Page images
PDF
EPUB

problems that still exist at the local level. Those problems need to be addressed, and these two departments need to work very closely together with more local input.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Funk.

Ms. FUNK. One part of the Indian Education Act that I hear a lot of good things about is the adult education portion component. It is not a very large program, but the Indian Adult Education Association did pick several of the programs and analyze them in terms of people successfully completing a GED because of that program, getting a job, their income, and various other indices of what had happened to them.

They picked a program in Boston and several others that were very divergent, and they really found stunning examples of people's ability in completing the program, getting GEDs, and getting jobs. Within a couple months, I think the average income rise was $5,000.

There are all kinds of things that can open up to you if have a high school diploma versus if you do not. The adult education portion of the title V program used to be funded on a 3-year staggered basis. Then they were changed to 2 years, and that really created a problem.

For Native people or for any person who is learning to read and write and at the same time trying to get a high school diploma or a GED, 2 years just was not long enough. People would come to the end of the 2-year program and not have yet completed their GED. We do appreciate the assistance of Neal Shedd and whoever else was responsible for changing that around this year. They just very recently put the Adult Education Programs back on a 3-year staggered basis. That is one portion of the program that really deserves some more support.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bordeaux.

Mr. BORDEAUX. In answer to your question on effectiveness, I believe it was in 1984, which was 10 years after St. Francis operated title IV programs through the whole period, we submitted testimony to one of the subcommittees on education and labor outlining all of the programs that we got funded under title IV, part A and part B, and what types of programs these things did. If those types of things were done in other areas, it would show a high rate of effectiveness in regard to providing programs for specific services. We were able to start programs in business occupations. We were able to start vocational education. At that time, in the early seventies, we were even able to start some basic supplemental programs in language arts and supplemental programs in physical education. We did not have a program at all for the students at that time because it was prior to ISEP, so we had to come in every year to ask Congress for dollars instead of going through a formula.

There were a lot of other programs that were available that we applied for and started initially under title IV, and then eventually, took over under the regular program. In regard to the question on teacher shortages and those things-I am in the process of completing an evaluation for a couple of community colleges in regard to teacher education programs. At the elementary level, especially in South Dakota, those colleges are doing a lot in regard to preparing Indian teachers.

There is indeed a shortage of Indian teachers at the secondary level. I think that if you look at most of the Indian schools, maybe 25 percent of the secondary teachers are Indian with 75 percent being non-Indians. The reverse is probably true at the elementary level.

For administrators, a lot of times the teachers will come in and work for 2 or 3 years and they might be good teachers, but they see that opportunity to move up, so they go into the principalship or some other administrative field. You might lose a good teacher, but you are going to hopefully gain a good administrator. But as long as I can remember, that shortage has always been there.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank all of you. All of you have been unanimous in your concern over the vacancy of the directorship.

The Navajo have submitted a recommendation. Where did you submit your recommendation, to the President? Who received your recommendation? You mentioned a person earlier that you recommended for the directorship.

Ms. BAHE. That is Dr. John Tippeconnic.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you convey your thoughts to any person other than this committee?

MS. BAHE. This is the first time.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you write to the President of the United States?

Ms. BAHE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And to the Secretary of Education?

Ms. BAHE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Council have any recommendation?
Ms. HUNT. We have submitted three names to the Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you share them with us?

Ms. HUNT. I can share the three names. I have discussed with Assistant Secretary Bonner and have promised him that we would not share the name that he told me went forward from the Secretary to OPM, but the three names that the Council submitted to the Secretary-they were rank ordered-were Dr. John Tippeconnic, Mrs. Lucille Dawson, and Mr. Purnell Sweat.

The Council interviewed six people and these were the three names that went forward, and in that order of recommendation, top to bottom. It was a top choice and first and second alternate. One last thing, Mr. Chairman. You had asked me a question about the people in the position of Director of the Office of Indian Education over the past few years.

I have a chart that provides that information for the last 10 years. There is other statistical information, the best that we could pull together from available data on the status of Indian education. That is in our annual report.

I would like to submit this copy for the use of the committee until such time as they are printed. They are at the printer right

now.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all again. We appreciate this and if we may, we would like to submit questions to you in writing for your consideration.

May I now call upon the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education, the Honorable Dan Bonner. Secretary Bonner will be accompanied by Mr. A. Neal Shedd, the Acting Di

rector of the Office of Indian Education and Mr. Thomas Corwin, Director of the Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.

Mr. Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL F. BONNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC, ACCOMPANIED BY A. NEAL SHEDD, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION; THOMAS CORWIN, DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION, OFFICE OF PLANNING, BUDGET AND EVALUATION

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, if it is all right with you, I would like to be allowed to read my prepared remarks, which are relatively brief.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be here today on behalf of Secretary Cavazos to discuss matters pertaining to programs in the Office of Indian Education as well as other programs that benefit Indians and are administered elsewhere in the Department of Education.

In your letters to Secretary Cavazos requesting this hearing, you listed several issues that you wished to discuss. I will address each of those issues in turn.

The Office of Indian Education administers a wide array of programs authorized by the Indian Education Act of 1988. These programs currently receive a combined appropriation of $71.4 million. The bulk of the funds, about $52 million, is distributed by formula primarily to public school districts, but also to tribally-operated and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.

The amount of funds going to each district or Indian school is based on the number of Indian children enrolled. These funds are used to supplement the regular school program by providing educational services designed to meet particular needs of the Indian children. Local projects are characterized by an especially high level of parental involvement.

Your letter of October 4 raised a concern about the timing of the 1989 formula grant awards. It is true that awards were made later than usual this year. The cause of the delay was related to reauthorization of the program, including the newly authorized eligibility of BIA-operated schools.

However, notification letters were mailed to all grantees by August 11th. Further, to ensure that there would be no lapse in services from one fiscal year's grant to the next, the Department authorized grantees to expend funds for appropriate pre-award costs.

For school districts with special problems, we faxed copies of grant award letters confirming this authorization. All fiscal year 1989 funds were obligated by the Department before September 30, 1989. Now that the Department has implemented the provisions of the 1988 reauthorization, this delay should not recur.

In addition to the formula grant program, the Indian Education Act authorizes several competitive grant programs. The $18 million for these programs are provided primarily to tribes, Indian educa

tional organizations, and colleges and universities. They support such activities as early childhood programs, dropout prevention, adult education, technical assistance to grantees, training of Indian teachers and school administrators, and fellowships for graduate and undergraduate students.

Your letter of October 4 also questioned the timing of the fellowship awards. The statute governing this program requires the Secretary to provide written notification to fellowship recipients no later than 45 days prior to the beginning of the academic term. The Department complied with this requirement. The actual obligation of funds could not take place until after July 19 because regulations implementing the newly reauthorized program were not final until that date. This was due in part to the delayed effective date provisions of the General Education Provisions Act.

In addition to the programs authorized by the Indian Education Act, the Department of Education administers many other programs that provide educational services to Indians. Indian students participate in most of these programs on the same basis as the rest of the population-that is to the extent that they meet eligibility criteria related to educational need.

The programs are generally targeted to public schools and include, for example, the chapter 2 block grant, the Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant program, education for homeless children and youth, bilingual education, magnet schools, migrant education, the chapter 1 LEA grant program, many of the special education programs for the handicapped, and a host of small discretionary programs.

In addition, several of the Department's programs contain setasides of funds specifically for Indians-usually those attending Bureau of Indian Affairs 'schools. In accordance with your request, we are providing the committee with detailed descriptions of these programs, including budgetary and organizational information.

These include vocational education, compensatory education programs authorized by chapter 1, mathematics and science education, library programs, drug-free schools and communities, Education of the Handicapped Act, Part B, and programs for handicapped infants and toddlers. In addition, many public schools enrolling Indian students receive funding from the Impact Aid program.

In March of this year, the Office of Indian Education began a new coordination effort by holding a 2-day conference to share information among OIE staff, coordinators or directors of State Indian Education programs, managers of set-aside programs for Indians, and directors of the Indian Education Regional Resource Centers. Because the office is newly authorized to coordinate the development of policies and practices for all Department programs serving Indians, we have created a new staff position to aid coordination of policy development among those programs.

Additionally, staff of OIE are working with an informal interagency committee to conduct a policy review of each agency's Indian programs, and they also have membership on the White House Task Force on Indian Affairs, which meets monthly. The Task Force is chaired by Mary McClure, Special Assistant to the President for Indian Affairs.

The remaining issues addressed in your letters, Mr. Chairman, concern the administration of the Office of Indian Educationnamely, appointment of a director for the office, filling other staff positions, and implementing new statutory provisions that require the application of Indian preference.

The Director of the Office of Indian Education is a career position in the Senior Executive Service. Following the death of the previous director, Mr. John Sam, the Department advertised the position and evaluated the applications in accordance with Office of Personnel Management procedures. Next, as required by the Indian Education Act, a list of qualified applicants was submitted to the National Advisory Council on Indian Education, which in turn gave the Department its recommendations.

I would like to break from these prepared remarks to return the gracious comments that Jo Jo Hunt made about the activities of the Acting Assistant Secretary and the Acting Director of Indian Education. She has been most gracious herself in our dealings with her.

I personally interviewed each candidate and submitted my recommendations to the Secretary. At this point, we received a number of allegations concerning some of the candidates. These allegations were turned over to the Department's Office of Inspector General for investigation. The hiring procedures have been suspended until the investigations are complete. Secretary Cavazos and I are quite anxious to have this position filled, and we are working diligently toward that end.

On the matter of fully staffing the Office of Indian Education, we are moving ahead and expect to have choices made on several newly created mid-level management positions next month. Selection certificates were submitted to us on Tuesday, October 24. There were eligible Indian applicants for each vacancy.

As you know, the reauthorized Indian Education Act of 1988 requires the Department to apply Indian preference in filling all positions in the Office of Indian Education. It also requires that nonIndian members of the staff be given a one-time preference when they apply for positions outside the office. Because we have had no previous experience in implementing such preferences and because the legal ramifications are complicated, it has taken a while to develop the policies and procedures to implement the new requirements. However, we have done that and we are currently applying the preference policies in filling all of the vacancies.

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago the Department of Education was very fortunate to hire Mr. John Sam as Director of the Office of Indian Education. Mr. Sam brought to that position a wealth of experience and talent, as well as a deep and personal understanding of the educational needs of Indian children and adults.

Because he believed that the office was not administratively organized to produce the best possible delivery of services, Mr. Sam proposed a new organizational structure. Among other things, that new structure created several badly needed mid-level management positions that will help put the office on a sounder management footing and will provide opportunities for professional growth among Office of Indian Education employees. Although John died

« PreviousContinue »