APPENDIX T

SURVEY OF STATE BOARD OF REGENTS

A survey was made of all the State Boards of Regents to determine availability of funds for Indian students, the presence of Indian studies, and generally the attitude demonstrated by the state toward Indian education.

An overview of this survey of 29 states indicates that not only are BIA and OE providing inadequate support but also the State Board of Regents across the United States does not provide for American Indians: (1) adequate funding sources; (2) curriculum development assistance-either technical or financial; (3) special provisions for educatign aḍministrators and teachers about Native American culture; (4) involvement from the local Indian community concerning the policies made by the State Board of Regents. There are exceptions to these cases, most notably being the State of Montana. Other states with a high Indian population are also providing assistance, but in general, these are very few.

It seems apparent the State Board of Regents does not assume the responsibility for the Indians' particular needs and concerns unless a high population of Indians is extant in that state. However, this type of policy, particularly in states with a low Indian population, can hinder the teaching of Native American culture, as the teachers are not necessarily trained nor skilled about matters relating to Indian history. This lack of training can perpetuate the myths and stereotypes of Native Americans, and continues to reinforce the inaccurate view of American Indians to students and the public in general.

In addition, some states with high Indian populations are not providing scholarship assistance, particularly in California. In many instances, the state implies that funding sources are available from the Federal government and, therefore, the responsibility for providing money is not assumed.

For the purposes of receiving scholarship assistance, the definition of Indian varied from state to state. There was no concrete definition and in most cases, another department, i.e., Ethnic Studies, Department of Anthropology, etc. (Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah). A further description of those states providing special programs is given below.

STATE BOARD OF REGENTS SURVEY

Number of Replies-29; List of State Responses:

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.

The following states listed specific scholarship programs for American Indians:

Florida, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

Oklahoma.-There are several Indian study programs in the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, including a bilingual Cherokee program at Northeastern Oklahoma State University, a bilingual Choctaw program at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, and other Indian programs at Claremore Junior College, Northern Oklahoma College and University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma.

Montana.-"Indian Culture Master Plan” (adopted 12/15/75 by the State Board of Education of Montana); Article X of the Constitution of Montana; House Bill 343 (Section 75-6129 to 75-6132, R.C.M. 1973); House Joint Resolution 60 (1974). These laws support the special provisions: The Native American perspective should be emphasized in applicable course offerings in the Montana University system; Native American Studies Director and Dean of Education should co

operatively establish guidelines for all persons involved in Native American Studies; involvement of the Indian people, as emphasized in House Bill 343 and House Joint Resolution 60 and that such courses seek to present Indian Culture from a tribal or Native American perspective.

North Dakota.-The University of North Dakota has an Indian Studies Program authorized by the Board of Higher Education. (Several state-supported colleges and universities have Indian Studies courses by administrative direction.)

South Dakota.-Two Schools (University of South Dakota at Vermillion and Black Hills State College) have state-supported ($90,000) special Indian programs to support counseling, tutorial programs, etc. South Dakota State University, Northern State College, Dakota State College, and University of South Dakota at also have personnel particularly assigned for working with Indian students and providing Indian Studies.

Four states responded they have future plans for making special provisions to adapt a program of Indian studies at the state-supported colleges and universities. Four other states responded that it was not their responsibility to initiate special programs; that each institution plans its own special provisions (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Utah). In addition, these states would seek state, federal, and private funds as their source of monies to run any programs, were specific institutions to approve any programs for Indian studies. Given below are details concerning those states that have intentions of making special provisions:

Connecticut.-Proposed legislation is being drafted for the next General Assembly for a specialized program for American Indians at the University of Connecticut. The support for the program will be sought from the state and federal government as well as private sources.

Oklahoma. (This state has special provisions in existence at the present time.) Eastern Oklahoma State College currently has a request pending before the State Regents for an Indian Studies Program. The various Indian Education Programs are part of the general instructional programs of the institutions and are funded primarily by state-appropriated funds coupled with revolving fund income, principally student fees and tuition. There may be additional federal support for certain of the programs.

Nevada.-Special provisions are being made, but plans have been held up due to lack of funds and personnel. Presently, through state funds would the special provisions be funded, although funds could possibly come from federal or private sources.

Rhode Island.-The Rhode Island Department of Education and Rhode Island College are planning to conduct graduate workshops on Native (Rhode Island) Education and Culture. The University of Rhode Island has and is running workshops for teachers on Narragansett Indian Culture. Presently and for this fiscal year, all programs must be funded with state funds. It is hoped that the use of federal funds (Title IV) would be approved for next year so these programs could be expanded and improved.

Human Relations Courses

Montana is the only state that requires teachers to complete a course about American Indians. Four states indicated that their teachers must complete a requirement concerning minority groups and ethnic groups, thereby inferring their teachers learn about American Indians and Indian affairs. (Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada) Two states, Michigan and Hawaii, encourage their teachers to partake in multi-cultural education, but do not require such courses prior to teacher certification. Some states remarked that the State Boards of Regents for their state does not carry any jurisdiction for teacher certification (Oklahoma, New Hampshire, South Dakota). Given below is Montana's act requiring a course of study related to American Indians:

Montana.-House Bill 343, now codified as statute in 75-6129 to 75-6132, R.C.M, 1947-This statute directs that by July 1, 1979, only those certified personnel who have completed training in American Indian studies shall be employed in those schools whose Indian populations qualifies them to receive federal funds for Indian educational programs. House Joint Resolution 60 was passed during the 1974 Legislative session by overwhelming majority and directed "the Board of Public Education and the Board of Higher Education (Board of Regents) to develop a master plan for enriching the background of all public school teachers in American Indian culture."

Role of the Federal Government—Accurate Curriculum Development

The role of the federal government in stimulating accurate curriculum about American Indians was answered by either a direct involvement, involvement from a financial support basis, no involvement whatsoever, and no response. A further breakdown of the responses is given below:

Direct involvement for developing the curriculum—Alabama, Arkansas, ́ Georgia, Michigan, and New Mexico (6).

Michigan. It appears that the federal government has sufficient data on Indian history to provide states with a comprehensive, chronological history of tribes, pertinent events, issues, and legislative history affecting the Indian population. The respective tribes and /or various Indian organizations, it seems, could also produce a documentation, which portrays a more accurate history of America's Indian people. It will be necessary, it seems, to provide recommendations that the federal and local state governments can act on, such as creating policy statement in regards to equal and fair treatment of the Indian people in all public school and college curricula material.

New Mexico.-Provide accurate information about needs in this area, including specifics about local tribes in each state. Provide accurate material for use in the classroom.

Provide adequate funding and assistance so that an accurate curriculum about American Indians can be developed-Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah.

Connecticut.-According to the Connecticut Indian Affairs Council, Connecticut's Indian tribe does not qualify for financial education assistance under current federal regulations that is available to certain descendants from certain designated tribes or reservations, which have been predetermined by the BIA and located west of the Mississippi and the far western states. The federal legislation of Title IV should be amended to include all American Indians. When the federal government has provided education funding for all American Indians, this would stimulate accurate curricula for them in all colleges and universities.

Oklahoma.-The role of the federal government should be through direct support of instructional programs if this can be accomplished without oppressive federal involvement in the structuring of curriculum offering. Latitude should be given to the states and institutions in cooperation with the Indian population in determining both need and content.

Montana.-The federal government should provide funding for development of curriculum materials, which accurately reflect the views, history, current opinion, etc., of American Indians.

Nevada. Provisions of profit funding.

Rhode Island.-The role of the federal government in stimulating accurate curriculum concerning Native (American Indians) should be to provide funding and guidelines (requiring Native community participation) so that state education agencies and local education agencies could produce curriculum which accurately reflects the historical and contemporary Native Culture.

South Dakota.-If it (Federal Government) plays a role, it should be a block grant of a continuing nature. The stimulation of initiating, then stopping support is an approach that is extremely detrimental to an operation.

Utah.-If at all, only via federal grants for curricular modification. Faculties continue to be the ones who should be responsible for curricular determinations. The role of the federal government in stimulating accurate curriculum about American Indians should be none, and that this responsibility be taken of through each university and individual institutions who can respond to the needs of their individual Indian students-Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina.

No response given-California, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, West Virginia.

Involvement Between the Board of Regents and Indian Tribes, Communities or

Organizations

Involvement between the Board of Regents and Indian tribes, communities, or organizations in planning and assuring that higher education programs, services, and opportunities reach Indian people was indicated by six states-Connecticut, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nevada, South Dakota, and Utah. A more detailed explanation of such a relationship is given below: