The overwhelming majority of those states responding to the ques'tion concerning the state's role in the education of Indian children indicated that the state's role was no different for Indian children than for all other children. In a typical reply, the respondent for Colorado said, "The state has the same responsibility for Indian children as any other child." Likewise, the respondent for Maryland said, "Same as all children." However, the Illinois respondent did indicate some interest in having the state provide all students with an understanding of all racial and/or ethnic groups in the United States. Similarly, the Indian respondent said that it was the responsibility of the state to develop the ethnic heritage of all students. In regard to the question concerning the Federal Government's role in the education of Indian children, nearly all respondents indicated that they viewed the Federal Government only as a funding agency.

There are two federal agencies with the primary role in the education of American Indians. These are the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Office of Education.

Are there any philosophical policy or program policy or financial policy issues of these agencies which are confusing or contradictory at the state level? Please identify.

Most of the respondents replied negatively to this question. However, several respondents indicated that the distinction B.I.A. makes 'between reservation and non-reservation Indians has created a problem. Also, a significant number of the respondents complained that there is little accountability required by either the B.I.A. or the U.S. O.E. for Indian education projects and recommended that the state educational agencies be provided with greater administrative authority and control over the federal funding of Indian education.

Please indicate any legislative recommendations or administrative clarification which our task force should make to the Commission and the U.S. Congress. Would you please cite your reasons for the recommendations.

It is not surprising that the respondents who are officials/employees of the various state education agencies were quite consistent in recommending that the S.E.A.'s should be granted increased authority to admininster and monitor the various federal Indian education programs. Several respondents recommended that more effective use of federal Indian education funds would result if the funds were pooled and allocated to the S.E.A.'s in the form of block grants. The respondent for Minnesota made sweeping recommendations which in part involved the transfer of all B.I.A. education funds to the U.S.O.E. for disbursement, fully funding Title IV (Indian Education Act), increased responsibility for Indian education by the U.S.O.E. and the reduction of the B.I.A. to areas of health, welfare, housing and special projects. Are there unmet needs in Indian education to which you feel the federal governments should be responding? Please describe.

There was little, if any, commonality of the respondent's perceptions of unmet needs in Indian education to which the federal government should respond.

Has your department_identified handicapped Indian children of school-age? Please describe the nature of their handicap and forward any documents which you may have on this area.

There was considerable confusion by the respondents to this question. Some of the respondents considered handicapped Indian children as unique from other handicapped children while most respondents considered handicapped Indian children no different from other handicapped children. Although the vast majority of the respondents replied positively to the question, it was obvious that the question had been misinterpreted and the data could not be accurately reported.

Would you please identify, by name and address, the extent of Indian participation in various state level boards and committees?

Although the majority of the respondents (14 of 23) indicated that American Indians were involved in state level boards and committees in their respective states, a disappointing number of the respondents (9 of 23) replied that Indians were not involved.

What role do you see for Indian tribes, communities, and parents in the education of Indian children?

It is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of the respondents indicated that they perceived the role increasing for Indian tribes, communities, and parents in regard to input into the education of Indian children. However, several respondents replied that in their opinion the role of parents of ethnic groups, including Indian parents, should not be different than for parents of other children.

An area which the Task Force had not attempted to poll also surfaced through this survey: state attitudes towards Indian people and the special federal programs that serve them. Although respondents did not express overt animosity towards Indians and Indian programs, in many instances, the responses of states to the questionnaire indicated a strong hostility towards H.E.W. and B.I.A. Indian programs. It appears that states are particularly concerned where such programs bypass them and target funds directly into the Indian tribe or local community. This attitude on the part of the state clearly assumes importance when analyzing state role in educational policy and finance.

C. STATE POLICY AND FINANCE STUDY

While education, historically and legally, has been a state function, the states have generally delegated much of the operative responsibility to local governments. However, during the past decade, there has been a marked growth in the state role in education. This can be attributed primarily to a greater dependence upon the state for the financing of general education. The expanding role in public school finance has been primarily occasioned by a series of decisions by both state and federal courts. The National Conference of State Legislatures summarizes the legal impetus for recent change:

From the landmark Serrano decision of 1971 to more recent rulings in Robinson and Horton, the courts have made it clear: public school finance laws which make the quality of a child's education dependent on local wealth are constitutionally suspect and vulnerable to judicial change.1

New finance laws in several states have permitted a greater than average increase in expenditure in many poor school districts. More state monies have been allocated to children who are more costly to educate. School tax burdens in these states have been distributed more equitably.

However, significant interstate and intrastate disparities continue to exist. The range in expenditure per pupil in public schools by states has remained on a proportional basis nearly the same from 1969-1970 through 1974-1975; on an absolute basis, it has increased. As shown on the following chart, many states continue to show substantial variations in expenditures per pupil by school district. Meanwhile, the federal share of elementary and secondary education revenues has declined over the past six fiscal years.

1 The National Conference of State Legislatures, School of Finance Reform: A Legislator's Handbook, 1975.

(139)

Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Education Statistics, "Education Directory, 1973-74: Public School Systems," and preliminary data.

A basic issue remains of whether and to what extent federal financial aid is necessary to help states meet the problems of school finance. A 1973 report by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations concerning this issue concluded:

Evidence provided in this report indicates that with few exceptions, states have ample untapped tax potential for this purpose. Obviously, action on school finance that requires States to alter substantially the degree of reliance on the local property tax for school support takes time and would require public acceptance.'

2 Ibid., pp. 95-96.

A more recent evaluation conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures recognizes the limitations of this approach at this time:

Given current budget projections, funds to support major changes in school finance laws of most states will not be available until fiscal 1978 at the earliest.

While all children in poor school districts wait for leadership from some source on this vital issue, it is a problem of immediate urgency for Indian children. As a recent study undertaken by the National Indian Education Association succinctly demonstrates, the fundamental factors affecting financing of education programs for Indian students relate back to the states:

Questions of sovereignty notwithstanding, when Indian children go to public schools they go as individuals into a State system. The whole problem of equalization of funding for education, with its implications for improved educational opportunities for Indians, is in the hands of State legislatures.*

This may be attributed to the fact that education in school districts with high proportions of children from disadvantaged families is generally considered to require more intensive and thus more costly educational services than in more typical school districts. Data from the U.S. Census of Population and elsewhere provide conclusive evidence that the American Indian is the most disadvantaged minority in the country.

The availability (or lack thereof) of adequate financial resources is the basic determinant of any program to meet the special educational needs of Native American students. Nearly 70 percent of these students attend public elementary and secondary schools. Thus, any failure to meet these special needs must fall largely on the local, state, and federal mechanisms that funnel funds to the local school districts and hence to special programs for Indian students.

These mechanisms have, in the past, generally failed. Five reasons for these failures appear to be of greatest signifiance: (1) fiscal inequity both among states and among school districts within states; (2) the fact that school districts with significant numbers of Indian students are often "poor," i.e., have limited local resources; (3) the wide dispersion of Indian students, which hinders development of special programs to meet their needs; (4) most federal programs with significant resources do not incorporate provisions to assure that funds will be directed to programs for disadvantaged Indian students; and (5) federal programs that have provided the bulk of federal funds toschool districts with Indian students (Title I ESEA and SAFA) have declined in recent years in absolute terms and very significantly in terms of the increased costs of providing educational services. Factors Affecting Financing of Indian Education

Any purview of available revenues per pupil among the states or within a given state indicates wide disparities that cannot be explained by cost differences alone. Despite efforts to equalize educational opportunity through various state aid formulas, a wide disparity in the

National Indian Education Association, "A Study of the Impact of PL 638 on ESEA, Title IV, IEA, and JOM" for the U.S. Department of Interior, B.I.A. Education Division, September 1, 1976.