C. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The seeds from which federal educational policy for American Indians grew can be traced to the early colonial history. They are the precedents for the policies of today.

Federal policy concerning Indian education had two thrusts-isolation and assimilation. The children were to be taken away from their parents, communities, and tribes. They were to be isolated and confined to schools outside of their community. The education they received, whether in or out of school, was to be organized and directed towards de-Indianizing the children and remolding them in the image of the white American. Throughout the educational history for American Indians, there has never been enough teachers, facilities, textbooks, or supplies. The curriculum has not reflected Indian values or culture. Indian languages have not been taught or permitted in the classrooms. In fact, for a number of years, the government withheld food from Indian parents to make them send their children to school. The children were spirited off to obtain an enrollment quota to satisfy the United States Congress and its appropriations.

Where our leaders and tribes were despoiled, restricted to reservations, stripped of their local resources, and made dependent on the United States Government, the large off-reservation boarding schools were created. These schools encompassed the physical needs of our children-food, clothing, and shelter, but deprived them of the love of their family and the beauty of their culture and heritage.

It is clear that education on federal terms was not an all-encompassing, lifetime of learning experience. But, rather, it was many institutional forms and processes developed to give Indians a minimum of skills with a maximum of cultural alienation.

As each of the political policies were developed concerning federal relations with Indians, they used education as the means for implementing them. As policies changed, so did the people, and the focus of education. Although the underlying philosophy of education for assimilation remained the same, the policies effecting it swung back and forth like a pendulum. Educational services were fragmented and scattered among different groups and types of institutions serving Indian children. Instability was a fact for old existing and newly proposed educational institutions. Indian people viewed the role of the federal government in education as a right and obligation. Yet, that same government sought to look the other way if states would assume responsibility for education. Where this did not happen, the federal government would exercise its discretionary authority and provide limited, inadequate education either in its own institutions or through subsidies to the states.

However, as citizens, American Indians were entitled to educational services from the states. Since 70% of the Indian children were in public schools, the reality is that states played a critical role in the

education of Indian children. Although the U.S. Constitution reserved the power to the states in the area of education, the states have delegated this responsibility to local educational agencies. So long as there is a laissez-faire attitude from the federal government concerning the education of Indian children by the state, and there is no clear mandate to monitor or evaluate federal programs for the benefit of these children, states will continue to be ambivalent concerning their role and responsibility.

There is a confusing array of statistics concerning the number of Indian school age children, their drop-out rate, the number of children not in school, and the educational level of Indians in the country. One can choose whichever figures they wish. Since BIA keeps statistics on reservation Indian children of at least one quarter Indian blood and United States Office of Education keeps statistics on children enrolled in public schools, there are supposedly 337,000 school age children. (Children attending BIA schools are listed at 49,000; those attending public schools are listed at 278,000. Dropout rates range from 25% to 75% and 11,000 reservation children are not attending any school.)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Office of Education have primary responsibility for educating American Indians. Both agencies have a different definition of who is an Indian for purposes of services. The Bureau (BIA) uses the "quarter blood requirement of federally recognized tribes," and the U.S. Office of Education (U.S.O.E.) uses the general definition found in the Indian Education Act as well as the BIA quarter blood requirement. Neither agency has developed any policies or guidelines concerning the quality of education programs for Indian education.

Although the quality of education for American Indians has received a great deal of attention in recent years, neither federal agency has developed any policy guidelines or standards for insuring such quality. While both agencies have an Indian education office, decisionmaking in both agencies seems to be fragmented and tucked away in an isolated level of hierarchy. Although national and parent advisory committees have been established, they are not utilized for setting national priorities or program direction. In fact, the services of these agencies are predicated on what is acceptable to Congress and the White House.

In the area of program administration, items like program eligibility and funding criteria have effectively limited the type and scope of educational programs. It has also limited the Indian groups receiving such funds. There is no plan for equitable funding directed to the diversity of Indian groups and their needs.

Through the use of its staff, the regulations, contracts, and grants, both agencies create the illusion of an educational policy for Indians. Yet, one does not find a clear-cut definition of such a policy. Although there is a defined legal basis as to whom the services are for, in the implementation of these programs, certain segments of the Indian population are excluded. Many of these decisions have been made administratively. The nature of the role and responsibility (discretionary or operational) of these agencies is not clear and thus can be viewed as being institutionalized discretion. Because of the po

litical pecking order found in these agencies, the efforts concerning Indian education depend on where it fits in the agency's overall budget.

Although the U.S.O.E. has developed policy_regulations for its programs, the lack of Indian professionals or non-Indian professionals with prior experience in Indian affairs within program areas affecting the education of Indians results in many of the needs and concerns of Indian people being overlooked or not understood.

The BIA is just beginning to acknowledge its responsibility in publishing its rules and regulations for public (Indian) comment. For years, they have operated by use of the BIA Manual, which was circulated among their employees for administrative policy but not made available to Indians. Because of recent lawsuits, in particular Ruiz v. Morton, this is beginning to change.

Both agencies are still most comfortable dealing with traditional education agencies instead of new innovative Indian educational efforts.

It is apparent from the State Policies and Finance Analysis that there is a lack of clear definition regarding federal supplementary programs and how they fit into the overall picture of state financing of Indian education. Many states have a negative reaction to the role and responsibilities and activities of American Indians through USOE and BIA. States perceive that these agencies do not respect state laws and, yet, they expect their assistance in administrating program efforts for American Indians. Even though USOE is differential in its relations with the states, they feel shunned by Title IV, the Indian Education Act, because no role is provided for the state education agency. There are serious financial inadequacies among school districts within states serving Indian children. These problems are tracable to the lack of local capacity (LEA) to raise adequate basic support. Because the majority of federal programs are supplemental, they do not and cannot resolve this critical need. The question of how basic support will be raised is paramount.

Throughout our field activities, we heard complaints about the diversity among institutions educating American Indians and perceived their needs and problems all point to the lack of federal legislation providing a specific focus and flexibility of structure responding in terms that are relevant and which can affect change.

The majority of Indians spent time describing administrative problems of federal and state programs. They felt these programs were administered in such a way that people have no time to do planning and organizing. Although a wide range of unmet needs were described by many witnesses, administrative problems occupied the chief area of complaint.

A recurrent issue in the hearings held by the task force throughout the United States was the lack of adequately trained people within the community to insure broader participation by Indian people in all facets of programs and services. One of the more frequently cited examples was the need for parent training and technical assistance to Title IV parent committees so they could understand and perform their function.

This need was also perceived to have a financial root. Witnesses indicated that program restraints on the uses of funding, national funding priorities and the procedures for allocating funds undermine the impact of funds. Too often, by the time communities receive funding, it is too little and too late; what started out as an unmet need has become a crisis.

A major obstacle to many Indian tribes and communities in their efforts to attain federal funding is the diversity in definition of "Indian" for funding eligibility. As a result, many Indians who reside off reservations in both urban and rural communities are excluded from participation in programs. Even when such groups are eligible for funding, they feel their problems with the census enumeration disadvantages them in a competitive funding process. For the bias of many federal programs is to fund programs in geographic areas where there is a large population concentration. Many of the Indians residing in non-reservation areas are not reflected in the 1970 census. Thus, they are bypassed for funding because they do not constitute a sufficient concentration to warrant services.

This particular example is reflective of the lack of agency responsiveness in planning and implementing program services for Indian people. Funding policies are based upon needs that programs perceive to be important and at all levels they deem to be adequate. Generally, such funds are channelled through mechanisms that federal bureaucracies are familiar with, that speak the same jargon. Consequently, funding has the effect of drawing services away from the community and of sustaining institutions that are not attuned to community needs to serve Indian people.

The existing structure has the effect of promoting Indian needs as a form of service industry rather than reinforcing or promulgating Indian control. As a result, there are many professionals at all levels of the service structure who profess to "speak" for Indian people who have little understanding of the needs and priorities of local Indian communities. By and large, most of the programs charged with serving Indians have minimal representation on their staffs of Indian professionals. Consequently, they have little or no access to the experience, training, and knowledge these Indian professionals provide both of the diversity of Indian educational needs and of how federal program services can best be structured to meet such needs.

Interim Recommendations

The present service delivery system has the effect of ignoring many segments of the Indian population who are desperately in need of services.

A policy must be promulgated at the legislative level to insure adequacy of services and equal accessibility of all Indian people to federal educational services.

The existing network of program services must be revamped to target program monies into the Indian community in a manner that enhances local resources. This will necessitate the formulation of an administrative policy that recognizes the viability of community based institutions as funding mechanisms and conduits. It will also require taking steps to insure that weighting criteria for programs that

are presently funded through institutions consider whether or not an institution that purports to serve Indians has community representation and involvement in its management and administration of Indian programs.

To insure that local control is promoted, programs should encourage or require grantees to set aside a certain percentage of grant funds for in-service training and staff development programs. Such efforts should be reinforced with a clearly defined national objective that insures adequate scholarship assistance to expand the presently limited corps of Indian professionals in all areas of education and professional services.

Where the deficiencies of both USOE and BIA programs have been identified by prior investigative studies, interim measures must be initiated to effect change. Such measures will often require promulgation of new regulations and reorganization of program internal management and administrative practices. For example:

There should be no further expansion of off-reservation boarding schools. In addition, these schools should be restructured in function to provide a resource and activity center for Indian people of all ages.

The present BIA day schools should be turned over to the Indian communities for control. The turnover plan should insure adequate technical assistance and funding to insure an orderly transition and to maintain the level of services during the transition.

A scholarship program should be established and fully funded, and funding ceilings should be designed to accurately reflect the cost of attending a private college or pursuing an advanced degree in a professional program such as law, engineering, or medicine.

Present administrative and management deficiencies of the Title IV program must be remedied so that funds are allocated in a more expeditious and equitable manner and are monitored more closely. This will necessitate setting the program funding at a level that allows adequate staff travel for the purpose of project monitoring and technical assistance. Present agency staffing limitations must be revised to insure a more equitable distribution of projects to staff members than presently exists.

In addition, funding for all parts of the Title IV program must be set at a level that acknowledges the increased number of Indian pupils served each year and the increased cost of serving them. The legislation should be amended to insure the funds impact the Indian community. These amendments should include the establishment of a bypass provision under the Part A, LEA program. This would enable the program office to fund Indian tribes and organizations in those instances where the LEA refuses to work with the Parent Committee in planning and implementing the program.

The present law should also be amended to extend authorizations under Parts B and C of the Act. Since this money goes to tribes and organizations, it has the potential to increase level of service and provide a mechanism for local communities to increase their skill in planning and operating programs. The present limits on appropriations for these parts of the Act constrict the number of tribes and com