in effect, should reside with the superintendent of an agency, or a superintendent of a reservation, or area officer rather than, let us say, an education specialist?

Mr. THOMPSON. For several reasons, Mr. Chairman, having one offcial responsible in one given situation for the many Bureau programs that are operated on the reservation is the best method in the years ahead.

I think that we will confuse lines of communication between our organization and the Indian tribes if we have two or three decisionmakers on one reservation. Many people say and argue, I think very strongly, that even having one man responsible is too many, and that we should turn the programs over to the tribes, as a matter of fact, we are trying to turn them over.

I believe that if we add additional line officers on a reservation, the communication between the Bureau and the Indian constituency and the Indian tribe will become rather confusing.

Dr. Benham may have some additional thoughts on the matter. Dr. BENHAM. Mr. Chairman, as you know, 4 years ago when we were discussing this, I testified at length before your committee at the Shalimar Hotel, at which time I was the director of the Navajo schools.

It seems to me that one of the problems that we have in Indian education is that an education problem is anything but just an education

alone.

To me this is one of the things that can lend some strength to the kind of education development that the Commissioner describes.

Let us go back to the Navajo, with which I am most familiar. Where you have a situation where you can get all of the forces, like economic development and someone at work in the situation, and education can become a vital and integral part of it, to me we are on our way toward solving the education problem.

I think that if we just have education without the broad total deveopment kind of a porgram, I don't think that the situation will change much in the next 20, 25, or 30 years. If it can be a total kind of a program, though I think that we are off and running.

You had a chance, and you saw evidence of that during your visit to Navajo. You saw where there was development, and where there was opportunity for employment, the situation had changed. The situation had changed in the sense that youngsters who had formally been boarding school youngsters, now were day school youngsters generally in the public school situation.

You saw the situation where the parent has a chance to take a paycheck home in a regular basis, and many of the situations that you face change a lot. I think that the same thing is true with regard to education.

Mr. MEEDS. I think that probably I would have to agree with bot of you. While I would ordinarily be very much in favor of line authority for education, if there is anything I have learned since I have been working in this business, there is no isolated Indian problem. There are a number of problems which differ in different areas.

To try to deal with education in a vacuum, as Dr. Benham just said. is probably not very productive.

I would like to take longer, but we have to get the HEW people.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other statement, if time permits.

I learned that we have opened two additional boarding facilities, and one is in Kinai, Alaska, to bring the children back into the State. Mr. MEEDS. Did you close another one?

Mr. THOMPSON. There was enough enrollment there to keep the facility operational. The second one was kind of a postsecondary operation, and that was at Sitka.

We have, I think, in fairness to the committee, recommended closing several facilities and have run into various types of opposition; some of it was congressional, and some of it Indian.

Mr. MEEDS. On that happy note, I will say, for the record, that you have never heard any complaint from me.

Mr. THOMPSON. We never have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. I would like to keep the record open, and we will be submitting some written questions to you, which we would like to have answered in detail on both sides of the aisle.

We had an unfortunate conflict this morning with the school lunch conference, at which I am also supposed to be sitting, being scheduled at this same time. We have, as you see, no members from the other side of the aisle, and very poor representation for this side. I apologize. We will be submitting written questions to you, so without objection, we will be keeping the record open for questions and answers, which will be made a part of the record at the end of your testimony. [Information submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

Hon. CARL D. PERKINS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., September 4, 1975.

Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee,

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During your Committee July 28 hearing on Indian Education Programs, we were requested to submit additional written information for the record concerning our philosophy relating to boarding schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We hope this information will be helpful.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure.

MORRIS THOMPSON, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

(a) What is the BIA's overall philosophy with regard to continuing or reducing the number of such schools and their use?

In the late 1800s and 1900s the boarding school concept was utilized to maximize the education of the Indian school age population. Due to isolated conditions, roads, nonavailability of school facilities, and other similar reasons, boarding schools were set-up to provide instruction at the elementary, secondary, and post-high school levels.

As more schools have become available within busing distance of the students' home the policy for admission to boarding schools has been directed to Indian children who do not have suitable education opportunities in their home communities, who are orphans, or who, for social reasons must be educated away from their homes.

In the past few years the Bureau has taken the position that all Indian children should and must be afforded educational opportunities as close to home as possible. The Bureau also takes the position. however, that it will not reduce the number of boarding schools for "reduction's sake", but continue to operate some boarding schools to meet Indian student needs that cannot be met otherwise.

62-746-76- -3

As the need for boarding schools diminishes the facilities will be reduced accordingly with full consultation with Indian people and alternative uses for boarding school facilities will be examined.

(b) How is and will the BIA implement that philosophy?

A series of assessments have been done on boarding schools such as: Chilocco, Intermountain, Wrangell Institute, Institute of American Indian Arts, and Pierre Boarding School. We are and will be looking to these assessments to provide us the information needed to make decisions regarding the future continuation, or other alternative use of boarding school facilities. The future of each boarding school will be predicated by the assessment of each school.

(c) What guidelines or bench marks does or will the BIA use (and can the Congress use) to determine the programs or results of implementing the BIA's boarding school philosophy?

Guidelines or bench marks for evaluation of the implementation of the BIA's boarding school philosophy include consideration and evaluation of the following: 1. BIA statistical report of boarding school enrollment, number of empty spaces in boarding schools, and the closing of boarding school. One school closed at the end of FY 75 and another recommended for closing;

2. the building and expanding of school facilities on reservations; and

3. development of "educational needs" assessments for boarding school students.

We hope this information will be helpful to Congress.

Hon. CARL D. PERKINS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., December 1, 1975.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are answers to questions posed during the July 28, 1975 hearing on Indian Education programs.

This is in response to the question concerning reductions-in-force in Fiscal Year 1975 appearing on page 26 of the testimony.

At the end of fiscal year, June 30, 1975, the BIA was faced with not only the problem of meeting a reduced employment ceiling, but with readjustments in program priorities to meet the critical need for professional capability in the fields of contracting and credit mandated by statutes-P.L. 93-638 the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and P.L. 93-266 the Indian Financing Act. Position ceiling had to be made available for the hiring of contract specialists, loan specialists, auditors, compliance officers, etc. New school facilities begun in previous years were completed for use without a concurrent increase in employment ceiling to provide for staffing. The changing mission of the Bureau, mandated by the President and the Congress, has occasioned the need to reexamine our staffing patterns and rearrange priorities. The need to reduce our employment ceiling for the fiscal year 1975 was an added impetus to this examination of staffing and priorities.

In order to meet the ceiling limit and provide positions for priority programs and new school facilities a number of actions were taken which resulted in a minimum displacement of employees. Non-essential positions were left vacant, employees in occupations which fall in the subject-to-furlough type employment (seasonal workers for roads, irrigation, construction, and school support and maintenance) were converted to furlough-type appointments. The Civil Service Commission granted the Bureau authority for employees who met the criteria (50 years of age with 20 years of service or 25 years of service at any age) to take early retirement. The transfer, created much needed employment ceiling, employees in positions considered less essential were reassigned to positions with high priority. In most instances, displacement of employees was done through the reduction-in-force procedures.

At this same time, a limited number of contracts with tribes for services performed by the Bureau were proceeding. For instance, in Alaska 122 positions were abolished through contracting with tribal organizations and the transfer of schools to the boroughs. This resulted in 43 actual separations of employees who could not move to other locations, or who were not hired by the local school districts and were not eligible for retirement.

In the Portland Area, it was determined the Chemawa School had become overstaffed because its enrollment had declined. As a result of the abolishment of surplus positions such as teacher, night attendant, and maintenanceman, 9 em

ployees were separated through reduction-in-force, 6 others resigned and 4 retired.

In the Phoenix Area, 111 employees were converted to subject-to-furlough type employment and 41 positions were abolished. All but 12 employees were placed in other positions in the Area, transferred, retired or resigned.

On a smaller scale such actions were taken in each Area-26 positions were abolished through contract in the Aberdeen Area and 14 were changed to furlough employment in the Muskogee and Anadarko Areas.

With the actions taken, the BIA was able to open all school facilities that were completed for this school year. This is, however, a continuing problem as the needs in the Indian education programs increase.

This is in response to the question concerning expenditures for BIA school construction.

Mr. MEEDS. Our next witness is Dr. William G. Demmert, Deputy Commissioner of Indian Education.

You have a rather long prepared statement, Dr. Demmert. You may proceed to summarize it, because if we let you read it all, we will be here all day. Your complete statement will be made part of the record at this point.

[Prepared statement of William G. Demmert, Jr., follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. Demmert, JR., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this distinguished subcommittee to discuss some of the positive achievements of the Office of Education in the area of service to American Indians and Alaskan Natives.

The testimony which follows identifies the specific programs serving Indian children, gives a brief description of each program, and the Fscal Year 1975 level of funding. In some cases problems are identified with the hope of focusing attention upon the development of more effective approaches to program implementation.

IEA an extension of earlier aid

As early as 1934, Federal funds were made available through provisions of the Johnson-O'Malley Act for scholarships and related expenditures on behalf of Indian students in public schools. In 1952, P.L. 874 and 815 were established. These funds were available to compensate local school districts whose tax reSources were limited by the presence of non-taxable Federal properties or operations on or near the school districts. In 1971, $30,000,000 was granted to local districts from these three funding sources. It is not clear, however, that the funds actually were employed by the districts to mount special programs for Indian pupils. Indeed, the districts were not required to do so. Funds simply were paid into their general operating accounts and employed to support the districts' general education programs.

Under provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Federal funds also were provided those local school districts that reported a high concentration of low-income families in residence. These funds

were made available to the districts so that they might offer special programs for all classes of "disadvantaged pupils" in attendence, disadvantaged Indian pupils included. Although 70 percent of all Indian pupils residing in public school districts were reported in 1970 to be "disadvantaged," under provisions of the Act, only one-fourth actually were enrolled in special Title I programs. Moreover, the average expenditure per pupil for such programs was too low to make an appreciable difference in public achievement feasible.

The Indian Education Act of 1972

On June 23, 1972, the Indian Education Act was enacted as a logical extension of earlier congressional efforts to improve the quality of public education for Indian pupils. In constructing this legislation, three objectives were considered: The direct targeting of funds from the Federal level to public school districts and Indian tribes and organizations serving Indian students.

Allowance for funding to be spent to meet the special educational needs of Indians.

Maximization of the degree of local Indian community involvement with, and control over, the educational programs serving their children.

The Indian Education Act of 1972 (IEA) was enacted June 23, 1972, as Title IV. Public Law 92–318, Education Amendments of 1972. The Act has as its principal policy objective "... to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop and carry out elementary and secondary school programs specially designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian students in the United States."

Four funding provisions form the basis of the IEA program:

Part A.-Provides for grants to local education agencies to develop and carry out elementary and secondary school programs specially designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian pupils. This section includes a 10 percent setaside for financial assistance to Indian controlled schools on or near reservations which are not local educational agencies.

Part B.-Provides for grants to State and local educational agencies (LEA's), Federally supported elementary and secondary schools for Indian children, and to Indian tribes, organizations, and institutions to support planning, pilot and demonstration projects to develop, test, and demonstrate the effectiveness of programs for improving educational opportunities for Indian children. Also provided for are educational enrichment programs and services, preparation of teachers of Indian students, information dissemination and program evaluation. Part C.-Provides for grants to State and LEA's and to Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects to develop, test, and demonstrate the effectiveness of programs for providing adult education for Indians, for the dissemination of information concerning educa tional programs, services, and resources available to Indian adults, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of Federally assisted programs in which Indian adults may participate.

Part D.-Provides for grants to prepare teachers of Indian children. with preference granted to Indians. Grants may be made to institutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations. On August 21, 1974, the Indian Education Act was amended by Title IV, Part C of Public Law 93-380, Education Amendments of 1974. These amendments added two additional funding provisions. The first, included provisions for providing grants to institutions of higher education, Indian organizations and tribes for teachers and administrators in programs meeting the special educational needs of Indian children and for in-service training. The second included provisions for fellowships at the graduate and professional levels in the fields of engineering, medicine, law, business, forestry and related fields.

In Fiscal Year 1975, the LEA portion of Part A of the Indian Education Act provided $22,727,273 of financial support to school districts containing 253,668 Indian students out of a total eligible population of 332,264 Indian students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools. This funding averaged approximately $90 per student served. The Part A set-aside for Indian controlled schools provided $2,272,727 to 26 schools for an average grant of $75,758.

In Fiscal Year 1975, Part B of the Indian Education Act funded 167 Indian tribes and organizations to conduct pilot, demonstration and planning grants with $12,000,000, for an average grant award of $71,856. These funds were estimated to impact 90,000 Indian children and adults. Similarly, Part C of the Act