Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Rabenberg.

STATEMENT OF M. J. RABENBERG, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, SISSETON, S. DAK.

Mr. RABENBERG. Senator Abourezk, I am sure you will remember that it was just last February that we were back here testifying in opposition to, I guess, Senate bill 1017.

In the past, and I might mention before I get into my text, we would be one of those schools that would be the most severely hit. I would like to go back and lay a little bit of groundwork for this. In the past, South Dakotas' congressional delegation was able to help schools with less than 70-percent Indian enrollment obtain a waiver. This waiver was based on the school's proven need. The draft regulations now say that a school must have 51-percent Indian enrollment to be considered for such a waiver.

This 51-percent figure comes as quite a surprise to the South Dakota schools. The 51-percent waiver requirement will not help any school in our State receive basic support money. It is doubtful, with declining enrollment, that this requirement will ever become a factor in the

future.

Various inquiries have been made as to the 51-percent requirement and it seems to remain as mysterious as the 70-percent enrollment figure obtained in Senate bill 1017 and then advanced to Public Law 638. No one at the State level has been able to establish a correlation with these percentages to any known factor.

The Sisseton schools will be hardest hit in South Dakota if this 51-percent requirement remains.

Senator ABOUREZK. Is Sisseton the only school with less than 51percent in South Dakota?

Mr. RABENBERG. We only have one school with over 51 percent. We would have two, Wakpala

Senator ABOUREZK. Do you have a breakout on various districts on the reservation?

Mr. BARNES. Other than Todd County, there should be seven school districts that would fall in the 51 percent.

Senator ABOUREZK. What is the lowest percentage with Indian students?

Mr. BARNES. I'll have to take this off the top of my head. I think probably West River with about 22 or 23 percent.

Senator ABOUREZK. The 20-percent figure would get you under the waiver provision if you put that in, is that right? Mr. BARNES. I think 20 percent would, yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Mr. RABENBERG. The Sisseton Public Schools would be eliminated from the Johnson-O'Malley basic support program after this year. The 75-percent requirement to qualify in the newly attached laws of 51-percent Indian enrollment to be considered for a waiver would virtually eliminate their funding. Sisseton has some 600 Indian students. approximately 36 percent of their enrollment.

Under our waiver, before our proven need was some $360,000. School districts with concentrations of Indian youngsters have become dependent on Johnson-O'Malley funding over the years. Since this act has been around since 1934, why the overnight attitude to eliminate funding at this time?

Presently, a smaller school with 100 Indian youngsters could qualify for help. Theoretically, under a 51-percent requirement or 75-percent requirement. But in contrast, the needs of some 600 Indian youngsters enrolled in Sisseton would not be met, in fact help would be virtually eliminated. One question of this committee today is "Was this the intent of Public Law 638?" If not, it stands in need of revision.

Senator ABOUREZK. I have an additional question relating to Public Law 874 funds, which are made available to public school districts in lieu of taxes for Indian children residing on trust lands. Does Public Law 874 provide enough money to meet operating expenses for Indian students?

Mr. RABENBERG. No, sir.

Senator ABOUREZK. To what extent does Public Law 874 meet such expenses?

Mr. RABENBERG. It varies from school to school because you have different factors involved but I would say it would be in the neighborhood of $250 to $300 short.

Senator ABOUREZK. Per student?

Mr. RABENBERG. Yes. When we were in last time, you will remember there was quite a bit of controversy to the topic of Public Law 874. We will leave our our State Department has furnished why we are on a State rate rather than on comparable districts or on the national rate. These have been documented by our State Department, comparable studies. I hope this would leave without a doubt in the committee's mind that the State average is the way for our State to go. We have 20 some schools involved.

Senator ABOUREZK. You can insert that in the record. Your time is just about up now.

STATEMENT OF KEITH TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED SCHOOL BOARDS OF SOUTH DAKOTA, CONDE, S. DAK.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, my name is Keith Taylor, from Conde, S. Dak. I am president of a small district that serves students in four counties. I am also a member of the board of directors of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota which is a State organization of local boards of education.

I have firm faith that the really real strength in this country of ours and in our State is based in the grass roots area. But I view these regulations as another attempt to actually move the control of education away from the citizens of our land. It would seem that these regulations assume, and I think rather improperly, that various present avenues of communication about educational efforts are not active and they are not functioning.

Let me illustrate quickly. The citizens of South Dakota have control over the destiny of education and the schools by an elected school board and we support this wholeheartedly. We think these people should be in the elected school boards and not in advisory capacities where the responsibilities are not necessarily carried through.

Some of these other areas have already been mentioned. We have budget hearings. The community as a whole has an opportunity to make that input. We welcome this input before final decisions are made. Teacher evaluations are a function of the management team. By management team, I mean the school administrators and the school board. We also have to meet certification standards for teachers, we have to meet requirements for accreditation.

I think we might point out here, too, that our National School Boards' Association in convention last spring in Miami spoke in resolution to some of these very same things. They support the Federal funding but they support it on a basis that decision for expenditures will be made on a local level. By local level, I am sure we are talking about elected boards of education.

We would note that item by item in this document which we will file, we endorse the things-Judy Olson, chairman of our State board of education and Dr. Apker of the National Association of State Boards of Education, specifically item by item, compares to our State laws.

Senator ABOUREZK. Keith, your time is up.

Mr. RABENBERG. Senator, one short statement. Senator, I think we would be amiss if we did not have an alternative to present to this as far as the Sisseton public schools are concerned. I feel if we are going to avert a crisis, we would have to ask that this committee consider a hold harmless type of clause, something like contained in Public Law 874. That we do not overnight drop 100 percent funding of this nature. It is too great an amount. We cannot release 40 percent of our personnel and come back and say we can do just as good a job. There is no way it can be done.

We would ask that if the 51 percent have to stay, then we've got to go, and we be given some way to die honorably.

Senator ABOUREZK. Or slowly.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Rabenberg, Ms. Olson and Dr. Apker follow:]

STATEMENT OF M. J. RABENBERG, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, SISSETON, S. DAK.

In the past, South Dakotas' Congressional Delegation was able to help schools with less than 70 percent Indian enrollment obtain a waiver. This waiver was based on the schools' proven need. The draft regulations now say that a school must have 51 percent Indian enrollment to be considered for such a waiver.

This 51 percent figure comes as quite a surprise to the South Dakota schools. The 51 percent waiver requirement will not help any school in our state receive basic support money. It is doubtful, with declining enrollment, that this requirement will ever become a factor in the future.

Various inquiries have been made as to the 51 percent requirement and it seems to remain as mysterious as 70 percent enrollment figure obtained in Senate Bill 1017 and then advanced to Public Law 638. No one at the state level has been able to establish a correlation with these percentages to any known factor.

The Sisseton Schools will be hardest hit in South Dakota if this 51 percent requirement remains.

The Sisseton Public Schools would be eliminated from the Johnson-O'Malley Basic Support Program after this year. The 75 percent requirement to qualify in the newly attached laws of 51 percent Indian enrollment to be considered for a waiver would virtually eliminate their funding. Sisseton has some 600 Indian students, approximately 36 percent of their enrollment. Their proven basic support need for last year was $368,000.00.

School Districts with concentration of Indian youngsters have become dependent on Johnson-O'Malley funding over the years. Since this Act has been around since 1934, why the over-night attitude to eliminate funding at this time?

Presently, a smaller school with 100 Indian youngsters could qualify for help, and in contrast, the needs of some 600 Indian youngsters enrolled in Sisseton would not be met, in fact help would be virtually eliminated. One question of this Committee today is "was this the intent of Public Law 638?" If not, it stands in need of revision.

The 51 percent requirement will, in our opinion, promote segregation of students and divide the reservation adult population. This is in conflict with published Bureau philosophy, and certainly will not help meet the needs of children.

It is strange, that when a long-standing Public Law like 874 recognizes 25 percent federally effected enrollment as major impaction, your committee would see fit to use different figures. Congress now accepts and understands the language used in 874 funding, why this drastic change? Continuity and consistency have long been requirements for success.

In South Dakota we also have schools with less than 25 percent Indian student impaction facing financial crisis. Some serious thought must also be given to their problems.

Nationally, Johnson-O'Malley provides approximately four million dollars in basic support. It would seem that if we are all acting in the best interest of youngsters that this law of 41 years could be resolved.

If it is the intent of Public Law 93-638 to severely restrict or eliminate operational support for public schools then alternative legislation should be considered. If this is not a viable alternative then the least we would ask the Committee to consider would be a Hold Harmless Clause, similar to that used in Public Law 874. This would allow Sisseton and similar schools to reduce programs systematically over a period of time.

We would ask this Committee to remember children are unique unto themselves. Schools are unique, and therefor a magic figure like 51 percent is not realistic. Committee Members, please review your conscience and consider the viable alternative to the 51 percent requirement.

The other major concern of our organizations represented here today center around the right of the state and local boards of education to carry out their legal responsibility for the operation of public schools. We asked the National Association of State Boards of Education to detail some of the apparent conflicts between the proposed rules and regulations of Public Law 93-638 and state laws. Attached is a copy of those conflicts as perceived by Dr. Wesley Apker, Executive Secretary of that organization.

Also attached are other documents speaking to the same question along with a resolution of the State Board of Education of South Dakota speaking to the proposed rules and regulations of Public Law 93-638.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »