1992 BUDGET REQUEST Mr. YATES. I just want to say that you may be too easily satisfied, being happy with this budget, because the amount of your increase doesn't cover the cost of inflation or your pay costs, does it? Mr. MACDONALD. Not at the level we are now. Mr. TIPPECONNIC. Mr. Yates, I may be, but I have to remain optimistic. I have to remain optimistic on what we are doing. Mr. YATES. Okay, you're going through very hard times. Mr. Skeen? Mr. SKEEN. I don't know whether I want to get-I haven't got a dog in this fight. [Laughter.] ZUNI INTEGRATED SERVICES PROGRAM You mentioned Zuni- Mr. TIPPECONNIC. Yes. Mr. SKEEN [continuing]. And I'm very familiar with that particular system because I was part of it as an engineer on the reservation there. I used to take the students from the high school out on survey trips, which I thought was a great enhancement. I needed somebody to run chains. They are very adept students, all of them, but a lot of the opportunities weren't there. Of course, this was some 40 years ago. Mr. YATES. Well, let's hope they have more of them now. Mr. SKEEN. Well, we're still talking about the same problems, and they don't go away. Mr. TIPPECONNIC. The difference is the type of leadership that exists at the local level. Zuni has good leadership there. Mr. SKEEN. Use them. Mr. TIPPECONNIC. Pardon me? Mr. SKEEN. Go ahead, use them as an example. Mr. TIPPECONNIC. They have good leadership there in Hayes Lewis, and they put together what's called a joint powers agreement, which brings together school districts in New Mexico that work with Indian kids. They're pooling resources and sharing information and sharing curriculum. It's a joint effort. That's something we want to, and we are going to, get into in our program. Next year we're going to accept proposals, in one part of our program, that's going to be based upon integrated services, somewhat patterned after what Zuni is doing. Mr. SKEEN. Will you- Mr. TIPPECONNIC. We need to get health services- Mr. SKEEN. If I may interrupt you-what you have done is broadened the base and drawn that system together in a cooperative sense, so you have a network that works. I can understand that because at one time the political subdivisions were such that-and you mentioned it a moment ago-those schools that exist close to an Indian reservation always are in competition with the parallel system, if they had one, on the reservation. I'll give you a good example. Mescalero is one where they have had a tremendous amount of problems, and they were political problems as well, because there was a feeling that we're putting our money-the Indians are saying we're putting our money into the system and we're not getting the best out of it. We're not get ting the textbooks and the kids are not being treated fairly, and things of that type. We have bridged a lot of that. So, you have a broader base now. There is a more cooperative attitude, but you've still got some similar problems and you're trying to work them out. I think you're doing them in the right vein, rather than isolating them as we used to do. Every time we got in trouble with the coordinated and integrated school system, we used to jerk them out and put BIA back in there once again to start its own school system. It happened about three or four times in my experience over the last 40 years. It's been terribly traumatic for those kids because they can't learn under those situations. But, you need the money to do it right. The chairman is exactly right-if you don't have the money to operate-now if you can manage it better and do it with what you've got in the budget, I think that's a challenge that you're facing; more power to you. But if you don't, you ought to say so. If you need more help, and so forth, that's what we're here for. Mr. MACDONALD. We've got some big pieces we're trying to coordinate better than they've ever been coordinated before. Mr. YATES. Good statement. Good statement from Mr. Skeen. We're going to have questions for the record, Mr. MacDonald. Thank you all for coming in. Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Yates. Mr. SKEEN. Thank you all very much. [Additional questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD REQUEST TO OMB Question: You requested $81.4 million from OMB, but the request before the Committee is only $77.4 million. What would you have done with the $4 million that was denied by OMB? Please provide a detailed listing, with project cost estimates, for the record. Ansver: The $4 million difference would have been allocated as follows: For formula grants to local educational agencies under Subpart 1, $1 million. This amount would have provided approximately three additional dollars per pupil. o For Subpart 2, primarily for educational personnel development and regional resource centers, $2.5 million. The bulk of these funds would have been used to extend the resource center contracts for an additional six months, to adjust their funding schedules, and to pay for a sixth center in Alaska. The Department has been able to accomplish the changes necessary for funding the sixth center administratively, with no need for additional funds. For the educational personnel development programs the budget submitted to the Congress does include an increase, though not as large as the increase originally requested. However, almost all of the continuation grants in those programs will be ending in 1991, so most of the 1992 funds vill be available to start new projects. • For Subpart 3, adult education, $196,000, enough for one or two projects. However, the current budget request to Congress for Subpart 3 does include an increase of $178,000. O For Subpart 4, program administration, $305,000. This amount would have been used to provide an additional staff member for the Office of Indian Education (OIE) plus administrative expenses for both OIE and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. The current budget does include an increase of $225,000, which is adequate to meet the needs of the program. GOALS FOR THE YEAR 2000 By Question: On page 12 of your budget request you mention several very ambitious Indian education goals for the year 2000. the year 2000 the goal is for Indian children as a group to perform at or above the national average in reading achievement. How are they performing today? Ansver: Since the majority of Indian children are enrolled in local public schools, and data collected by States do not (except in a few States) over-sample for Indians, information on the reading scores of these children is not reliable. However, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides grade-equivalent scores for reading for children attending BIA schools. Based on 1986 test scores, Indian children in BIA schools read on grade level until they are in the third grade. From grade three on, there is a steady decrease in grade equivalents, so that by grade eight their reading level is about grade six, and by grade twelve, it is about grade nine. After eighth grade many Indians opt for continuing their education in the local public schools, so the number of students in the BIA population drops significantly. In addition, the dropout rate for Indian students nationally begins to rise after eighth grade and crests between ninth and tenth grade, which also affects the number of students counted in compiling these statistics. Question: Why doesn't the budget request take into consideration the growing Indian population? Answer: The budget includes a request for an increase of $1.432 million for Subpart 1, the only program under the Indian Education Act that allocates funds according to number of eligible children. Since the majority of Indian children attend public schools, this program is the most effective way of reaching the school-aged Indian population. Question: If your funding were to be increased based on the levels of achievement now compared with the levels of achievement set as goals for the year 2000, and factoring in population growth, how much more would you need? Answer: Indian Education Act money pays for only a small portion of the cost of educating Indian children, and expenditure levels cannot be linked directly to educational achievement. Of more importance is how these funds are used. Moreover, some Indian Education Act projects provide direct services to elementary and secondary students, while other projects prepare educational personnel or develop curriculum, services that affect student achievement only indirectly or in the future. The Department has established funding priorities for some of the discretionary funding programs: Educational Personnel Development and Pilot, Planning and Demonstration programs. In this way, the Department can target discretionary grant competitions on the goals of school readiness, academic achievement, science and mathematics, and high school completion. Subpart 1 formula grantees, however, have the discretion to set their own project objectives. Population is a factor, since Subpart 1 funds are allocated based, in part, on the number of eligible Indian children enrolled i the LEA or tribal school. We estimate that from 1989 to 1992 the number of eligible children will have increased from 347,190 to 357,673, or about 3 percent. Our budget requests for the program over this same period have gone up by about 11 percent. Question: What is your plan for achieving the goals for the year 2000? Ansver: The goals listed on pages 12-13 of the budget request were developed by the Indian Nations At Risk task force. The goals are based on the six national goals developed by President Bush and the Nation's Governors. Strategies for reaching these goals will be addressed in the report of the Indian Nations At Risk task force, the White House Conference on Indian Education, and other efforts at the local, tribal, State, and Federal levels. In addition, Presidential strategies for the Nation to follow in striving to reach the national goals will also apply to schools that Indian children attend. INDIAN-CONTROLLED SCHOOLS Question: Last year the committee reluctantly agreed to a decrease in funding for grants to Indian-controlled schools because of the reportedly poor quality of grant applications. What have you done to comply with the committee's direction to work with Indiancontrolled schools on preparing and submitting grant applications? Answer: The Department continues to try to improve technical assistance to all prospective applicants, including Indiancontrolled as well as tribal and other Indian organizations. The six regional Indian Education resource centers provide training and technical assistance services in program planning and program development for current and potential grantees. Indian-controlled schools are among the recipients of these services. Additionally, Department staff held a workshop at the National Indian Education Association's Annual Conference in San Diego in October 1990. The Department provided an opportunity for prospective discretionary grantees to learn more about the application requirements, clarification of federal regulations and the grant review process. Although the workshop was not solely for Indian-controlled schools, requirements for this program grant category were also discussed as were the criteria used in evaluating the Indian-controlled school applications. Question: To what extent have these grant applications improved? Answer: For 1991, the Department received 19 applications for new awards under this program. Out of a possible maximum score of 125, evaluator scores for the 19 applications ranged from 110 to 112. We do not have scores from previous years as a comparison. Question: What more needs to be done to ensure continued improvement? Answer: It would appear that the technical assistance is shoving results. In fiscal year 1990, Indian-controlled schools received 18 Subpart 1 formula grants; 18 Subpart 1 discretionary grants; and 6 Subpart 2 discretionary grants. Question: Why haven't you asked for increased funds for grants to Indian-controlled schools in fiscal year 1992? If your efforts to work with these schools on grant applications are successful, won't you need more money in this area? Please explain. Answer: It might be useful to look at legislative history and Congress's reasons for creating what is now called the IndianControlled Schools program (originally, the "Non-Local Educational Agency program"). The program was begun 20 years ago during a time when a number of Indian tribes were beginning to assume tribal control over schools that were formerly run as BIA or mission schools, usually by entering into contractual arrangements with the BIA. In some cases, tribes opted to have their school or schools established as public local educational agencies within the State system. In others, they remained under the aegis of the BIA. 43-202 0-91--2 |