clearly defined in the law itself, as had been the previous habit. The provision for fiscal year 1951, under the heading, "Health, Education, and Welfare Services," read:

For expenses necessary to provide health, education, and welfare services for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with States and other organizations, including payment (in advance or from date of admission) of care, tuition, assistance, and other expenses of Indians in boarding homes, institutions, or schools; grants and other assistance to needy Indians; maintenance of law and order, and payment of rewards for information or evidence concerning violations of law on Indian reservations or lands; operation of Indian arts and crafts shops and museums; and per diem in lieu of subsistence and other expenses of Indians participating in folk festivals. ($40,252,328)*

The annual appropriations acts for the Bureau of Indian Affairs play a significant and peculiar role in Indian education, not only because they determine the amount and purposes of federal funds for Indian education, but perhaps more importantly because they contain within them several major provisions which actually govern the use of the education funds. Thus, it appears that appropriations statutes make a more significant contribution to the legal framework of Indian education than does any substantive legislation or treaty provision. Federal involvement in Indian education can be traced more directly through administrative decisions and budget requests, reflected in the appropriations statutes, than from special Congressional authorization. It can be argued that because they were part of the appropriations acts, which themselves are subject to Congressional scrutiny and approval, they, in fact, received an indirect authorization. However, the conspicuous lack of substantive legislation to define the federal role in Indian education or to regulate the federal educational services for Indians demonstrates a lack of direction on the part of the Congress and an exercise of a great deal of administrative discretion by the Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Despite the fact that appropriations acts possess equal force of law as other statutes, it seems as though the focal issue in their enactment has not been whether services should in fact be provided, or what the nature of those services should be, but rather how much money to channel into existing institutions and additional services deemed necessary by the Bureau.

It is interesting to note that two very significant pieces of legislation passed in the 1900's are not reflected in the language of the appropriations statutes, despite the fact that they impact the eligibility and delivery of educational services for Indian people. The Citizenship Act of June 2, 1924, conferred United States citizenship on "all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States." The implications of this act are many and significant for Indian education, particularly when the questions of who is responsible for educating American Indians and who is eligible for federal Indian education services are considered. Since Indians are citizens of the United States, the state in which they reside, and of their tribe,

61

5 T.S. "Statutes at Large," Vol. 64, 683.

60 Cohen. "Federal Indian Law." supra note 1, p. 88. Cohen states these statutes and the conditions they entailed were given much consideration by administrators in determining the parameters of their official duties and responsibilities for Indian affairs. See Appendix J for a listing of the substantive provisions contained in Indian Appropriations Acts which affect education.

61 U.S. "Statutes at Large," Vol. 43, 253.

it has been a matter of continual discussion as to how this situation affects federal guardianship and the concomitant trust responsibility. The movement to transfer responsibility for educational and social services for Indians to the states was under way when this legislation was passed; however, it did not clarify the problem. It was not until the passage of the Johnson-O'Malley Act in 1934 62 that a more direct step was taken by the federal government to enlist the assistance of the states in Indian education. Nevertheless, the appropriations statutes do not reflect the change engendered by this act.63

Fundamental to the Johnson-O'Malley Act is federal recognition of a continuing unique responsibility for Indian education in spite of the states' legal obligation to educate Indians just as other citizens. JOM was enacted to establish a new federal state relationship for administering education funds for Indians. It was not, however, perceived as immediately making any radical change, but only continuing tuition payments, which had been made to local school districts for decades by the federal government in lieu of property taxes for Indian education in public schools. This perhaps explains why there is no specific mention of the act in the annual appropriations laws; they merely continued to describe funds directed for "the tuition of children enrolled in public schools."

62 U.S. "Statutes at Large," Vol. 48, 596.

63 Although the Bureau of Indian Affairs presently cites the Snyder Act of November 2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208) as its authority for requesting appropriations, there is no mention of this authorizing legislation in the appropriations statutes.

E. THE FEDERAL EXPERIENCE IN INDIAN EDUCATION (1950-1970)

As the decade of the 1950's began, Willard W. Beatty was nearing the end of a 15-year tenure as director of the federal program of Indian education, which began in 1936. Today, a quarter of a century after he left that post, he is acclaimed as one of the most imaginative and innovative figures in the history of Indian education. He came to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the American progressive education movement in which he played a leading role. He began his federal service under Indian Commissioner John Collier, anthropologist, reformer, and champion of Indian rights. In 1928, the celebrated "Meriam Report" had shattered the stodgy, authoritarian, and unabashedly assimilationist character of the BIA's school system. The Indian Reorganization Act, passed in 1934, had given impetus to the control by Indians of their own affairs.

Typical of Beatty's reforms were: the abolition of the remnants of military type organization still lurking in BIA boarding schools; the infusion of new blood with fresh ideas into the supervisory staffs; the use of reservation day schools as focal points for community development and for improved farming, ranching, and homemaking; and the dignifying of the native culture in the schools by the development of learning materials, which included use of the native languages and Indian subject matter.

Then came World War II and the BIA's educational program was devastated through loss of personnel, deterioration of school facilities, and the general upheaval and dislocation which war brings about. Margaret Szasz in her book, Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination, 1928-1973, pays homage to Beatty's early vears. She appears to feel, however, that after the war. Beatty got off the track by becoming too much of an "acculturationist" in his objectives. If this is true, perhaps it brings us to the question of how the federal Indian policy in the education field has come about. Who Makes or Influences the Policy Decisions?

Who has formulated the federal government's policy affecting its relationship with its Indian constituents? Who or what has influenced, shaned, and guided it? Probably most persons believe that the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Bureau's commissioner has done so. This is partially true, of course, but it is true to a lesser extent than is generally supposed. For one thing, the BIA operates within a framework of laws passed by the Congress. A number of these laws, such as the Indian Reorganization Act already referred to, have been beneficial. But some actions of Congress have been disastrous. For example, House Concurrent Resolution 108, which in the early 1950's called for the early termination of the federal trust relationship with Indian tribes, so frightened Indian leaders that they have been dubious ever since about accepting programs, which call upon Indian groups to assume increased responsibility for the administration of their own affairs.

Then, too, during the two decades with which this paper is primarily concerned, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a part of the Department of Interior, was under the oversight of the Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management. Typically, this official had little conversance with Indian affairs, but the BIA was always in competition with bureaus oriented toward public resources for the budget dollar. Similarly, the Bureau of Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) by its control over funding exerted great influence over the initiation of educational programs. Occasionally, as in the late 1960's, a Secretary of the Interior would take a personal interest in actively directing Indian affairs.

Over the years, "Indian interest organizations" have exerted influence on Indian policy; for example, the Association on American Indian Affairs, a New York based group composed mainly of nonIndians. Also, many scholars, particularly anthropologists, sociologists, and linguists, have taken more than an academic interest in Indian affairs and have conducted research, written profusely, served as consultants, etc.

The most decisive determiner of all, perhaps, has been the social climate of a particular period or era-the temper of the times, so to speak. This will be illustrated in the remainder of this paper. Until recent times, Indians themselves have perhaps had the least influence on policy, but that is changing rapidly now. But, always policy has been made in the crucible of pressing circumstances, usually without benefit of long-range planning, and often from among alternatives all of which were undesirable.

The Beatty-Thompson Transition

Willard Beatty resigned his position as director of Indian education in 1951 to accept the job of deputy director of UNESCO. It was understood that he had done so because Dillon Myer, the last Indian commissioner in the Truman administration, had demoted him from a line to a staff role, setting up a situation in which he did not believe he could function. His successor, Hildegard Thompson, was made director the following year and Beatty had a hand in selecting her. Mrs. Thompson was a professional educator who had worked with the people of the Philippines before joining the BIA. At the time of her promotion, she was director of Navajo education. How could she hope to succeed in a staff role when Beatty felt he could not? Because, as Beatty is reported to have said, "She can bend farther without breaking than any person I know."

Before his departure from the BIA, Beatty had set in motion certain policies and programs that Mrs. Thompson would carry forward for many years, in addition to those she herself initiated. What were some of these programs? Did they represent a shift from Beatty's earlier philosophy? And, if so, were there good reasons for it?

The Special Navajo Education Program

In 1868, the United States government concluded a treaty with the Navajo Tribe and the latter was permitted to return home from Ft. Sumner on the Pecos River where they had been interned for four long years. The treaty provided that the government would provide a

teacher for every 30 Navajo children who presented themselves at school. For 78 years, relatively few Navajo children presented themselves, and by and large, the government was well content to let it go at that.

At the close of the Second World War, only one-third of the Navajo children of school age were in school. During the war, some 3,400 young Navajo men had served well in the armed forces. They were introduced to the variety and complexity of the world beyond the reservation, and they were shocked to learn of the handicap which lack of education had imposed upon them. They came home determined that Navajo youngsters would receive an education.

Willard Beatty was an innovative progressive educationalist, but he was also pragmatic and he was not doctrinaire. Schools could not be built on the reservation overnight, and he used the only space he had available in old established boarding schools where enrollments had been declining because Indian youth in their regions were enrolling in public schools. These boarding schools ranged geographically from California to Oregon to Oklahoma, Beatty assigned Hildegard Thompson and a staff of experienced teachers to design an educational program, which would provide functional English language skills and a basic marketable vocational skill in five years' time to out-of-school adolescents who would soon reach marriageable age. By 1961, more than 4,000 Navajo students had been graduated from this program and thousands of others had attended for varying lengths of time.

There was much about the program that was not ideal. Boarding schools for Indians have long been anathema to many persons, and the BIA itself for many years has not viewed the boarding school as a preferred way of educating Indian children and youth. Navajo officials approved the plan, no doubt with some misgivings and Navajo parents suffered it rather than see their children go without an education. Beatty and Thompson believed that in the above-described situation, the choice was not between desirable alternatives, but between the course they chose and a lifetime of illiteracy and poverty for thousands of Navajos.

Educational Research

During the 1940's, Beatty had contracted with the University of Chicago for some research in Indian education; and in 1950, he made a similar arrangement with the University of Kansas in Lawrence, which was extended after Mrs. Thompson became director. Basically, this research consisted of administering standardized achievement tests to some 14,000 Indian students and nearly 10,000 white students in eleven states and in public, mission, and BIA schools. The tests showed that Indian students on the average did not achieve as well as white students and that they compared less favorably the farther they went in school. These results were widely noted in Indian education circles and, later, among persons concerned with the education of children of other disadvantaged minorities. The findings were often interpreted as showing that Indian children were receiving an inferior education in the schools in which they were enrolled. However, there were two findings which escaped notice almost entirely, although they