munities that are afforded an opportunity to benefit from these funds. The underlying intent of the Johnson-O'Malley program must be expanded to insure an adequate, comprehensive support package. Otherwise, the needs of those Indian children who lack adequate clothing, shelter, medical services, and dental services will not be met. Until such time as the economy of the Indian community allows parents to meet these needs, a model similar to that of the Follow Through Program is needed to insure that the total learning needs of the Indian child are met.

A key in designing meaningful education for Indian people is the need for adequate and relevant non-compensatory educational programs. For compensatory education ignores the culturally- and linguistically-based skills and knowledges the Indian child carries with him to school. So long as primary emphasis is placed upon compensatory, supplemental services, the only real choice open to Indian people is between services that are not relevant or no services at all. Such are the realities of the day-to-day existence of Indians.

Finally, in order to correct those problems that define the parameters of service delivery for Indian people, the present system of data collection must be overhauled completely. Steps must be taken to insure standardization of data-collection systems to enable comparisons of Indian education programs. For example, the existing policies of OMB inhibiting data collection on Indians served by Federal programs must be revised. Too often, monies are attributed to expenditures for the benefit of Indian people with little or no substantiation of the services actually reaching Indians.

Recommendations made in previous sections can only alleviate the problems for Indian education; they cannot eliminate them. Thus, if meaningful change is to be effected, it will require a longterm legislative and administrative program that is predicated on the following recommendations.

Long-Term Recommendations

At present, the service delivery system involves too many pieces of legislation to affect change by legislative amendment. Therefore, there must be a comprehensive education bill designed to insure adequate quantity and quality of education services to Indian peoples. A comprehensive legislative bill will provide a mechanism that allows the programs it establishes to respond to those needs of Indian people that are distinct from those of other minority groups. For example, it must allow a concept of bilingual/bicultural education to take root recognizing the importance of restoring Indian languages as well as of making the transition to English.

Policy guidelines must be laid out clearly which reaffirm the commitment of the U.S. Congress to meet the educational needs of Indian people. These guidelines must include a mandate to federal agencies defining the scope of services they are to provide for Indians and the manner in which they are to provide them. This mandate should also provide for the creation of funding incentives that will insure that the policy will be implemented consistently from the federal to the state and local level. (This would include providing incentives and planning monies to states for the purpose of designing curriculum

units based on Native American language, history, and culture and incorporating in the regular school curriculum.)

The last major policy review of Indian affairs was in 1928-some forty-eight years ago. Since that time, very little has changed in Indian education. The types of schools are the same, and the federal agencies administering the services and programs are the same. Limited respect for Indian culture and limited development of Indian curriculum has been initiated. Yet, surveys, studies, and investigations have occurred with growing momentum each year. It is time for the U.S. Congress to realize that it has been grossly negligent in the area of policy making and financing for Indian education. Congress has given Indians piecemeal efforts and totally inadequate financing in this area. They have abdicated Congressional intent to administrative discretion. At the beginning of the new Bicentennial year, Congress should declare a policy of support and financing for Indian community control of all aspects of Indian education. The obligation and right to an education which all Indians feel they have from the Congress and the federal government should be fulfilled.

D. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS GENERATED BY TESTIMONY,

CONFERENCES AND FIELD EXPERIENCE

(Submitted by Lorraine F. Misiaszek, Affiliated Tribes of N.W. Indians, Advocates for Indian Education, September 1976)

Educational Philosophy-The Problem

During the course of Task Force Five hearings, many presentors testified to an understanding of what American Indian educational philosophy was in terms of belief and practice by Indian people. This belief, as stated, is that formal and informal education is a lifelong learning and growing experience from the cradleboard to the grave with its foundation inherent in traditional Indian culture.

This philosophical belief has significantly eroded through the years due to the imposition of the American educational process which, in turn, operated without a clear and consistent educational philosophy. Federal policies in Indian education has been responsible for the development and implementation of particular educational activities designed and directed to specific age groups without the unifying element that an enlightened philosophy and related educational goals would provide.

Concern was expressed in hearing testimony of the need to establish clearly-defined goals of education at every level, and to provide the necessary support services.

Recommendation

It is recommended that one definition be established for American Indian educational philosophy that would apply to all educational efforts. Furthermore, all future educational plans for American Indians must be made in concert and consultation with Indian tribes if federal programs are to impact Indian education.

Eligibility-The Problem

The problem of eligibility for Indian educational services as repeatedly expressed in hearing testimony by Indian people. Governmental agency criteria to determine eligibility varied from very stringent to extremely loose requirements. The Bureau of Indian Affairs required that an Indian must be enrolled with a federally recognized tribe, be of one-quarter blood quantum of a tribe, and reside on or near a reservation. Other federal agencies such as the U.S. Office of Education only require that persons can declare themselves to be Indian if an ancestor was Indian. No certification of proof of Indian blood quantum, or other proof relating to federal recognition of a tribe is required.

The definition of who is an "Indian" for the purposes of Indian educational services creates confusion amongst Indian people and its application to program funds supports projects and programs in the U.S. Office of Education, for eligible "Indians" having less need while those experiencing the greatest educational need are penalized because they lack the sophistication to lobby for their program funds.

Many requests from Indian people to the Task Force Five were to the effect that one definition of "Indian" for eligibility criteria be established and followed by all Indian educational service agencies in state and federal governments.

Recommendation

The criteria for determining who is eligible to receive educational services as American Indians should rest upon the identification by the tribal group as to who is a member of their tribe or band. The tribe or group must offer proof of a history of tribal existence.

No federal agency should impose their own definition upon Indian people as to who is an Indian, nor should residence or federal recognition be a factor in providing educational services.

Organization-The Problem

One issue emerged sharply from all the testimony presented at hearings and conferences strongly indicated a need to develop a mechanism through which educational services could be provided to American Indians most directly. Under the present system, the federal agencies administering educational programs and services each have their own guidelines and eligibility criteria. No two programs have identical requirements, and very little coordination of efforts exist. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, are the two major agencies concerned. Of the problems confronting Indian people, a few stated in the needs documentation are the following:

A. Each educational project requires a separate parent committee.

B. Basic program requirements differ for each agency, and changes occur yearly which pose problems for an Indian community or school and do not have adequate staff to keep up to date with the many programs.

C. Funding is very uncertain on a year to year basis and often arrives very late, affecting project effectiveness, particularly in employing staff and obtaining materials.

Recommendation

A governmental unit needs to be established to consolidate educational programs and services to American Indians. Authorizing legislation must be introduced which would place all entitlement, supplemental and basic funding programs under one Indian educational agency to provide services on a national basis. Included in this consolidation effort would be the Bureau of Indian Affairs. U.S. Office of Indian Education and HEW Adult Education, Vocational and Higher Education programs.

Program Regulations-The Problem

Locally identified educational needs have been given very little recognition according to hearing testimony. Local education groups are forced to develop their programs around funding criteria in various national program guidelines to meet the program priorities rather than the needs of the local community or school. Also, program priorities change from year to year frequently creating additional difficulties for those making application or competing through proposals for program funds.

Recommendation

Insofar as it is possible, common and consistent basic regulations and guidelines be established for educational programs and related services for American Indians.

Coordination-The Problem

National Indian Educational efforts are carried out in a piecemeal manner thereby working against impacting education positively. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Indian Education Act (Title IV), Johnson-O'Malley, BIA Higher Education, and others all appear to operate separately at the national level, while the tribes must cope with each agency on an individual basis.

Lacking technical assistance from any established source, tribal councils must look into their own resources to accomplish coordination of programs, funds and staff.

Recommendation

Create a mechanism within the primary federal agency responsible for Indian education to develop a procedure which would serve to coordinate all programs within the various departments that administer what can be broadly defined as educational efforts for tribes. A well developed coordination plan would assist tribal communities, implement comprehensive program by pulling together CETA, ONAP, HUD, BIA and many other programs relating to education for the enhancement of the total community or tribe.

Communication-The Problem

Complaints expressed by Indian people testifying at hearings emphasized the problem of a communication gap between the national education office and the local community school. Due to the lack of knowledge and information, deadline dates for program submission are not met, changes in regulations, etc., are made but the information has not been passed on to the local schools, and frequently, the local Indian people are not notified of congressional hearings relating to such crucial subjects as appropriations, legislative changes and new legislation affecting education which they wish to comment on before implementation. Indian education has suffered most often in the remote and geographically isolated Indian communities because they have not had the advantage of vitally important information early enough to act, and frequently have received no information at all. Recommendation

Any agency free from federal or institutional constraints should be authorized to provide educational and related information to all tribes