in regulation 

and further elaborated in the department’s Standards and Assessment Peer Review Guide first published in April of 2004 and then 

updated again in 2007. 

They are: One, to develop academic content standards that specify what all students are expected to know and demonstrate in reading, language arts, mathematics, and science. 

Two, develop academic achievement standards that are aligned 

with the state or tribe’s academic content standards. 

Three, use a single assessment system for all students. 

Four, demonstrate that the assessments meet standards for technical quality, including that they are valid and reliable measures 

of student knowledge. 

Five, demonstrate that the assessments are aligned with the 

state or tribe’s content standards. 

Six, provide for the inclusion of all students, including students 

with disabilities, in the state or tribe’s assessment system. 

And seven, produce reports at the individual student’s school, 

LEA, and SEA levels. 

After an assessment system is fully developed, it must be presented to the Department of Education for peer review. The peer 

review determines if the organization, whether a state or tribe, adheres to the standards for assessment development as outlined in 

the guidance. In this manner, the department ensures that tests 

are valid and reliable for the purposes for which they are designed. 

To conclude, the department has been working with our colleagues at the BIE to respond in a timely manner to the requests 

we have received for technical assistance from the tribes. Department staff, once made aware of any requests, has met with the 

tribes to discuss the issues and provide initial technical service. 

Furthermore, the department has provided for, and will continue 

to provide and pay for, additional technical assistance through a 

contractor to help the BIE and tribes. 

We take our responsibility to help ensure a high quality education for all Indian children very seriously. We also have a responsibility to guarantee that all schools that receive federal education 

funding abide by the applicable statutes and regulations. 

We are doing all that we can to support our colleagues at the 

BIE to meet the needs of the tribes, BIE-funded schools, and American Indian students. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I am 

happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Dudro follows:]

Prepared Statement of Anne Dudro, Chief of Staff, Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education 

I. Introduction 

Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and all the members of 

the Subcommittee for inviting the U.S. Department of Education to share with you 

25

1The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), formerly the Office of Indian Education in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was formed in late June 2006. The BIE is now a separate bureau 

from the BIA. 

what we are doing to improve the education of Indian children and provide technical 

assistance to tribal schools. My name is Anne Dudro, I am the Chief of Staff for 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and I am pleased to be here 

today to speak on behalf of the Department about the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving 

Interior’s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems. (GAO-08-679) 

II. Requirements for Assessments and Accountability under No Child Left Behind 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), authorizes Federal aid to 

State and local educational agencies, as well as the Bureau of Indian Education 

(BIE), for the education of disadvantaged students. As a condition for receiving 

grants under Title I, Part A of ESEA, States and the BIE are held accountable for 

the academic achievement of students in all public schools, including BIE-funded 

ones. The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) provides Title I, Part A, and 

other formula grant funds to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) for its use 

and for distribution to tribally controlled schools and BIE-operated schools under 

the provisions of section 9204 of the ESEA. Under section 9204(a)(2), the Department provides these funds to Interior under an Agreement entered into by both 

agencies consistent with the requirements of the programs. 

Specifically, Title I requires that states and the BIE develop academic content and 

student achievement standards; measure student proficiency in math, reading, and 

science with assessments aligned with these standards; and determine whether 

schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal that 

all students will meet or exceed the State’s proficient level of academic achievement 

on the State reading and mathematics assessments by 2014. 

Section 1116(g)(1)(A) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of the Interior to adopt 

a definition of AYP and use it to make accountability determinations for Bureau of 

Indian Affairs1 (BIA)-funded schools. In 2005, after a negotiated rulemaking involving Federal and tribal officials, the Department of the Interior published a final rule 

establishing the definition of AYP for BIE-funded schools as the definition of AYP 

used by the State in which a BIE-funded school is located. 

However, in recognition of the sovereign nature of tribes, section 1116(g)(1)(B) of 

the ESEA allows the tribal governing body or school board of a BIE-funded school 

to apply for a waiver from all or part of its State’s definition of AYP and propose 

an alternative definition. Such alternatives are subject to the approval of the Secretaries of the Interior and Education. In addition, section 1111(m) of the ESEA identifies the various assessments that BIE-funded schools may use depending on who 

accredits those schools, and gives the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for approving the use of assessments where the school would not use the assessments of 

the state in which the school is located. 

In February of 2007, the Departments of the Interior and Education signed an 

agreement to establish basic procedures for review and approval of any alternative 

definitions of AYP that a tribal governing body or school board of a school funded 

by the BIE might submit to DOI. Provision for such procedures between the two 

agencies is governed by section 1116(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA and by final DOI regulations in 25 CFR Part 30. 

When a tribal governing body or school board requests technical assistance in developing an alternative definition of AYP, the BIE is responsible for providing that 

technical assistance. The interagency agreement calls for BIE to notify the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which oversees the accountability provisions under Title I of the ESEA, of all requests by tribal governing bodies or school boards for technical assistance. Also under the agreement, the BIE is 

to request guidance as needed in providing technical assistance. 

III. Requests for Alternate Definitions of AYP 

Over the past year, the Department has worked with the BIE to provide technical 

assistance to three tribal groups that have requested alternatives to State AYP definitions, particularly in the form of developing new standards and assessments that 

include components of native culture. 

On August 23, 2007, GAO held an Entrance Conference with the Department. At 

that time, the Department had not been informed of any tribal requests for techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
26

nical assistance related to alternative definitions. On September 5, 2007, the BIE 

sent an email to the Department requesting a teleconference regarding assessment 

issues, which ED convened for the next day. During this teleconference, the BIE informed the Department of requests BIE had received from the Miccosukee Tribe and 

from a consortium of the Dakota tribes, the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium 

(OSEC). Also during this teleconference, the Department asked BIE to forward the 

formal requests from the Miccosukee and OSEC. Upon receiving the request from 

the Miccosukee on September 25, and after follow-up conversations with BIE, three 

staff persons from the Department traveled to the Miccosukee reservation in Florida 

on November 20 to provide technical assistance. On November 29 of that year Department staff participated in a similar meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota to provide technical assistance to the OSEC. Upon the conclusion of these two meetings, 

the Department contracted with an external expert, who is a former assessment director for a State educational agency, to provide technical assistance to both tribal 

groups. 

On December 5, 2007, the BIE informed Department staff of a request BIE had 

received from the Navajo Nation for technical assistance, during a Title I monitoring 

review in Albuquerque. At that meeting, the BIE provided the Department with a 

copy of the Navajo Nation request and a copy of BIE’s response to the Navajo request proposing a meeting between the three parties. According to the BIE, the 

Navajo Tribe was delayed in responding, but on March 6, 2008, Department staff 

and a contractor participated in a technical assistance meeting with the Navajo 

Tribe in Albuquerque. The Navajo meeting focused on a conceptual framework for 

their assessment and accountability systems, and we have received no communication regarding any subsequent meetings. 

IV. Requirements for Alternatives to State Definitions of AYP 

The requests from the OSEC and Navajo Nations for alternatives to State definitions of adequate yearly progress include consideration of both an accountability 

component and a standards and assessment component, while the request from the 

Miccosukee focuses solely on the development and implementation of new assessments. The accountability component is involved when different elements, such as 

the use of an oral language proficiency assessment, are considered when determining if a school has made AYP. The standards and assessment component involves developing an assessment other than that provided by a State (e.g, a more 

culturally appropriate assessment than that used by the State). 

While accountability and assessment are related activities, the approval process 

for these various requests is different. Accountability relates to the annual determination of whether a school or local educational agency is making AYP; it depends 

upon the assessment results as well as other factors such as the assessment participation rate, the attendance or graduation rates, and, in the request of OSEC, oral 

language proficiency. The ESEA leaves the authority for the determination of proficiency and adequate yearly progress to the State educational agencies or other appropriate entity so long as the certain statutory requirements are met. While it is 

reasonable for a tribe to desire to develop its own accountability system, any request 

by a BIE-funded school to deviate from the State’s assessments or process to calculate AYP would need to be submitted by the tribe to the BIE. These tribal amendments would need to be reflected in the BIE’s accountability plan, and submitted 

for review and approval by ED. This is the same procedure used for all other States’ 

accountability plans. The BIE would need to note in their accountability plan that 

certain amendments to AYP definitions would apply only to the tribal schools requesting the alternative definition. 

The development and implementation of new standards and assessments must 

meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I which are guided by the 

Department’s Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance, first published in 

April 2004, and updated in December of 2007. There are seven requirements outlined in statute and regulations and further elaborated in the peer review guidance. 

Under Title I, States, or in this case tribes, must: (1) develop academic content 

standards that specify what all students are expected to know and be able to do 

in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; (2) develop academic achievement standards that are aligned with the State or tribe’s academic content standards; (3) use a single assessment system for all students; (4) demonstrate that the 

assessments meet standards for technical quality, including that they are valid and 

reliable measures of student knowledge (5) demonstrate that the assessments are 

aligned with the State or tribe’s content standards; (6) provide for the inclusion of 

all students, including students with disabilities, in the State or tribe’s assessment 

system; and (7) produce reports at the individual student, school, LEA, and SEA levels. 

27

When the assessment system is fully developed it must be presented to the Department for a Peer review. The Peer review process does not involve looking at individual content standards or the format or content of the tests. It is focused on 

whether the organization, whether it is a state or a tribe, followed certain processes 

for assessment development as outlined in the Department’s Peer Review Guidance 

to ensure the tests are valid and reliable for the purposes for which they are designed. 

V. Conclusion 

In conclusion, the Department has been working with our colleagues at the BIE 

to respond in a timely manner to the requests we have received for technical assistance from the tribes. Department staff, once made aware of any requests, have met 

with the tribes to discuss the issues and provide initial technical assistance and the 

Department has provided and paid for, and will continue to provide and pay for, 

continued technical assistance through a contractor who is an expert in State standards and assessment systems. We have a Federal responsibility that all schools that 

receive Federal education funding abide by the applicable statute and regulations 

and we are doing all we can to support our colleagues at the BIE to meet the needs 

of the tribes and BIE-funded schools. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton? 

STATEMENT OF THEODORE HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, OCETI SAKOWIN EDUCATION CONSORTIUM 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member 

Castle, members of the committee for inviting me to testify today. 

I want to thank Representative Herseth Sandlin for the introduction—it was quite nice—and for her leadership both here in Washington, D.C. on behalf of our state and in South Dakota. 

I am the executive director of the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium, and my name is Ted Hamilton. 

The consortium is made up of, currently, 14 tribal schools, four 

tribal colleges in South and North Dakota, and provides a wide 

range of services, as Representative Herseth Sandlin explained. 

In the past 8 years, OSEC staff have provided services to schools 

at the request of school superintendents and principals through a 

cooperative-like structure. Unlike a traditional educational cooperative model, OSEC maintains a school needs-based model that creates annually-contracted projects specifically developed for each 

school’s needs. 

This process provides a clear picture of the needs of the schools 

and our higher education process. 

I want to stress that OSEC is not an advocacy or representative 

organization. The schools that are our members own us, and we believe that our school boards and the tribal education departments 

should be heard in policy-level discussions. 

We do, as an organization, provide technical support as requested relating to policy-level decisions. 

I have been asked today to discuss the work of our organization 

related to the creation of a definition of adequate yearly progress 

for some of our schools and our reaction to the GAO study. And I 

have also been asked to make some comments on some other issues 

related to our membership. 

I handed in a fairly thick written testimony, and I will refer to 

that as I go through this. 

28

Related to No Child Left Behind and the GAO report, the GAO 

report is a good case to point out some more general difficulties our 

schools are having with the BIE system. 

When NCLB was authorized, there was a process defined in the 

Act called ‘‘negotiated rulemaking.’’ And in negotiated rulemaking, 

members of the committee were assured that the tribes would be 

provided support, both technical and fiscal, in development of alternative assessments and standards. 

As an interim step, schools would follow the accountability workbook of the states in which they reside. Two of the members of the 

negotiated rulemaking committee, Dr. Roger Bordeaux of Tiospa 

Zina Tribal School, and Deb Bordeaux of Loneman School, argued 

against the use of state workbooks and their associated standards 

and finally reluctantly agreed to the state standards and assessments provisions. 

When they came home in 2002, we had a meeting, and eight of 

the schools decided they would pursue an alternative definition by 

pooling some resources. OSEC was asked to manage the process 

and to act as a single point of contact with the Bureau in the 

project. 

I am attaching two of my testimonies and an appendix of the 

timeline of our work. So we have been doing this now since the last 

4 years. It has been going on for a while. 

Our first attempts to get this worked on, we were told repeatedly 

by the Bureau that we could not apply as a group of schools for 

an alternative definition. We were told it would be too expensive 

and that there was no money for this type of work. 

While we were required to have our school boards pass multiple 

resolutions agreeing to work together through the OSEC organizational structure we generally did not receive any correspondence 

from the Bureau other than letters telling us that they did not 

have to help us. 

In reading the No Child Left Behind Act, tribes and tribal 

schools that wish to waive the state definitions for their own definition are required to submit an alternative definition within 60 days 

of alerting the Secretary of the Interior of their intent to waive 

NCLB requirements. 

The Secretary of the Interior is then required to give a written 

response either supporting or denying the waiver. This allows the 

tribe or tribes to begin a negotiation process with Interior. 

After four submissions, beginning in 2005, the OSEC schools finally received their first written response to their proposed definition in August of 2008. A significant aspect of developing an alternative definition is the creation of educational standards and assessment tools. 

At the core of our concern about using state AYP definitions is 

a lack of culturally-appropriate content standards. On page five of 

the testimony, I quote the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations which 

requires the use of content standards—or that content standards 

used in schools be culturally appropriate and that the primary native language of the school population be assessed annually. 

The state of South Dakota doesn’t develop its educational standards to meet those regulations and is not bound by those regulations. 

29

Our organization has repeatedly asked for funding to develop assessment instructions for the standards we have created. We met 

with BIE and DOE officials in late November of 2007. We were told 

funding would be available for assessment development. 

We were told to conduct a bidding process with companies for assessment development, create a plan, and submit that plan. 

That was the third time we had completed that process. We also 

submitted our third accountability workbook for approval at that 

time. To help us, we were assigned a consultant from the Department of Education that was referenced before, Mr. J.P. Boudain. 

Mr. Boudain helped us review the bids we received and helped us 

create a final budget that we submitted on March 4th of 2008. 

The long and the short of it was we found out today, actually—

Mr. Holder told me today that the Bureau was going to provide us 

some resources. For the Native American portion of this, we 

haven’t received any dollars for the rest of the assessment. 

In the testimony, I go on to talk about the Bureau’s work with 

us and the number of problems we have. On page eight, we talk 

about some problems that we have had with determining adequate 

yearly progress, telling parents if their schools are succeeding or 

not. 

We have yet to have a year where we have met the deadline to 

let parents know that their schools are succeeding or not. And this 

year, we will once again, miss that deadline if we follow the Bureau’s plan. 

We also have real questions about the Bureau acting as an SEA 

for our schools. A state education agency should be—in our reading 

of the Indian Education Act—should be in the role of the Indian 

tribal-controlled education departments. It should not be—if we are 

going to continue to maintain government-to-government relationships—between the Bureau of Indian Education and the Department of Education. 

And we feel that it is a violation of the government-to-government relationship to have the Bureau acting as an SEA for the 

tribes. 

In conclusion, because I see my little red light here, I want to 

say one thing, and it is a message from two people. Once is Lionel 

Bordeaux, the president of Sinte Gleska University, who you, Mr. 

Kildee, know. And the other one is from my wife who is Ardis Iron 

Cloud. And she is a full-blood member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

Lionel said to me to tell your committee that every 40 years, we 

talk about the Bureau growing in strength, growing in numbers, 

and the federal government continuing to tell tribes what to do. 

And every 40 years, testimony is given and there are rooms—and 

as an archivist for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, which was one of my 

jobs I went to one of those rooms and saw the bound papers going 

back over a hundred years of testimony to congressional committees about education. 

And we keep seeing the Bureau, once again, dictating to the 

tribes what needs to happen instead of the tribes having control 

over the their education. So we are hoping that this year, this 

won’t happen and we won’t be back here 40 years from now. 

And from my wife, I am running for election in South Dakota on 

our state House of Representatives. And one of my platform issues 

30

is that currently in South Dakota, the Indian liaison for tribes is 

housed in the department that deals with tourism. And I noticed 

that in the House of Representatives, Native American issues are 

handled in the Natural Resources Committee. 

Now, my wife told me native people are not natural resources, 

and they are not tourist subjects. I have a son who is studying 

physics at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. And 

while he talks about getting his degree, he talks about coming 

home and doing for his tribe, taking the knowledge that he has 

learned—and benefitting from the help from the state of South Dakota—but strengthening the tribe. 

And I am hoping that this work today and answering any questions that you on the committee have might help so that we are 

not here 40 years from now and that the tribes can continue to 

have a voice and be heard in this arena. 

I thank you very much for your time today. 

[The statement of Mr. Hamilton may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:]

http://www.osdlc.org/AYP/documents/2008-09-09-TheodoreHamilton.pdf 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. 

I have been in Congress 32 years. I am not sure when those 40 

years began or ended, but maybe I will see the full 40 years, God 

and the voters willing, of course, on that. 

You know, we are dealing here with something that is simple 

and yet complex. We clearly—and I never leave home without it—

I carry the Constitution with me. And this Constitution does not 

grant sovereignty to the Indian tribes. It recognizes sovereignty. 

It is a real sovereignty. Indian tribes are not the Knights of Columbus, which I belong to. They are not the VFW, which my son 

belongs to. They are sovereign nations, and they are not granted 

that sovereignty. It is a retained sovereignty. 

And it is recognized in the Constitution in two different places 

where it talks about all treaties entered into are the supreme law 

of the land. 

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress shall 

have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among 

the several states and with the Indian tribes. 

It recognizes all three as sovereigns: foreign nations, the several 

states. We have 50 sovereign states making up the United States. 

It doesn’t grant France or Germany or the Russian Federation its 

sovereignty. It says that we recognize that sovereignty. 

So it is a real sovereignty. And that might create some complications, but it is real. 

And when we have three sovereignties—we also—most of us up 

here have two citizenships. Probably most of you down at the witness table have three real citizenships. 

I am a citizen of the United States. I am very proud of that citizenship. I am a citizen of Michigan, and I have obligations, responsibilities, and rights that flow from both those citizenships. And 

that is it. I have two citizenships. 

My Chippewa and my Pottawatomi, my Indian tribes, those 

members, those citizens, have three citizenships. And they have 

31

rights and responsibilities that flow from all three of those citizenships. We know, for example, the Indians have proven their U.S. 

citizenship time and time again because a larger percentage of Native Americans have served in our armed forces than any other 

group. 

They are citizens, and good citizens of the state of Michigan and 

contribute a great deal, by the way, to the state treasury. And then 

they are citizens of their sovereign tribes. 

So those are the realities that the law has to work around. And 

whenever we enact a law, we cannot ignore the Constitution. And 

that is why, very often, we get into some of these contacts between 

these three sovereignties. And that might create some difficulties, 

but they are difficulties that are based upon the Constitution itself. 

So I appreciate all of you struggling with this, defending your 

sovereignty, and recognizing the sovereignty when you deal with 

the Indian tribes. It is extremely important. 

And that is true on the state level. You know, most—I think all 

the schools really pretty well accept the AYP program of the states. 

But the state, when it has these Indian schools, is required to sit 

down in good faith and talk to the Indian schools, the Indian leaders in good faith and try to work out what standards and testing 

the AYP will be on the state level. That is a requirement. 

And then when the Secretary of the Interior is looking for alternatives to that, he or she has the obligation to sit down, sovereign 

to sovereign, one not more equal than the others—you can’t be 

more equal. You are either equal or not equal. Sit down and discuss and try to find some common agreement. And that takes patience. 

When we negotiate with friends, that takes patience. When we 

negotiate with the Russian Federation, that takes patience. But I 

think we have to recognize that when we sit down with that person 

at the other side of the table, it is not ‘‘Oh gosh, we’ve got more 

work to do, these Indians want something.’’ No, these sovereigns 

want something. 

And that sovereignty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And 

I think that is the attitude that we have to take in. And then, perhaps, we can make some progress. And it won’t always be easy 

when you have to recognize the other side has an equal voice at 

that table, and you have to reach agreement. And not an imposed 

agreement. When you get a memorandum of understanding, it can’t 

be something that is handed and said this is our understanding. It 

is a memorandum of understanding based upon mutual agreement. 

And that is very important. 

So the Indians have the obligation to protect their sovereignty. 

Those who are not representing the Indian tribes directly have the 

obligation to recognize that and address the matter in that fashion. 

Let me ask this, as my sermon today. I especially try—when at 

seminaries, I do preach a bit at times. But I agree with that very 

strongly. 

Let me just start—I will throw the question out. I will throw it 

out to the GAO first. 

In general, what would you say is the most significant obstacle 

in tribal-federal and tribal-state relations? 

Any of you may——

32

Ms. ASHBY. All right. From the work we did with regard to tribal-state—and I will take that first because that is a little bit easier—it is negotiation of the memorandums of understanding, the 

MOUs. There are MOUs currently with 11 of the 23 states in 

which the BIE schools are located. 

For the other 12 states, those MOUs have not been developed to 

date except for California. The tribal schools have had access to the 

assessments and standards and the scoring in all the states. But 

without an agreement, some type of contract, there is no guarantee 

that they will continue to have access or they will continue to have 

access under the same conditions. 

So it puts the tribal schools at risk because if they don’t have access to assessments, of course, that is the whole basis for the accountability system under the No Child Left Behind Act. 

California, of course, has not granted access because of its concern about security. And that needs to be worked out, and that has 

not been worked out, as I understand it, to date. 

So that is a major problem. 

With regard to the tribal groups and the BIE, there certainly was 

a rocky start in terms of providing assistance and responding to requests for assistance or just requests to, you know, maybe brainstorm sometime. Generally, in the early years, it wasn’t necessarily 

an official question for assistance as much as the tribal groups 

needing to know what they would have to do to get assistance to 

carry out their waivers or what they might do in terms of alternative assessments. 

And they, apparently, did not get the degree of assistance and response that they needed. Things have improved, as we said in our 

statement and in the report. 

Beginning last fall and continuing into this year, there have been 

meetings between BIE and Education and the three tribal groups 

who have officially sought waivers or sought to begin the process 

for seeking waivers. 

So things seem to be on a better footing. But as you said in your 

statement, what is needed is more communication, better communication, continued responsiveness, and sincerity on all sides so 

that obstacles can be addressed and agreements can be worked out. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Gilbert, do you have a comment? 

Dr. GILBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a comment, 

and that has to do with assessments. 

One of the main reasons why we are here today, again, like you 

said, is to address those particular issues that deal with our children and our educational system. 

Our concern has always been with the idea of state and tribal relationships. Everywhere from assessment and accountability, AYP, 

and so forth. 

But one of the things that we struggle with is the idea of assessment. One test doesn’t fit all. And when you talk about culturally 

and linguistically inappropriate exams for our children, that is one 

of the reasons why our children, perhaps, aren’t doing well on these 

exams. 

Something that we need to take a look at, not only that, but also 

to work closely with our state education agencies to collaborate 

33

with one another to come up with some other types of assessment 

techniques besides just one test. For example, exams that may be 

portfolio assessments and some others that provide that avenue of 

how we can better assess our children and the growth of our children. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Holder? 

Mr. HOLDER. Needless to say, managing 23 accountability systems is no easy task for Bureau of Indian Education. Also, some 

of the resistance that we have encountered with the states as far 

as developing the MOUs to ensure our access to their accountability systems and to be able to administer the tests and receive 

the scores has been a challenge. 

I believe that in the 20 years that I have been around Indian 

education, there has been significant discussion on developing tribal standards or Indian standards for our students. No Child Left 

Behind is the statutory framework that the BIE follows as far as 

managing programs, as far as state accountability is concerned. 

And there is a provision for tribes to request an alternate AYP definition that is contained in the statute. 

We follow the statute and support the statute. That is our position. We partner with the Department of Education to achieve that 

end. And I have pursued this, and very aggressively, since I was 

placed back in my position as the chief of the division. 

And we will continue to do so. Our ultimate goal—and I have expressed this to Mr. Hamilton—is to get an assessment on the 

ground, to be able to move forward with this. We are concerned, 

though, that we are developing a prototype where we are venturing 

into unknown territory. So we want to make sure, to the best of 

our ability, that we are following the statute, that we are doing 

things in the best interest of Indian students. That is why we are 

partnering with the Department of Education to provide this technical assistance. 

And we will continue to do so in the future. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Dudro? 

Ms. DUDRO. The only thing I would add is that, certainly, our 

agency recognizes the authority and the right of the tribes to ask 

for an additional alternative AYP definition. But we acknowledge 

that development of a standards and assessments system is not an 

easy process. 

And we still have states, very large states such as California, 

that are still struggling with developing their own system. 

We have provided, and will continue to provide, TA with our staff 

and our consultants, but we do look to our colleagues at BIE to 

work with the tribes to help expedite this process. 

As noted in the GAO report, this process can be rather lengthy, 

taking anywhere from 1 to 3 years. And we want to do everything 

in our ability to follow what is in the statute and provide BIE 

schools with the technical assistance they need in order to develop 

their own definition of AYP. 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Hamilton? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Kildee, I was—of the personal beliefs and 

spirits I think you were channeling some people from our meetings 

34

in your discussion prior to this because a lot of the things you said 

about sovereignty are the things that we talk about on a daily 

basis where we live. 

And when you asked the question, what struck me was the relationship between the Bureau of Indian Education and the tribal 

education departments and the tribal schools. 

And what we are seeing increasingly is the tail wagging the dog. 

In Indian education, we fund our schools through ISEP money, primarily. And No Child Left Behind is kind of 18 to 20 percent of 

our budget. And yet it is taking up the bulk of our time. 

And what is happening is we are seeing that the Bureau of Indian Education is using it to increase its growing infrastructure, 

growing its bureaucracy and growing an oversight that is pretty 

much unnecessary. 

And it is because of that idea, the issue is what is that level of 

respect? Are we respecting the government-to government relationship between the tribal schools, the tribal counsels, and the federal 

government? 

We have taken to court and won in court issues around the 

MOUs. When the Bureau came to us and said we are restructuring, they put into a consultation—what they called a consultation—a package that said you are going to restructure the Bureau, 

and you are going to have this MOU. And we took it to court and 

the judge said ‘‘you didn’t even do proper consultation.’’

And yet the Bureau moves forward, referring to themselves. And 

it is in the written testimony here about being the 51st state. 

And one of the things that is deeply concerning to me is this concept that we can treat Native Americans as the 51st state, as we 

have heard in the past, this concept of Pan-Indians, that all Native 

American tribes are the same. As you said, each tribe and each 

treaty defines sovereignty. 

The challenge to me is that we have hundreds of sovereignties 

out there. And that the sovereignty that my son and my wife have 

through their relationship with the Oglala Sioux Tribe is different 

than the sovereignty that one of my nephews has because he is a 

member of the Navajo Tribe. 

And those are two completely different sovereignties. It is not 

that he is Native American. It is that Arlo is a Navajo. And when 

he talks, he talks about growing up in a hogan with his grandparents and that they eat sheep there. 

We don’t in South Dakota. We eat beef. And that is a plug for 

the beef industry. 

But there are differences. And I think this—as you say is a simple issue, but it is a critical issue as defining the starting point. 

Where do we start with educating our children and maintaining 

a culture and maintaining a community and maintaining a way of 

life? And if everybody is treated the same, then we have lost the 

battle to begin with. There is nothing so unequal as treating 

unequals equally. And each of the tribes is its own sovereign nation. 

And when we look at what has gone on here, what we are seeing 

is a homogenization of Native American peoples, and this issue 

that we have is just the tip of the iceberg. We can talk about meeting this requirement or meeting that requirement. But at the core 

35

of it is how have you assured not only this subcommittee but the 

government itself—assured that each tribe has a way of saying this 

is what is important for us, for our children to learn. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

I now yield generous time to the ranking member of the committee, the Governor Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

don’t believe that I have the knowledge of the chairman in terms 

of all these issues. So some of my questions are more informational 

in developing what is the issue and the problem as opposed to answers at this point. 

And let me start with you, Mr. Holder, and perhaps, Dr. Gilbert 

could help with this and others. 

You stated in your written testimony that less than 10 percent 

of all American Indian children in the United States attend BIEfunded schools. And I think it is about 44,000 total. 

My question is why is that. And I think I know the answer to 

these things. I am not sure. I would like to hear from you. 

Why is that? I assume it is disbursement of the population, people not living in areas where the schools are available. But perhaps 

there is a matter of choosing which schools one wants to go to, too. 

And I was just curious as to what the explanation for that percentage is. 

Mr. HOLDER. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools were put in 

place historically on reservations, and I believe that off-reservation 

boarding programs were also established in the early part of the 

century, some dating back to the 1870s. 

As time evolved and communities began to grow in these particular areas, the Bureau schools continued to provide educational 

services to those populations. However, public schools have also 

been established on the reservations. And it is a matter of choice 

for the students as to what school that they choose to attend, the 

Bureau-operated school or the public school. 

We operate and maintain as close communication as we can with 

the public schools, also, because we have mobility of students between those schools. But the answer to your question actually lies 

in the history of the development of Bureau schools and educational systems on reservations and adjacent Indian communities. 

Mr. CASTLE. What might be the reason—and this is just conjecture, I understand that—but what might be the reason that a child 

might choose a public school versus a BIE school? Might the parents be interested in the cultural development they might get at 

the BIE school, or is it just a question of proximity for the most 

part? What is the motivating force to keep these going as they are? 

Mr. HOLDER. I believe there is always a diversity of reasons for 

students to choose to attend a particular school or for parents to 

choose to send their child to that particular school. 

In some cases, it is proximity, such as on Pine Ridge, you have 

the Pine Ridge School that is operated by the Bureau of Indian 

education. That is a K through 12 program. 

Most of the schools—and correct me if I am wrong, Ted, I can’t 

pull it off the top of my head—out in the districts are K-8 schools 

or K-6 schools. So when the students complete at those schools, 

36

they have very limited choices—either Little Wound School in Kyle 

or Pine Ridge, which are about 60 miles apart. 

In some cases, they are bussed off reservation to a small community called Oreck. So it depends on proximity to the school, the 

availability of space and other factors involved in that. I believe 

that more and more, parents and students are choosing to attend 

schools that provide a substantial cultural program and that integrate culture and language into the curriculum. 

Mr. CASTLE. Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton? 

Mr. HAMILTON. If I may add something, I have raised nine kids 

on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. My wife and I have nine. So 

we have had children go to Bureau-operated schools, Bureau-funded schools, state schools, and parochial schools, which are our 

choices on that reservation. 

The state schools—my wife teaches at one of them—spends about $4,000 more per child per year than the Bureau-funded schools do. 

So there is an issue of resources. 

I walk into my wife’s classroom, every child has a computer. 

Every child has a music program accessible to them. There is a 

nice gymnasium. There is quite a nice set-up there, they are brand 

new buildings. 

This is not the way it is at the Bureau-funded schools. 

My oldest children have moved to Rapid City, and their children 

attend a public school because of the unemployment realities of 

Pine Ridge. They moved off reservation, and when we talk about 

the large number of children who go to public schools, many of 

them are there for economic reasons. 

Mom and dad have to have a job, and they have to support their 

families. And like any family, they go where the jobs are. 

It is—I don’t know—we don’t know if they have the right people 

here, but I know from the work that we do with the South Dakota 

GEAR UP Grant, because that is one of the projects that we run, 

that over 60 percent of the native children in the public school systems drop out; that the success rate with native children in South 

Dakota in the public schools is just marginally better than in the 

BIE-funded and operated schools. 

There is not much difference statistically. 

We can play a little bit with numbers, but what it comes down 

to is that native kids are not doing well in the public schools. Lots 

of times they are there because that is where we can find work, 

and that is where our families can find work. 

I spent a lot of time in Rapid City, South Dakota, with my grandchildren, and I met with the superintendent of schools there. And 

I said I am concerned because my grandson has a 5 percent chance 

of graduating from high school in Rapid City Schools right now because, in Rapid City, there is a 95 percent drop-out rate amongst 

native boys. 

Mr. CASTLE. I am looking for a brief answer on this. I was trying 

to ask the question of Ms. Ashby, if I can get to it. But just as a 

follow up, you know, we have Nanticoke Indians in Delaware, and 

they all speak English as well or better than I do—all of you do 

as well. And my question is: Is English as a second language an 

issue in any of the tribal circumstances we have in this country 

today? 

37

Mr. HOLDER. I would like to respond to that simply because we 

have carried out a reading-first program that deals primarily with 

the development of language vocabulary and, ultimately, reading 

skills. What we have experienced is that the tribal students that 

speak the tribal language as a first language have a much easier 

time gaining the skills to read in English. 

That something that confounds the process is the third language 

that often develops in tribal communities or ethnic communities 

where the tribal or ethnic language isn’t spoken as a pure language. 

So there is that interference with the progression of the process 

associated with reading simply because decoding phonemic awareness and phonics are pretty much distorted by that spoken language. So the—establishing the tribal language—we have one 

school, Lukachukai, in Arizona, that initiated an early childhood 

immersion project back in 2002. 

The first cohort of students were assessed by the Arizona State 

Assessment last year, and the school made adequate yearly 

progress. 

So we see the benefits of establishing a pure tribal dialect and 

in building English upon that dialect. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Gilbert? 

Dr. GILBERT. If I may, immersion programs on Indian reservations have become very successful. And one of the issues that we 

are concerned about is not only language but also culture as well. 

So we believe that if we can start a child at a very young age 

in an immersion program where they are speaking and learning 

about their language and their culture from K grade to fourth 

grade, for example, and they are immersed in their culture and so 

forth, then by the time they graduate from high school, not only 

will they be bilingual but they were also—in some cases, may be 

trilingual—but also they will achieve academic performance from K 

to twelfth grade because based upon Mr. Holder’s comments, it is 

correct in saying that results of exams of children who are in immersion programs performed better than children who are not in 

immersion programs. 

So we know that for a fact. 

And the other issue I would like to just briefly mention is that 

if a child learns their first language at a very young age, then that 

transition into learning a second language comes much easier for 

them because the skills that they use in learning their first language, they will pick up the English language very quickly or another language, whatever language that may be. 

So thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. Just briefly. I know my time is up. I wanted to ask 

Ms. Ashby sort of a complicated question. I will try to simplify. 

And you stated in your testimony that only a third of the BIE 

schools actually make AYP. In your—did that study or in your 

studies, have you identified what schools that have made AYP, BIE 

schools that made AYP, have done differently or what specific efforts they have made to reach the AYP? 

In other words, is there some way we can help by defining that? 

38

Ms. ASHBY. No, I am sorry. We have not done that. That certainly would be an interesting study and a useful one, I think. But 

that is not something that is in the scope of the work we did. 

Mr. CASTLE. I mean, just as a final comment, I know, in Delaware, it is very interesting for me to go from school to school. And 

I find that some schools are really focused on what it is that they 

can do. And their neighbor school, maybe five miles away has not, 

and they haven’t done anywhere near as well. 

And the schools that have, have done remarkably well. It is a 

worthwhile subject matter, I think. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. You asked a very good question. We used to 

have what is called the National Diffusion Network where you 

could find out why certain schools were succeeding. 

It would be very interesting if we looked at that one-third who 

were reaching AYP and see what we can learn from them that 

might be transferrable to the other schools. So, perhaps, that is 

something we can all explore. 

Now, it is my pleasure to call upon the gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the interesting hearing and interesting witnesses. 

Education is the future of our country. It is the future of every 

single child, every student. And certainly, it is the future of sovereign Indian nations. 

And, you know, Indian education was here before AYP and No 

Child Left Behind. So I am wondering—and I feel certain that you 

have some statistics or at least you have a general sense of the difference between graduation rates between BIE schools and public 

schools or parochial schools that you know what percentage of BIEeducated kids go to community colleges or 4-year colleges. 

And what are their careers when they are through with the 

school system? And how does it compare to the public education 

system because it is all about what is best for those students. 

So would anybody be willing to talk to me about that? And it is 

before AYP. It is bigger than that, I think. 

So, Ms. Ashby, do you have any statistics on this? 

Ms. ASHBY. I don’t have any statistics on the top of my head. I 

do know that, in general, students in BIE-funded schools do poorly. 

Most things you would like at in terms of graduation rates, attendance rates, test scores. So there is definitely a problem. 

But I will say that in doing work for the report we issued in 

June, as well as work on other reports we have issued involving 

Indian students and work that is currently ongoing, I am making 

site visits across the country. I have met well-educated Indian 

adults in all professions that are highly capable and they are like 

people anywhere else. 

They go to school. Some go to college at the tribal colleges. And 

going back into the 1990s, I did some work on tribal colleges. 

But many go to the same schools that everyone else goes to. They 

don’t all going to tribal schools by any means. And they are accomplished as anybody else. 

39

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, and isn’t the goal to be able to be an adult 

and raise their children in—so that their children have a future 

also? How are we doing there? 

Ms. ASHBY. But—excuse me. Having said that, I don’t want to 

leave the impression that there aren’t issues. There are lots of 

issues. 

And as with every ethnicity, there are people who do well and 

lots of people who don’t do well. And our responsibility of the nation is to help those who need a helping hand. And with regard to 

Native Americans, Indians, that certainly is the case. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Hamilton? 

Mr. HAMILTON. If I can get your e-mail address or your aide’s, 

I can send you a study we are just finishing up that looks at test 

scores over the last 3 years between the tribal schools in South Dakota. It will only give you South Dakota. It won’t give you the nation. 

But what we found is that, in general, in the public schools, public schools that are adjacent or on reservations, do just about the 

same as—in terms of test scores—as the BIE-funded schools. BIEoperated schools don’t do quite as well. It is kind of harder to find 

their data. But we have been able to pull it up lately. 

The Bureau has started to add—to put stuff on their Web site 

so we can start looking at this stuff finally. 

We are seeing a growth in native students going to college. The 

Tribally-Controlled-College Act has had a huge impact on the number of native people on the reservations going to college. We are not 

seeing that in the public sector. 

If you go to South Dakota, we have, across our entire state, about 

12 to 14 percent of our population are natives. And that holds true 

for the student population. Actually, the student population is 

slightly larger because we have more native kids than non-native 

kids in the state. 

Well, that is not quite true. We have about 18 percent in percentages. 

We only had 125 incoming freshman in the board of regents last 

year, which is about 1 percent of the population. 

The bulk of native students go to tribal colleges out of high 

school. So there is a—we have been using the South Dakota GEAR 

UP Grants, monies—we run a program, actually, or a consortium 

in partnership with our state where we—this year, we have 380 

students. And we have, of the kids coming in, after 4 years in that 

program, we have a 92 percent placement rate into college. 

It has been a very successful program, but it is very difficult to 

maintain the funding for it because we have to continually go and 

ask funding agents how do we keep this thing going. 

And I know we have approached the Bureau to see if we can create a stable funding for this every year because it is a really good 

program. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can Ms. Dudro——

Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. DUDRO. Good morning. Certainly, the one thing that I would 

add on behalf of the Department, I cannot give you statistics off the 

top of my head as well, but I could certainly supply you with the 

National Indian Education Studies Parts 1 and 2 that our departVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
40

ment just funded over the last 2 years which provides a tremendous amount of data. 

And similar to what my other panelists have told you, we do 

know that Indian students are not performing at the same rates as 

their counterparts. And certainly, it is worse if you attend a BIE 

school. 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the NAEP, 

has not historically sampled Indian education, Indian students at 

the same level. 

And so we have actually supported—our agency has supported 

an oversampling of Native American students. So in the last 2 

years, in 2005 and 2007, we have more data on the performance 

of Native American students than we have ever had before. 

And as I mentioned, it is still not as good as their counterparts, 

but we have seen some progress in the last 2 years. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Woolsey. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of the questions I had were answered, at least, for South Dakota. 

Ms. Ashby, did you ascertain whether teacher salaries at the Indian schools were better or worse than the surrounding schools in 

the area? 

Ms. ASHBY. We did not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did anybody—Mr. Hamilton, you said the funding 

was higher, actually, in South Dakota. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Bureau-operated schools use the—we believe it is 

called the Department of Defense pay scale. I am not really sure 

where that pay scale comes from. 

Their teachers are paid significantly higher. Bureau-funded 

schools, the tribal grant schools run about $8,000 to $10,000, give 

or take, a little bit less than the public schools. 

So there are discrepancies in how resources are given out for 

teacher pay. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that the same in other states, Dr. Gilbert? 

Dr. GILBERT. In hearing our testimonies, on the Navajo Reservation, what it concerns is that—the issue of pay for teachers on reservation schools is much lower than the public schools. The other 

issue having to do not only with pay but also with maintaining our 

teachers on the reservation schools, I have heard stories where 

teachers come to our reservations, teach for 1 year and then leave 

half a year and then move 1 month and 1 day and leave before 

they even go into a classroom. 

So this is a major concern for us because we have a major——

Mr. SCOTT. Why is that? 

Dr. GILBERT. I am sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. Why? 

Dr. GILBERT. Well, because high turnover rates that we have not 

only in teachers but also administration as well, when you come to 

our reservations, for example, the closest Sears Roebuck store can 

be about 200 miles away. So we don’t have the facilities and so 

forth that Flagstaff or Phoenix or other big cities may have. 

41

Mr. SCOTT. Who pays for school construction and equipment like 

computers and science labs and whatnot? Is that the federal, state, 

and local? Who pays? Who foots the bill for that? 

Mr. HOLDER. The Office of Facilities, Construction, and Management in the Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for school construction and school renovation projects. 

Mr. SCOTT. It is on the federal level? 

Mr. HOLDER. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. Hamilton talked about drop-outs in South Dakota. What is 

the graduation rate in other states in the Bureau schools and in 

the public schools? 

One of the challenges we have in No Child Left Behind is that 

we are sitting up calculating those who take the test and are actually there and ignoring the fact that half of them didn’t show up 

because they have dropped out. And the school cannot possibly be 

given—should not be given credit for adequate yearly progress if 

half the students have dropped out. 

In South Dakota, apparently, a lot of people—a lot of them are 

dropping out, not graduating. We need to get a hold of what the 

drop-out rate is in the—if we don’t know, a strong attempt will be 

made to get a better drop-out provision in No Child Left Behind 

when it is reauthorized. 

Dr. Gilbert? 

Dr. GILBERT. Yes. For public and BIE schools, 49—the drop-out 

rate is 49 percent males and 51 percent females. That is the current percentages that we have in regard to public and BIE school 

drop-outs. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, obviously, some work needs to be done on that. 

I think it was Mr. Holder indicated that some of the students feel 

isolated in the public schools. 

What is done for after school programs to make sure people are—

their children are engaged in their education? 

Mr. HOLDER. Could you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you indicate that the students seem, in the public school, seem isolated? Not much engaged in the education process? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I believe that public schools—not all public 

schools. I believe that New Mexico has a very strong Native American support program in their schools where they have a high density of Indian students. 

However, I believe that some Indian students do choose to go to 

Bureau-operated schools or tribally-operated Bureau-funded schools 

to be in more close contact with their language and culture for the 

program that they provide there at the schools. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is anything being done in after school programs, 

mentoring, or other college-access programs—you mentioned GEAR 

UP, Upward Bound, to keep people in school and headed toward 

college rather than dropping out? 

Mr. HOLDER. We have two programs that are available in the 

Bureau. One is Title IV, Part B, which is 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers. That provides an appropriation for before, after, 

and extended-year programs to provide academic and behavioral 

support to students. 

42

In addition to that, we procured departmental funding through 

the Department of Interior to provide tutoring and mentoring 

grants to schools to support students, also. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how many people have taken advantage of it? 

Ms. Dudro, do you want to comment? 

Ms. DUDRO. Yes. I was just going to mention that the Depart- ment of Education, through Title VII, has also approximately $9.1 

million for special programs for Indian education, including afterschool programming and secondary—post-secondary educational 

training. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how many students—what portion of the students have access to those programs? Are you funding enough so 

that most of them can participate? 

Ms. DUDRO. I couldn’t give you the percentage off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. 

Dr. GILBERT. If I may——

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Hamilton and then Dr. Gilbert. 

Dr. GILBERT. Just very, very quickly—another after-school program that can be very successful, but unfortunately, it always 

seems to be low on the totem pole in regard to funding is the Johnson-O’Malley programs. 

JOM programs have become very successful in providing those 

opportunities for our students, in particular, after-school programs. 

And what we have learned and what we have found in these programs is their students become very successful not only academically but also socially as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Hamilton? 

Mr. HAMILTON. We started to see attempts at creating relationships between boys clubs and girls clubs, which are kind of noneducation programs formally and the Bureau systems. We need 

more funding for that. 

One of the issues, at least where I live, is a transportation issue. 

You know, we all know about the price of gas. That is exacerbated 

when your child has a 50-to 60-mile, 100-mile—in this case, the 

Navajo, a 200-mile drive—from where the boys club is or the girls 

club to home. And a lot of those programs don’t have transportation programs associated with them. 

And so our schools are facing issues saying we would like you to 

stay after school. We don’t have enough resources to pay for you 

to drive back and forth. And, in my community, with an average 

household income of about $6,200 a year, maybe $6,300 a year, it 

gets pretty expensive pretty quick to drive your pick-up truck 50 

miles to pick up your child and 50 miles back home at 14 miles per 

gallon. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. 

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

calling for this important hearing and your interest for many, 

many years in this area. 

I wonder, Ms. Ashby, in your testimony, you described some actions that BIE has taken in response to your recommendations. 

Can you discuss those? 

43

And also what more needs to be done to ensure the tribal groups 

are aware of their options regarding accountability systems and 

those that are interested in pursuing them are able to pursue 

them? 

Ms. ASHBY. BIE has begun to address our recommendations. As 

I said earlier, since last fall, in particular, there have been meetings with the three tribal groups that are interested in seeking alternatives to the AYP definition. Those meetings have been, apparently, somewhat fruitful. 

There is a consultant that is working—and this may be the consultant financed by the Department of Education, I am not sure. 

Maybe it is working with both BIE and Education. 

But there is now a consultant working with the tribal groups. 

There are plans to provide information on how to seek alternatives. 

There is a conference coming up this fall. 

So there are things in the works. But certainly, as we often say 

at GAO, more needs to be done. For example, MOUs still have not 

been negotiated with the other 12 states. California still is not allowing access. And there is no alternative being developed for the 

two tribes that are in, the two tribal groups in California—the two 

schools, rather, in California that need access to an assessment or 

need an assessment that is valid and reliable so that it can be accountable under No Child Left Behind. 

So that needs to be done quickly because, as I said earlier, the 

schools are at risk of having at least the conditions upon which 

they have access changed. 

So there have been actions taken, but we hope to see continued 

action and, ultimately, the MOUs negotiated and structures set up 

to provide timely responses to any tribal group that is interested 

in seeking an alternative. 

Mr. PAYNE. What agency in the Department of Education is responsible for, perhaps, seeing that your recommendations are being 

moved forward more rapidly? 

Ms. ASHBY. I believe this comes under the Title I office. At least 

a good deal of the money is Title I money for low-income schools. 

And I am not sure if there are other agencies as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, maybe since we have someone from the Department of Education, maybe we will make you the bad fellow. 

What are you all—what is happening in your enforcement or 

your encouragement of this moving forward? 

Ms. DUDRO. Sure. As stated, GAO is correct. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education oversees Title I as the primary 

office that is responsible for working with the BIE to ensure that 

tribes have the opportunity to apply for an alternative AYP definition. 

The Department sponsors BIE at a little over $210 million annually. Primarily $129 million, approximately, comes out of the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the remaining funds 

come from our Office of Special Education. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, written and oral, we have a 

memorandum of agreement with the Bureau of Indian Education 

and set up a process for helping BIE process through requests that 

they receive from the tribe. And as stated in the GAO report, we 

try to answer those requests in the most timely manner. 

44

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton, you know, you testified that many federal grants 

for assisting Indian students and teachers go to organizations that 

have little specific experience with Indian issues. Can you expand 

on that? 

And also, you mentioned can you discuss the difficulties created 

when the AYP determinations are not made until well after the 

start of the school year and where that situation has improved recently? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Related to contracts grants going to organizations 

that don’t have a history—or maybe they don’t have a history with 

us. I can think of two specific examples. 

When——

Mr. PAYNE. Does Halliburton do this kind of stuff? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Close. [Laughter.] 

We won’t go into that. We have been involved with some of those 

kind of things, too, unfortunately. 

But we did have—at one point, when I was working with the restructuring at Wounded Knee District School, we were told by the 

Bureau that we would have a consultant come in, and they took 

a $10 million chunk of money and paid for the University of Utah 

to provide support in South Dakota. 

A Nan Gutshaw who came up one day—a very nice lady—and 

was gone. We didn’t see her again. We did a lot of work, but we 

didn’t see her. And as a matter of fact, that was the only help that 

that school got directly from the Bureau in their restructuring 

process. Our organization has helped them the rest of the time. 

And recently, the Department of Education has a grant process 

to train Native American principals. And my wife, who keeps coming up in my life, is actually in part of that master’s program. 

And even though the tribal colleges put in for this program, one 

of the grants ended up at Montana State University, which my wife 

is part of that cohort group. And she is becoming a principal. And 

she has yet to have a native instructor even though we have a 

large number of Native Americans with PhDs who could be teaching. She has not been instructed on what it is to finance or run a 

Bureau-operated or a Bureau-funded school. 

It is been very much a public school preparation. And we have 

had a lot of talks about that where there is—there needs to be 

some oversight of saying how—when we take large amounts of resource and we are going to help out the tribes, making sure that 

the tribes have some sort of voice in what goes on. 

And those are just two of many examples. I could give you a list. 

The other part of your question. I have got to help refresh my 

mind here. My ADD-ADHD kicked in. So what was the other half 

of your question there? 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, I had asked one about the consultants and, secondly, about when the AYP starts late in the system, the disability 

that it has to the kid. 

Mr. HAMILTON. In law, the Bureau is not obligated to provide 

school choice for parents. In reality, where I live there are five different elementary schools vying for children and parents move 

their children from place to place depending on their perception of 

the health of the school. 

45

We were talking earlier about why kids go to specific schools. 

And parents do pay attention. 

NCLB is designed to inform parents, and we haven’t informed 

parents. This year, Pine Ridge won’t find out until probably midOctober what their AYP determination is. 

Last year, we didn’t find out last fall’s data until April. I am not 

even sure when the letters went out the year before, but I know 

that we have a consistent problem with informing parents. 

And we are expected, in the restructuring and the corrective action planning process, to include parents in how we improve our 

schools. And I know as the leader in the restructuring process for 

Wounded Knee District School, we have parent meetings on a quarterly basis. So every 3 months, we sit down with parents, not only 

our parent committee, but we have general meetings across the 

whole community asking people to come in and talk about the 

school. 

We have to inform them. And if we don’t get data back quickly 

or in a timely fashion, then we have problems. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, let me thank you all for your testimony. And 

let me just say that it is deplorable that, as you indicated, 95 percent of Native American boys will not finish high school. I mean, 

that is totally unacceptable. It is genocide in—educational genocide. And if you are not prepared, you are dead. 

And so I would hope, Mr. Chairman, we could follow up and see 

if there can be some change, a quantum leap, in what is going on. 

Once again, let me thank you for calling this very important 

hearing. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. And thank 

you for your continued interest and involvement in Indian education. 

I am going to thank the witnesses. Hopefully this can be one of 

those turning points. We brought some very, very important people 

together here this morning at the same table. And I hope this can 

be a turning point. 

I have been here 32 years, and I think things are somewhat better. But I am frustrated. I am impatient, you know, with our efforts to try to improve Indian education. We need dollars. We need 

sense and cooperation working with you. You have levels of expertise that are extremely important. 

I think all of us up here and you out there have a moral obligation, really, because you have all been given a responsibility in one 

way or another to help develop Indian education in this country. 

And we should take that as a moral obligation. 

So thank you for your testimony this morning. It has been a very 

informative meeting. I hope that everyone leaves here today with 

renewed commitment to working together on this—state, federal, 

and tribal level—to work as equals. And it is so important as you 

walk into that room to recognize that you are walking and talking 

to equals. 

They are real sovereignties. It is not the Knights of Columbus, 

as much as I like the Knights of Columbus. It is not the VFW. It 

is a sovereign group. 

So we want to make sure that we make use of the great benefits 

of Indian culture and Indian language to overcome the great chalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:34 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-108\44214.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK
46

lenges that we are facing in Indian education. And you are the people, and we up here, let us work together. Let us really take that 

as an obligation. 

And we are told that we are to be seekers after justice. And I 

am convinced that all of you are that. That you really want justice. 

The question is how we best achieve that justice. 

Several years ago, I introduced three bills to recognize—to reaffirm the recognition of three tribes in Michigan: Little Traverse, 

Little River, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi. Thank God 

they had saved great records. They had great genealogical studies. 

But we did it through the congressional process and passed three 

laws. 

And I asked President Clinton at that time if he would have a 

bill-signing ceremony in the Oval Office. And he agreed to do so. 

So the three chiefs from Michigan came down with many of their 

citizens. And, by the way, the always use the word ‘‘citizen’’ rather 

than ‘‘member’’ because I think citizen really illustrates sovereignty. 

You know, the Knights of Columbus has members, but Indian 

tribes have citizens. Right? 

But we filled the Oval Office. And the president used probably 

30 different pens, you know, W and pass the pen around, I, L—for 

three different bills. 

And when he finished—the president is very gregarious. He got 

up and walked around shaking hands and hugging everybody. And 

the three chief executives, the three chiefs of these tribes were still 

standing there with me behind the desk. 

So I turned to them. I said, ‘‘Why don’t you sit down in the president’s chair?’’ One of the U.S. Senators said, ‘‘Dale, I don’t think 

we can do that.’’ I said no. We can’t because we are not chief executives of sovereign nation. These three are. 

So they took turns sitting down in the president’s chair which 

was a great thing, I thought. And they had their pictures there sitting in the Oval Office in the president’s chair. 

I did tell one of them on the way out that the only thing I ever 

had on that chair was my eye. But they actually occupied it. And 

it—I think illustrations of sovereignty are important, but the real 

recognition, the day-by-day things that touch people’s life of sovereignty is more important than the symbolism. 

And this area of education—I started out my life being a teacher, 

and I taught school for 10 years. From there, I moved into this 

arena. But education is so important. 

So as you meet with one another, as you meet with—in your respective capacities, recognize that that sovereignty is a real thing 

and that you are going in there dealing with people, not one with 

a higher degree of authority than the other, but people who have 

the obligation to protect the sovereignty of their respective governments. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, yield for a second? 

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Payne, yes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me just mention that about 18 years ago, I guess 

it was, that Congressman Major Owens, who chaired the, then, Select Committee on Education, had hearings. We went to Santa Fe. 

47

We went to several of the Native American nations and actually 

met with tribal leaders even in traditional programs. And it was 

very, very exciting and very interesting. And, perhaps, sometime in 

the future, next year or the following year, we can revisit some of 

the areas where we can really get first-hand knowledge of what is 

happening there. 

And so I remember it as if it were just yesterday, but like I said, 

it was almost 20 years ago. So I just wanted to mention that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. If I can take just another 2 minutes. About 

31 years ago, I started to visit Indian schools out West. Carl Perkins was chairman. And I kept adding amendments to education 

bills saying that—SEA, State Education Agencies, LEAs, Local 

Education Agencies, were eligible recipients. 

And I always added an amendment saying ‘‘and Indian tribes’’ 

for all the education bills. And he would accept all these amendments. 

So finally, he said that we don’t have an Indian education subcommittee, but could you head up a task force. Well, I used to travel to Indian schools, and I will tell you, that was 31 years ago. I 

visited some Indian schools that a federal judge would have not allowed prisoners to be in. 

I know because we had a jail in Genesee County, my district 

back home—that the federal judge ordered torn down. We blew it 

up. We blew it up because it was not fit for human habitation. Actually, some in the public school system would have been happy to 

get that building. 

But it was better than some—much better than some of the Indian schools I was visiting. And I determined then that we really, 

really had to move fast. And that was 31 years ago, and that has 

not been fast. We have so much to do. We have such an obligation. 

And when we can spend trillions of dollars and billions of dollars 

on other things, we certainly can spend some money to invest in 

the education of those people from whom we took much land, took 

many other things. 

As a matter of fact, let me just finish by saying this. I introduced, I mentioned, the Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver Act. When 

the Michigan Indians go to college, the state pays the tuition. That 

is still a law in Michigan. 

But I introduced that because I went down and read the Treaty 

of Detroit. And the treaty promised education. And while it was a 

treaty with the federal government, the beneficiary really turned 

out to be the state of Michigan getting all that land. And I felt that 

they should carry out their obligation. 

So 31 years is a long time. I hope I have made some progress. 

But I still feel guilty we have not made enough progress. 

But, again, we have to work hard. 

Do you have anything—any closing remarks before I——

Again, I want to thank Governor Castle for his continued presence. He is always present at these hearings. And that is extremely 

important. I appreciate that. 

As previously ordered, members will have 7 calendar days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member who 

48

wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses 

should coordinate with majority staff within the requisite time. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ