order to maintain the quality of education that you people have built up; all you people of the Pueblo Council.

Thank you very much, Superintendent Abeyta. Without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. [The statement follows. Testimony resumes on p. 176.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL SUBMITTED BY JOSEPH ABEYTA, SUPERINTENDENT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is Joseph Abeyta. I am Superintendent of the Santa Fe Indian School, a high school for 480 students in grades 7 through 12. I come before you today to present testimony on some of the current and vital educational needs of Indian children attending Santa Fe Indian School.

INTRODUCTION

The All Indian Pueblo Council, representing the Pueblo people of New Mexico, contracted the Albuquerque Indian School program on July 1, 1977. This action was supported by Congress and Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The program is now located on the Santa Fe Indian School campus.

Our concerned Indian community accepted the challenge to manage and administer its own educational program. From the very beginning, we were confident in our ability to improve on the educational programs available to Indian children. The All Indian Pueblo Council made a commitment to develop a high school program of academic excellence.

We are proud to say that today, five years later, we have realized great success. Students at our school are achieving at grade level or above. Last year, 43 out of 82 graduating seniors went on to higher education. This year, five of our students received academic scholarships to the University of New Mexico and another received a UNM Presidential Scholarship. A top woman graduate won both an engineering scholarship and a grant from the Santa Fe Women's Club.

We are now prepared to reaffirm our commitment to Self-Determination. However, we feel that government has failed to meet its commitment and obligation to Indian Self-Determination. It has handicapped us through inadequate funding and widely fluctuating program policies that have resulted in confusion, frustration, and uncertainty. For example:

I. Federal resources and programs for Indian education have been reduced, transferred, or eliminated (JOM, Public Law 97-35 (Chapters I and II), Title IV).

II. There is a lack of financial support from the BIA for basic program needs (contract support, Public Law 95-561 Equalization Formula, cost-of-living increases, plant management needs).

III. BIA operations result in waste and inefficiency (Reorganization Plan, computer system, conflict in rules and regulations between Public Law 93-638 and Public Law 95-561).

As Indian people committed to Self-Determination, we cannot continue a successful educational program without adequate financial and administrative support.

I. FEDERAL SUPPORT

During this past year, Federal programs and supplemental resources for Indian programs have been drastically reduced, eliminated or transferred. Examples we will use are Johnson O'Malley, Public Law 97-35 (the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act), Chapters I and II, and Indian Education Programs Title IV Grants.

1. Johnson O'Malley eligibility

Six months after school began, with staff and programs committed, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office, made an administrative decision that contract schools are ineligible to receive Johnson O'Malley funds because they are funded under Public Law 95-561 and because they are also eligible for grants under the Department of Education, Indian Education Programs.'

The Santa Fe Indian School finds this decision to be totally unacceptable since Johnson O'Malley grants are for "the purpose of financially assisting those efforts designed to meet the specialized and unique educational needs of eligible Indians, including programs supplemental to the regular program."

My students, like public school students, have special needs and therefore should not be cheated of their eligibility for Johnson O'Malley funds. We therefore call for the immediate restitution of Johnson O'Malley funding for tribal contract schools.

2. Proposed rules and regulations of Public Law 97–35, Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, Chapters I and II

The proposed rules and regulations of Public Law 97-35 will adversely affect the Title I library program at the Santa Fe Indian School. These successful programs have been responsible for dramatic gains of remedial students in objective pre and post testing, and for gains in CTBS scores in reference skills.

The proposed rules and regulations of Chapter I of Public Law 97-35 specify "parent consultation" instead of "parent involvement" in the Title I project. We are concerned that the crucial role of parents in the planning, evaluation, and implementation of the Title I project is being underestimated in this proposed legislation.

Chapter II of Public Law 97-35 makes Bureau of Indian Affairs and contract schools ineligible for funding for which we have been eligible in the past. These funds have been used to purchase library books, supplies and equipment, and have contributed to tremendous gains in student CTBS scores in reference skills. It is essential that contract schools continue to be eligible for this funding.

It is our recommendation that these issues of parent involvement and the omission of the Department of Interior as an eligible recipient for funding be addressed.

3. Proposed Transfer of Title IV Programs from Department of Education to Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Santa Fe Indian School has been working with the Office of Indian Education on two major projects, the Accelerated Learning Program, Title IV-A Enrichment grant and the "Spirit of Art," Title IV-A Entitlement grant. The successes of these two programs have been documented by the annual grant performance reports and external evaluation. The transfer of the Department of Indian Education Programs to the Bureau of Indian Affairs will negatively affect the Title IV Indian Education grants that we operate at the Sante Fe Indian School.

If Indian education programs from the Office of Indian Education are transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs we feel the integrity of the types of proposals or projects accepted will be lost for two main reasons.

1. The Bureau is in the process of reorganizing and therefore is not in a position of administratively being able to take on new programs.

2. The Bureau track record for administering new and/or innovative programs leaves much to be desired.

We therefore recommend that these programs not be included in the Bureau of Indian Affairs program but be left in the Department of Education.

II. BUREAU SUPPORT

There is a lack of financial support from the Bureau for the basic program needs of the school. Contract support funds must be provided to adequately cover the additional costs incurred by a contract school. A stable unit value should be established under Public Law 95-561 and should incorporate a cost of living computation. The Plant Management allocation must be increased to adequately manage the school facilities.

1. Contract support

Contract support funds are available to contract schools and are intended to cover administrative costs that prior to contracting were not the responsibility of the school. Opinions differ about what is and what is not allowable under these funds. The problem under the present system is that once a negotiated rate is established between the school and the Bureau, the Bureau of Indian Affairs frequently lacks available funds to support that rate.

We recommend that the formula for contract schools have a built in factor for overhead costs to insure that funds will be available. This factor should reflect the overhead costs that the Bureau itself incurs in operating the Central, Area or Regional Offices, and Agencies.

2. Equalization formula

Since fiscal year 1980, all Bureau and contract schools have operated under Public Law 95-561, the Indian School Equalization Program. Funding is based on the number of students enrolled. However, the unit value is subject to change by the Bureau and varies widely throughout the year. This year, the final amount allocated per student was reduced by three percent."

This decrease reflects Bureau waste and inefficiency. The Bureau's budget for Indian education for fiscal year 1982 is 255.8 million dollars. There are only 40,000 students in all BIA and contract schools. By the time this money reaches our school through Public Law 95-561. the allocation per student is only about $5000. Now even this minimal amount is being reduced.

We recommend that a stable unit value be established that is adequate to meet the needs of our students, and that funds for their education not be decreased as a result of Bureau mismanagement.

3. Cost of living increases

The purpose of Public Law 95-561 is to distribute Indian education funds that are generated by student enrollment. Unlike the majority of Federal programs (such as Social Security), the formula does not incorporate cost-of-living increases. As inflation soars and costs to the school go up, the amount of funds generated by enrollment has remained the same or even decreased. It is our recommendation that Public Law 95-561 be amended to include a built in costof-living computation. This measure is essential if contract schools are to remain solvent.

4. Plant management

The All Indian Pueblo Council contracted the Plant Management program at Santa Fe Indian School in fiscal year 1982 because of our concern about this critical support service. The fiscal year 1982 budget is based on previous allocations and does not take into account the increased student occupancy of the campus (up 350 percent from 136 to 481 students). The total allocation for the Indian School facilities (349,586 square feet) is $719,003, or $2.06 per square foot. The BIA Facilities Management Central Office has stated that the minimum cost per square foot to operate a school program is $2.72.3 Based on this estimate, an additional $231,871 is required to manage our program adequately.

III. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OPERATIONS

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is presently in the process of trying to respond to the Congressional mandate of Public Law 95-561 (the Indian Basic Education Act). In the Bureau's typical bureaucratic fashion, a great amount of money is being thrown at problems that should be basic management organizational procedure. It seems that no matter how much money is allocated to the Bureau, a smaller and smaller amount reaches the classroom.

1. Reorganization plan

The Bureau plan is to shut down Area Offices and divide the country into six regional blocks. This will impact our school by moving the Area Education Office from Albuquerque to Phoenix, Arizona. This reorganization plan supposedly will streamline operations, make the Bureau more accountable to local tribes, and save money. No consultation was made with the tribes and no thought was given to the cost to schools and community members to travel to offices located in other States. This reorganization will not streamline organization but make it six times more confusing; will not make the Bureau more responsible to local tribes because it takes the offices further away from the tribal communities, and it will not be less expensive because the school personnel will need additional time and effort to travel to another State.

2 Letter: Leppart and Routh to School Board Members, Feb. 2, 1982.

* Memo: BIA Facility Management Central Office, Feb. 17, 1981.

2. Computer system

A second example of Bureau waste is the plan to invest in a highly technical and expensive computer system to facilitate the Public Law 95-561 student count procedure. It is only the Bureau that feels the need to computerize this information-the schools themselves have developed an adequate pencil and paper system for data gathering. The Bureau has all information requested by Congress but seems to lack the competency to make this data available. The fact that 47 percent of all Bureau of Indian Affairs schools have fewer than 100 students should emphasize that whomever is counting students for formula funding will not have to count to over 100 and certainly will not need a computer to total the results.

3. Public Law 95-561 v. Public Law 93-638

In 1975, Congress passed Public Law 93-638 (the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act). The intent of this law was to help tribes in any possible way to operate their own educational systems and for the tribes to determine the types of educational programs which best fit the needs of Indian children. A second law was passed in 1978, Public Law 95-561 (Title XI, the Indian Basic Education Act), the intent of this law was to equalize funding for all Bureau schools through a set formula, and to impose standardized curriculum, personnel requirements and facilities. The two laws are philosophically opposed to one another and intensify rather than solve problems.

Since 1975, only 34 schools across the nation have "gone contract" under Public Law 93-638. Why? Because Public Law 95-561 is a monolith of rules and regulations which is overwhelming Public Law 93-638. Public Law 95-561 sets requirements in all areas of school operations from dormitory operation to finance and therefore leaves the term "self-determination" a mockery.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have demonstrated with this testimony that: 1. Federal resources and programs for Indian education have been slashed or abolished.

2. The Bureau through Public Law 95-561 allocations is not providing enough monies for even basic educational support.

3. At the same time, the Bureau is wasting huge amounts of money through waste and inefficiency such as reorganization plans and computer systems. Six years ago, Mr. Chairman, the Pueblo people decided that they could operate an educational program of excellence that would meet the needs of Indian youth. We received encouragement from all levels of government. Since that time, we have succeeded but doubts are beginning to form that the government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs is not sincere in allocating sufficient funds or support to make such an educational program possible. We hope and pray with your help that these problems can be overcome.

Senator MELCHER. I am going to have to leave but the committee is going to be in very good hands with Jo Jo. Which witness would you like next? Butch O'Neal, executive director of the Kickapoo Tribal School and representative of the Association of Contract Tribal Schools from Powhatten, Kans. By the way, Jo Jo is the majority counsel. You may proceed.

MS. HUNT [acting chairman]. Thank you, Senator Melcher. Butch would you proceed?

STATEMENT OF BUTCH O'NEAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KICKAPOO TRIBAL SCHOOL, AND REPRESENTATIVE, ASSOCIATION OF CONTRACT TRIBAL SCHOOLS

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you. We thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak today. We also thank the committee for being supportive of our cause as it has in the past and for listening to us. We have a great many problems. It is fairly obvious from the day's activities that we have a lot of problems. We have some problems that are representative of all of our schools that belong to our organization.

I am here for the Association of Contract Tribal Schools and we do have positions on all of the subjects that you have covered today. In the first place, I guess to reiterate what everyone else has said, we definitely feel that education is a responsibility of the Federal Government. Unfortunately in our case that means that that responsibility is charged to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

We have submitted a written testimony which the committee members and yourself have. My school board chairman, Jim Oliver, is also here with me today. He has submitted a resolution. I would like to say this and I will quote from my own writing. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to be the major obstacle to Indian self-determination. The Bureau of Indian Affairs discourages, hinders, and at times openly defies attempts of Indian tribes to contract for services. As an example of that, one of our member schools from the Navajo area called and they had just gotten word from the Bureau of Indian Affairs area office that from now on when they make their letter of credit draw-down request they will no longer be allowed to make that request directly to the Treasury. It takes about 7 days turnaround time to get money that way and it avoids all kinds of problems.

The reason most schools are on the letter of credit draw-down system is because, before when schools were on the reimbursement procedure, the Bureau of Indian Affairs would lose invoices, they would deliberately stall. If you happened to be a forceful person and spoke up for the rights of Indian children, they were given a handle on you. We need the money; we need to pay our staff. If they are allowed to turn this around again and go to that system where it may take up to-and we have documented cases-7 to 8 weeks to get our money, then we are effectively closed down for that period.

They are trying to regain control. Contract schools, as well as many other schools, are operating very effectively the way the Bureau of Indian Affairs has never been able to operate and we are doing it on far less money. They still continue to strike out at us. They want us to close down and if the Congress follows through with any more cuts, then they will have effectively closed us down.

We are down to the meat, speaking figuratively. Some of us may not be, but our programs are. You cannot take any more cuts. If we take any more cuts it is going to be a direct attack on the quality of the programs and probably will eliminate them totally. Again I am not speaking from the contract schools; aside of it. We cannot take any more cuts. I think it is amazing that a lot of the schools continue. It shows a real commitment by the community to support their schools. We are taking the moneys meant for other purposes to keep the schools operating.

One of our positions, to address the stated agenda, is that we feel that because of the way that the Bureau of Indian Affairs administers our programs and because of its seeming inadequacy to run any kind of a program, and also its extremely limited viewpoint of who is eligible for services under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we have to be directly opposed to the transfer of title 4, Indian education programs to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

We will continue to make this stand until those issues of who is eligible are cleared up. We feel that the commitment and the responsi