Geographic nature of side (urban, rural, reservation, etc.) : Hopi reservation lies approximately 80 miles North of Winslow, Arizona and approximately 150 miles Northeast of Flagstaff, The Reservation serves approximately 7,000 Hopis. Objective and overall design -Parent training for returnees from off reservation institutions. -Community education and family counseling. -Expand physical therapy services. -Develop a volunteer service program. -Vocational training program to provide job skills to residential students. -Infant stimulation program. -Expand staff training to include more college courses offered at the Hopi Center. Procedures and activities The continued operation of the Hopi Center for Human Services to serve the many needs of severely mentally and/or physically handicapped Indian citizens on the Hopi Reservation (Special Education instruction, vocational training, physical and speech therapy, guidance and counseling, and resident living skills. 4. Kindergarten-3rd after school workshops. 5. Kindergarten as an alternative for the overcrowded classes. Mr. MEEDS. You must know about some of them. Dr. DEMMERT. Yes, I do. In one particular school. I do know that we have authorized some early childhood kinds of programs in an independently controlled Indian school on the Navajo reservation, where we have authorized some parent-based early childhood programs tied in with the school. This, in part, establishes the educational base that mentioned earlier. In addition to that, I would say that many of the schools on the Navajo reservation are using Part B money to train or to work with teacher-aides to bring them into the schools. Members of the community work with the students, in part, to create a more positive attitude, both from the community and student point of view, as well as a better working relationship between the committee and the school. In addition to that, it gives them an opportunity to earn academic credits toward associate or 4-year degree. So, at the end of 5 or 10 years, they might become teachers. In my judgment, one of the best ways to bring Indians into the teaching profession to focus on members of the community who have those kinds of interests. Mr. MEEDS. What percentage of the 30 employees, previously in your office are Indian, and what percentage are not Indian? Dr. DEMMERT. I think that we have that somewhere in here. [Racial composition of Office of Indian Education staff follows:] RACIAL COMPOSITION OF OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION STAFF Mr. MEEDS. While you are looking for that, does the Indian preference law apply to your office also? Dr. DEMMERT. That question we have attempted to answer, but have not answered. We have forwarded to our Office of General Counsel a request to make a ruling for us, or to advise us. An independent study that we have had done reflects the attitude that, yes, we do have authority for Indian preference. Legislatively it has not specifically been authorized under title IV. I would estimate that about a third of our staff are Indian. We do not have the specific figures. I can get them because I know we have identified the number of Indians and the number of non-Indians. I would say that a third, at least, are Indian. Most of that third are at the high grade levels, and actually in managerial positions. Mr. MEEDS. For the record, will you furnish us the names and positions of all people in your office, please? [Names and positions of staff follows:] Mr. MEEDS. One final question. You have been Deputy Commissioner now for 6 months. Do you see any obvious ways in which you feel that the Indian Education Act could be improved? Dr. DEMMERT. It depends on whether or not you are talking about serving the 300,000-some Indian students that we have identified in the United States, or focusing on just the 50,000-some students in Federal schools, or maybe the 100,000-some students that are served by the Bureau but are in public schools. I think title IV, for the most part, provides substantial flexibility in providing services to the Indian community. There might be some minor changes that might be considered. For instance, we mentioned the parent-based early childhood development programs, and the minimal funding base for part A but right offhand I could not think of anything else. Mr. MEEDS. What is your philosophy or your theoretical concept on whether we ought to be concentrating our dollars on the so-called critical masses, the 50,000 students in Federal schools, or the 100,000-some students you spoke of, served by the BIA but in public schools, or should we spread this as we do in part A, for perhaps, some absurd diminimus concept? Dr. DEMMERT. Philosophically, my interest is on serving all of the Indian students who are eligible for service. In part, I think, because traditionally we have focused on the "critical masses" that you speak of, and I am not sure that it has been all that successful. In my judgment, you have to talk about improving attitudes, working relationships, and self-image. I think that we have to look at the total community to build the more positive image and attitude. Mr. MEEDS. Dr. Demmert, we are going to submit questions to you. Those questions and answers will be made part of the record. Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Meeds, if I may add two things before you close the record. One, I would like permission to amend our statement for the record. We inadvertently left out figures on adult education and vocational education, which should have been included. It is around $5 million that we spend there. Second, I would like to respond, if I may, to your comments about the delay in appointing someone as Deputy Commissioner. I don't think that the delay can be attributed to lack of commitment on the part of the Administration. The law was enacted in June of 1972, and the council was appointed in May of 1973, as I remember. Partly, this is because it is a Presidential appointment, and the screening process and clearance takes a fair amount of time. As I recall, the nominations were received from the council in November of 1973, then we had a problem, with which you are familiar in another circumstance, with the Civil Service Commission, much like the supergrades in the vocational education area. Mr. MEEDS. Let us hope, if I may interrupt, that it was not the same problem you had with the Civil Service Commission because that turned out not to be a problem at all. As you are probably well aware, this committee went into that. This person went into that, and felt that there was no problem at all, so don't tell me that this was the problem. Mr. HASTINGS. This was a question of what grade level it was supposed to be. Mr. MEEDS. If you are not interested in making the appointment, you can find all kinds of reasons. I am well aware of that. Mr. HASTINGS. We were dealing with the nominees given to us by the Council. Mr. MEEDS. Which council was appointed by the President of the United States. Mr. HASTINGS. That is correct. Mr. MEEDS. I don't consider that much of an excuse. I think that probably the record is very clear on what happened. We will bring these hearings to a close. Unfortunately we have a vote on the floor, and this is probably as good a time as any to terminate. We thank you very much, Dr. Demmert, for your testimony. [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene the following day, Tuesday, July 29, 1975, at 9:30 a.m.] APPENDIX A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, Dr. WILLIAM G. DEMMERT, Deputy Commissioner of Indian Education, Office of Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR DR. DEM MERT: We are writing to ask you to answer for the record several questions which we were unable to ask you during your appearance before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education last Monday. Attached to this letter is a list of those questions. We would appreciate a prompt response so that the questions and your answers can be incorporated into the printed hearing record. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the staff of the Subcommittee. Sincerely, CARL D. PERKINS. SEPTEMBER 4, 1975. Hon CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PERKINS: Thank you for your letter of July 31 requesting answers, for the record, to a number of questions concerning Indian Education Programs. Enclosed please find our response to each of the questions. I wish to express my appreciation for your continued interest in Indian Education. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Enclosure. (S) WILLIAM G. DEMMERT, Deputy Commissioner for Indian Education. GENERAL QUESTIONS Question 1. What priorities do you believe should be addressed under the Indian Education Act over the next several years? Answer. Every activity in which we engage, is directed toward our overall priority of raising the quality of the educational experience for Indians. We have two Part A priorities, three Part B priorities, two Part C priorities and one overall administrative priority. The major priorities in Part A deal with meeting the locally-identified special educational needs of Indian children. In order to do that, several criteria must be met. First, there must be an effective and smooth working relationship be tween Indian parents and the public school administration, a relationship that will allow these parents to express their desires for the education of their chil dren and have them understood by the school system. Second, we must attempt to definitively identify the costs associated with meeting their special educational needs and insure that adequate funding is made available to meet these needs. The first Part B priority is to identify and fund a number of important areas which we feel are central to the Indian education problem. These areas include parent based early childhood education, development of educational materials and practices, teacher training, parent committee training, curriculum development and other pilot, planning, and demonstration areas. Effort is also being focused on the development of educational models. Second, recognizing that during the developmental stages of direct Indian parent and community involvement in the education of their children, the traditional school systems must receive Office of Indian Education support in positively treating the existing mistakes and providing turning points in teaching philosophy, by supporting constructive key changes in: Indian Teacher Training, BIA Day and Boarding Schols, Indian Controlled Alternative Schools, Public School Impact Demonstrated and Dissemination of exemplary program materials and models. Finally, to insure that exemplary products and practices identified in Part B are utilized by as many school systems as possible, we feel that a priority area is to create a dissemination network to identify promising educational practices for the Indian child developed in Part B projects and support their application in the public school system. The major thrust and priority of the Part C program thus far has been to provide financial assistance for designing programs so that Indian adults may obtain General Education Development and Adult Basic Education. However, a review of current projects indicates that there is a need to expand the scope of Part C projects to include other program activities which will provide saleable skills, and at the same time, help Indian people to meet the demands of daily living, such as legal education, consumer education, vocational counseling and cultural enrichment. In the future our second priority will be to fund multidimensional programs, tutoring for General Education Development and Adult Basic Education, career counseling, cultural enrichment, and community education in a comprehensive manner to meet the specialized needs of Indian communities and to explore cooperation with other manpower development vocational training programs. Finally, our administration priority is to effectively monitor all projects; first, to insure that the special educational needs of Indian children are being met; second, to evaluate the educational progress achieved by children participating under Title IV projects. Question 2. How do you determine if local school districts are using Indian Education Act funds in the best manner possible? What types of monitoring and evaluation does O.E. perform, and what types of monitoring and evaluation do you require of local school districts. In particular, have you found any problems with school districts using these funds for all children instead of just all Indian children, with spreading funds too thinly among too many schools, or with using the funds for extraneous purposes instead of for improving educational opportunities for Indian children? Answer. We use two processes to insure that IEA funds are used in the best possible manner. The first of these is the proposal review process. When Part A proposals are submitted for funding they are subject to vigorous review by Office of Indian Education (OIE) staff and expert field readers to insure that the proposed plan is directed toward meeting the special educational needs of Indians. Areas of weakness in these proposals are also identified to direct our staff in conducting technical assistance. Part B and C proposals are evaluated by OIE staff, field readers and members of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education to identify and fund the most productive and effective proposals in response to priority areas previously identified to eligible applicants by the OIE. Under current application procedures, and more extensively under proposed reporting procedures to be submitted for OMB clearance, school districts are required to provide evidence of the proper selection of a parent committee and |