The state has "equalized" educational costs by school student body size in general. Consequently, there is really no resource to care for the special needs of Indian education which are not average for the state. Thus, the only resource available for meeting the non-average needs of Indian children is federal funding for categorical supplemental and compensatory type programs. Supplemental funds are earmarked for special programs and may not be used to add to basic program costs. If basic program costs are supplemented with special program funds, supplanting occurs. Consequently, time constraints and compartmentalization of students' learning occurs. While Public Law 874 funds remained in the district, these funds allowed the district to bear these additional costs. With state equalization, the district has no resources to pay for above average programs. In summary on this one point, the district is meeting only the state-average educational needs of pupils and not the special needs of some 9,000 Indian youngsters. The district should be permitted to receive an equal per capita share of state funds and in addition thereto, keep 100% of Public Law 874 funds. There is still another problem with the disbursement of P.L. 874 funds. One of our school attendance areas is located approximately sixty (60) miles from Gallup and is contiguous with the Window Rock, Arizona public schools. Since we have no high school in this attendance area, we had hoped to send our high school students to Window Rock, paying that school district the New Mexico out-of-state tuition fee, plus a per capita share of P.L. 874 funds for our students being educated in that school system. The only other alternative is to bus these students one hundred twenty (120) miles each day. The two school districts and the Chief of Public School Finance for New Mexico agreed to this equitable financial solution. To our dismay, we have been informed that P.L. 874 funding cannot follow the children based on the audited claim for reimbursement by the Window Rock District. Of the two alternatives discussed, one was unacceptable because of a conflict with State law, and the other was rejected by SAFA because it would create complicated procedures. As a result of this problem, there is a delegation from the Navajo Tribe and the two school districts in Washington, D.C., to see if some agreement could be reached, thus avoiding the long bus routes over roads that can be quite hazardous in the winter. Public Law 815 Public Law 815 has granted about $10.8 million for a high school building and teacherages at Tohatchi and $1.8 million initial grant for Thoreau High School. (Thoreau will probably approach $7 million). This is the first Public Law 815 funds the district has received since 1965. The district has remained bonded to almost capacity. In this district, the failure of Public Law 815 to provide facilities to house students who have and are in process of entering public schools, coupled with a very low per capita tax valuation and bonding capacity has forced the district to use many portable buildings. of the rural schools (predominantly Indian students) where the largest amount of growth has occurred in the past 10 years, there are more portable classrooms in use than permanent classrooms. This adversely affects the educational opportunity of Indian students. The state has supplied some facility funds (approximately $300,000) but due to the reservation sovereignty question, it has been a difficult fiscal-political problem to secure any assistance from the state. The impacted area schools in New Mexico are in dire need for increased funding through Public Law 815 funds. Last summer, the school districts of Central Consolidated, Tularosa, Los Lunas, Magdalena, Dulce, and Gallup-McKinley County responded to a questionnaire on the estimated costs of permanent construction needed to provide adequate facilities. keep in mind that these represent only six of nineteen eligible districts in the State of New Mexico. Considering only these responses, it is estimated that $56,856,900 is needed for permanent construction to provide adequate facilities. The Gallup-McKinley County School District alone has a conservative estimate of $45,881,900! When comparing these figures with the funding level, the gross inadequacy of Public Law 815 funding becomes obvious. Another example illustrating the plight of individual school districts can be shown in the case of the Gallup-McKinley County School District. A federal court judge in the Natonabah, et. al. vs. the GallupMcKinley County Board of Education ruled that the school district must provide equal facilities for the Indian reservation areas as is provided for the public land city schools. Due to the large land areas in the district which are non-taxable, it is a fiscal impossibility to meet such a demand. In summary, this particular school district was ordered by a federal court to provide equal facilities with inadequate federal, state, and local funds to accomplish the court order! In summary, I earnestly and respectfully solicit your help with current and future Public Law 815 legislation. Dr. Jack Swicegood Superintendent of Schools Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools STATEMENT OF JACK SWICEGOOD, SUPERINTENDENT, Dr. SWICEGOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to discuss 874-815. The Gallup-McKinley County public school system is the largest school system in land area size in the continental United States. It also enrolls the largest Indian population. The school attendance centers are scattered over the area in an attempt to provide schools close to centers of population. The distances from Gallup to attendance centers vary: 60 miles to the northeast; 45 miles to the northwest; 45 miles to the southeast; 45 miles to the southwest. These schools are located at various sites between these extremes and the City of Gallup itself. The district also includes parts of two Indian reservations, the Navajo and the Zuni reservations. The United States Government, under treaty obligations, began the education of Indian children in government schools. There has, however, been a movement from the Federal and private schools to the public schools. There was not an attendant shift in Federal posture on funding, although taxation on Indian lands remained outside the jurisdiction of the state. I would like to address myself now in particular to 874 funding. Beginning with the school year 1970 to 1971 and at a progressively increased rate, the State of New Mexico took into account Public Law 874 funds in appropriating funds for the operation of schools. This procedure was finalized in 1974 for the school year 1974 to 1975 in that the state took credit against the calculated program cost for the district for 95 percent of the Public Law 874 funds. This equalization procedure in New Mexico has worked adversely in terms of the education of Indian children. The state has equalized educational costs by school student body size in general, and consequently there is really no resource to care for the special needs of Indian education which are not average for the state. Thus, the only resource available for meeting the nonaverage needs of Indian children is Federal funding, for categorical, supplemental and compensatory type programs. Supplemental funds are earmarked for special programs and may not be used for basic program costs. Now, while public law 874 funds remained in the district, these funds allowed the district to bear the additional costs. With state equalization, the district has no resources to pay for the above average cost. In summary on this one point, the district is meeting only the state average educational needs of students and not the spcial needs of some 9,000 Indian youngsters. The district should be permitted to receive an equal per capita share of state funds and in addition they are to keep 100 percent of the 874 funds. Now, lest there be a misunderstanding on the part of anyone, I would also like to point out that the equalization formula for the State of New Mexico works very well for the vast majority of the school districts. It is not that I am unalterably opposed to equaliza 94-584 77 - 22 tion formulas, but in this particular school district, in this particular setting, the credit taking of 874 funds has in effect negated the efforts of the school district in meeting the extra needs of the Indian child. There is still another problem with 874 funds. One of our school attendance areas is located approximately 60 miles from Gallup and is contiguous with the Window Rock, Arizona school district. Since we have no high school in this attendance area, we had hoped to send our high school students to Window Rock, paying that school district the New Mexico out of state tuition fee, plus a per capita share of Public Law 874 funds for those students who are being educated in Arizona, in that particular school district. The only other alternative to this is to bus these students 120 miles a day over roads that can be quite hazardous in the wintertime. Now, the two school districts and the chief of public school finance for the State of New Mexico agreed to this equitable financial solution. To our dismay, we were then informed that P.L. 874 funding cannot follow the children based on the audited claim for reimbursement by the Window Rock school district. As a result of this problem, there is a delegation in Washington, D.C. at this time from the Navajo tribe to see if some agreement could be reached thus avoiding these long bus routes for the Indian students over roads that, again, can be quite hazardous. I would now like to talk to you about Public Law 815. P.L. 815 has granted approximately $10.8 million for a high school building and teacherages at Tohatchi, New Mexico, and $1.8 million initial grant for Thoreau High School. This is the first P.L. 815 fund the district has received since 1965. The district has remained bonded almost to capacity. Now, in this district, the failure of P.L. 815 to provide facilities to house students who have and are in the process of entering public schools, coupled with a very low per capita tax valuation and bonding capacity has forced the district to use many portable buildings. In most of the rural schools, which are predominantly Indian student population, there are more portable classrooms in use than there are permanent classrooms. The impacted area schools in New Mexico are in dire need for increased funding through Public Law 815 funds. The GallupMcKinley County school district alone has a consevative estimate of $45 million needed for permanent construction. Now, when comparing these figures with the funding level at the national level, the gross inadequacy of P.L. 815 funding becomes obvious. Another example illustrating the plight of individual school districts can be shown in the case of the Gallup-McKinley County school district. A Federal court judge in the Natonabah versus Gallup-McKinley County ruled that the school district must provide equal facilities for the Indian reservation areas as is provided for the public land city schools. Due to the large land areas in the district which are nontaxable, it is a fiscal impossibility to meet such a demand. In summary, this particular school district was ordered by a Federal court to provide equal facilities with inadequate Federal, state and local funds to accomplish the court order. In summary on this point, I earnestly and respectfully solicit your help with current and future P.L. 815 funding. Thank you very much. Mr. HEFTEL. Thank you very much. Please accept my apologies for leaving the hearing, but Dr. Fish and I were trying to discuss something connected with impact aid. This was a good opportunity to do so. My esteemed colleague, Mr. Buchanan, would like to introduce our next speaker, who I think he knows better than I. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to say that in our State of Alabama we feel we have some of the most distinguished educators in the country, and one of them is with us today, Thomas A. Bobo, who is the Assistant Superintendent of the Montgomery Public Schools. We are very proud of his leadership and his work, and we will hear him with interest. STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BOBO, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA Mr. BOBO. Thank you, Congressman. I brought testimony from the Superintendent of the Birmingham system, Dr. Cody, and talked with Dr. Sparks about this, Public Law 874, and the public housing section of this. I yesterday dropped this by your office. I read that and thought he did an excellent job in preparing the testimony on this. I have a prepared statement here. I would like to summarize some of this statement concerning the public housing portion of this. [The statement of Mr. Bobo follows:] UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Subcommittee Elementary, Secondary and Vocational 28 June 1977 Statement of Thomas A. Bobo Montgomery Public Schools PL 81-874--Low-Rent Public Housing |