« PreviousContinue »
Part B in addition to program review at the offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Answer 3. According to the Office of Libraries and Learning Resources, ESEA Title II and NDEA III are administered in the Office of Libraries and Learning Resources by the School Media Resources Branch, which has been conducting regularly scheduled reviews of the administration of these two programs in all participating agencies and has been assessing program effectiveness through
on-site visits to schools.
Such a review of BIA's programs was conducted by the Education Specialist assigned to BIA from our staff in May 1973 in the administering BIA Division of Educational Assistance in Albuquerque. Extensive visits to schools on the Hepi and Navajo Reservations and in the Northern and Southern Pueblos were made as a part of the review. A report containing six recommendations for strengthen ing the programs was sent to the administrator of the programs in Albuquerque, and to BIA's Director of Education Programs in Washington, D.C. All the recommendations were accepted and all have been implemented, wholly or is part. In June 1975, the same Specialist again visited the Division of Educational Assistance in Albuquerque and provided technical assistance on the two programs. Answer 4. According to the Division of Supplementary Centers and Services, program monitoring by the Office of Education of ESEA, Title III State Plan funds transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs is handled in the following
The Bureau of Indian Affairs submits an Annual Program Plan to the Office of Education establishing program priorities, duties of the advisory council. evaluation procedures, funding policies, dissemination activities and program reporting requirements. One important reporting requirement is to show how the fifteen percent of the program fund, has been used for handicapped children. Title III, ESEA State Plans require the State (The BIA in this case) to provide for the administration of the plan. The BIA does not receive funds earmarked for administration of Title III, ESEA since funds for over-all BIA administration are provided through other legislation.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs program staff and advisory council members implements the plan to regularly monitor and evaluate programs funded under ESEA, Title III for each school year. A written report is prepared annually by BIA discussing the program outcomes of each major activity and submits this report to the Office of Education.
The Office of Education Title III staff reviews the report to determine if the annual program plan has been followed and records the results of the years activities. Periodically during the years activities OE staff members conduct on-site visits to the BIA headquarters and to a select number of program institution sites to verify the evaluation results. Innovative Title III, ESEA projects include Native Initiated Programs for Students, Pilot Reading Models, Music in Indian Culture, and Community Child Development Programs.
Question 2. Is the Office of Education, especially the Office of Indian Education, seeking to coordinate its record keeping and program development efforts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Answer. Yes, the Office of Indian Education has begun a close working relation ship with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This process was initiated by arranging a series of meetings between the Commissioner of Education and the Commis sioner of Indian Affairs. Working relationships between myself and the Director of the BIA Education Division have also been established. Some of the things we have accomplished to date in our coordination with BIA include aiding in the dvelopment of the Indian Self-Determination Act regulations and the P.L. 93-638 Title II study. Additionally we arranged coordination meetings between the Bureau of Higher Education, USOE and BIA Higher Education to resolve some issues that had arisen in the Basic Educational Opportunities Grants Program. To date, our OIE/BIA relationship has been limited to program development and not record keeping, although we are just now beginning to explore the possibilities of establishing a joint data base with the Bureau.
We believe that these activities have been extremely valuable to both our programs and have full intentions of continuing to work more closely with BIA.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INDIAN EDUCATION
Question 1. What is your opinion of having the National Advisory Council on Indian Education supplying technical assistance to local educational agencies
and to Indian educational agencies, institutions and organizations, as called for in P.L. 92-318, Sec. 442(b) (3), Part D (The Indian Education Act)?
Answer. We welcome NACIE involvement in the technical assistance aspects of the Title IV program. It is almost impossible for the OIE to provide enough technical assistance. However, we recognize that the geographical and part-time limitations of the Council members severely restrict the degree to which they can accomplish this important function.
Question 2. Do you think technical assistance could best be carried out by the Office of Indian Education or by the Advisory Council?
Answer. Given the degree of need, both organizations can contribute to the technical assistance effort. Obviously, the program has the legal accountability for insuring proper use of funds by, among other techniques, providing adequate technical assistance where it is required and therefore provides the bulk of the technical assistance effort. However, members of the Council do represent a wide cross-section of Indian communities and are generally well respected. Therefore, it seems that technical assistance can best be accomplished by both organizations working together.
Question 3. Please describe the working relationship between the National Advisory Council and the Office of Indian Education.
Answer. One of the primary relationships between OIE and NACIE is through the weekly staff meetings that I hold with managers. The Executive Director of the Council is always present at these meetings and contributes to them in an active way. This Deputyship also has extensive and continuous contact with the chairman and other members of the Council to insure effective communication. Finally, the OIE usually has one staff member present at all Council meetings. Question 4. To what extent is the National Advisory Council actually carrying out its function, as specified in Sec. 442 of the Indian Education Act? Answer. The National Advisory Council has carried out many of its functions with respect to Sec. 442 of the Act. They have had a significant involvement in the Title IV proposal review function, and have conducted site visits for technical assistance and evaluation purposes. Additionally, they have reviewed and made recommendations on proposed regulations for the Act and have contributed by providing advice to the Deputy Commissioner for Indian Education on policy issues. As required by law, they have submitted their annual report to Congress, along with recommendations for improvement of programs.
Question. 5. Do you think the National Advisory Council on Indian Education should be allowed to exercise the function of evaluating programs administered not only by the Office of Indian Education, but to add, as well, oversight responsibilities for evaluating education programs for Indians administered by the Office of Education as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Answer. I firmly believe that this function is one that should be performed by the Council. It would be consistent with our view of the intent of Congress in enacting Title IV. Under the existing provisions of Title IV, the Council is charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Congress regarding all Federal programs under which Indians are eligible for benefits. Under Title IV, the Council is specifically charged with the responsibility of reporting to the Commissioner of Education on all DHEW programs serving Indians. The Act does not specifically lay out the same authority for BIA Programs. However, under Sec. 442 (b) (6) the Council is responsible for including any recommendations in their Annual Report to Congress it may deem necessary for the improvement of Federal educational programs in which Indian children and adults participate, or from which they can benefit. This could include recommendations on the BIA.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING,
Mr. MORRIS THOMPSON,
Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of Interior,
Washington, D.C., July 31, 1975.
DEAR MR. THOMPSON: 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.
CARL D. PERKINS.
RESPONSE OF MORRIS THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
1. Question. (a) BIA figures indicate that there are 6,876 full-time employees specifically concerned with education within BIA. Could you give us a breakout of how many of these people are in: (a) the Central Office in Washington; (b) the Central Office in Albuquerque; (c) in each Area Office; (d) in the 77 boarding schools; (e) in the 117 day schools; and in the dormitories. Answer.
1. Question. (b) Of the people in the Central Offices in Washington and Albuquerque, and in the Area Offices, how many work in (a) administering, (b) monitoring Federal education monies.
List separately and list the number of personnel administering and monitoring expenditures for BIA-operated boarding schools, day schools and dormitories. Also list those responsible for administering and monitoring Johnson-O'Malley and each of the Title programs transferred from the U.S. Office of Education. Answer.
Note: Education personnel at the area and agency are responsible for administering and monitoring expenditures for BIA-operated boarding schools, day schools, and dormitories. While each educational facility has at least 1 person designated as an "Administrator" (i.e., education program administrator, principal-teacher, supervisory-teacher), their primary reponsibility is for program administration and not fiscal administration. The degree of involvement of education personnel to the installation level in administering and monitoring expenditures varies greatly within each Area and between Agencies.
1. Question. (c). Of money alloted in FY 1975, were any BIA personnel in noneducation positions or functions being paid in whole or in part with education component funds? If so, how many; mow much money was involve; why was it spent? Was any FY 1975 education money used in whole or in part for non-educational purposes? If so, how much; what was it use for and why?
Southern Pueblos Agency:
Personnel management specialist-
Motor vehicle operator (85 percent of their time for education)_
20, 629 8.353
Warehouseman (75 percent of their time for education)‒‒‒‒‒
Ramah-Navajo: Transportation for students for medical (per year).
Motor vehicle operator---
Area office: Personnel staffing specialist (last year only, not for fiscal
This information was obtained from the Area offices.
2. Question. Concerning the total BIA education budget in FY 1975, how much of this total was expended in the Washington Central Office, the Albuquerque Central Office, and each of the twelve Area Offices (excluding individual school teachers, principals, dorm aides, etc.)?
3. Question. What BIA internal or contracted studies or evaluations have been done in the past five years concerning the BIA education programs other than the ACKCO study (the Joint BIA/USOE Study published this year)? Provide lists with title, author, date, publisher.