ED 196 591

TITLEINSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

AVAILABLE FRCM

DOCUMENT RESUME

BC 012 405

Indian Education: Final Project Report.Education Commission cf the States, Denver, Colo.Office of Education (CHEW) , Washington, D.C. Officeof Indian Education.ECS-R-140Nov BO300-780-12327p.: For related documents, see RC 012 401-404 andED 194 290.Publications Dept., Education Ccmmissicn of theStates, Suite 300, 1860 Lincoln St., Denver, CO 80295($3.00, $0.30 ea. additional copy) .

EDFS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Agency Cooperation; *American Indian Education:

American Indians: Community Control: Coordination:*Educational Policy: *Educational Practices;*Educational Responsibility: Federal IndianRelationship: *Program Descriptions; ProgramEvaluation: State Government: State Legislation

IDENTIFIERS Alaska: Minnesota: Montana: Oklahoma: South Dakota

ABSTRACTThe goals of the Indian Education Project were to

identify and discuss the involvement of federal, tribal, and stategovernments in the education of Indian 'children and to assist statesin fulfilling their responsibilities in Indian education. A taskforce and other interested legislators, educators, and tribalrepresentatives met regularly throughout the 20-month project todiscuss data gathered from prior task forces, court records,seminars, meetings, and a survey of Indian education in five targetstates: Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.Besides the final report the task force issued five others dealingwith the involvement of federal, state, and tribal governments;problems in need of resolution; selected programs and practices;policy recommendations: and state laws and policies. In addition, theProject resulted in significant communication among the many groupsconcerned with Indian education, the passing by various Indianorganizations of resolutions supporting improved Indian education,and specific achievements in the target states. The task force mademany advances in the area of interagency cooperation regarding Indianeducation. They concluded that more time was needed to create a firmadvocacy role for Indian education legislation and policy making atthe state level. (SB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

. /allergy

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

MEMBERS OF THE ECS INDIAN EDUCATIONPROJECT TASK FORCE

Chairman

The Honorable Victor AtiyehGovernor of OregonSalem, Oregon

Vice Chairman

William Demmert(Tlingit/Sioux)

Seattle, Washington

Terrell H. Bell, CommissionerUtah System of Higher EducationSalt Lake City, Utah

Lionel Bordeaux (Sioux)PresidentSinte Gleska CollegeRosebud, South Dakota

The Honorable Thelma BuchholdtHouse of RepresentativesJuneau, Alaska

Warren R. Clements (Wasco)Municipal ManagerConferderated TribesWarm Springs, Oregon

Leslie FisherSuperintendent of PublicInstruction

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Ottis HillAssistant to the GovernorHelena, Montana

Stan Juneau (Blackfeet)Blackfeet Tribal BusinessCouncil

Browning, Montana

Susan Murphy (Eskimo)Bethel, Alaska

Ruth Myers (Chippewa)State Board of EducationDuluth, Minnesota

Joy Peacock (Chippewa)Director of EducationLeech Lake ReservationCass Lake, Minnesota

The Honorable Hollis Roberts(Choctaw)

House of RepresentativesOklahoma City, Oklahoma

The Honorable Harold SchreierState SenatorFhndreau, South Dakota

Maurice Twiss (Sioux)Shannon County SchoolsBatesland, South Dakota

The publication of this booklet was supported by the United StatesDepartment of Indian Education under Contract Number300 780 123. The report content does not necessarily reflect theviews or policies of the Department.

3

INDIAN....EDUCATION

Final P c;607W-AW port,N\

OEC1980

ERIC/CRESSrgrg

RECEIVED

9essv

Education Commission of the StatesDenver, Colorado

Robert C. Andringa, Executive Director

Report No. 140

Indian Education ProjectLee Antell, Director

George Williams Policy Analyst

November 1980

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from thePublications Department, Education Commission of the States,

Suite 300, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295, (303) 830-3620.Please enclose $3 for the first copy ordered. For each additional copy ordered,please add 300. This price covers postage and dandling. Prepayment required.

4

The Indian Education Project of the Education Commission of theStates (ECS) has two primary goals: (1) to identify and discussthe states' involvement in the education of Indian students; and(2) to suggest ways to coordinate federal, local and tribal activitiesso that state responsibilities to Indian education may beeffectively met.

The five states that participated in the study are Alaska,Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma and South Dakota. A nationaladvisory task force composed of Indian and non-Indian leadersprimarily from these states gathered and synthesized pertinentinformation about existing practices and programs. Throughresearch and task force input and concurrence, the project staffwill prepare and disseminate a series of project reports nationwide.

The task force will suggest program modifications eitherthrough policy changes or the legislative process that could beof value to the participating states, as well as to other states withIndian populations. In addition the project seeks to determinepromising practices that can be shared.

The Education Commission of the States Task Force statementson Indian education stated herein recognize the federalresponsibility established by the Congress of the United Statesthrough treaties made with Indian nations, legislation and courtdecisions. These precedents emphasize Indian sovereignty, Indianself-determination, and full involvement of the Indiancommtmities at the local, state and national level in theestablishment of educational policy for Indian citizens.

The Education Commission of the States Task Force alsorecognizes that the states have the primary responsibility toeducate all Indian children and adults while the federal and tribalresponsibility is to meet the unique educational and cultural needsof Indian students and adults.

It is further recognized that a cooperative effort between allgroups concerned, regarding policy making and funding, must beimplemented to achieve the full intent of this report improvededucation for Indian people.

Contents

INTRODUCTION vii

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIESFOR INDIAN EDUCATION 1

Research, Documentation and Publication 1

Examining Divisions of Responsibility for IndianEducation 2

In-State Task Force Meetings 2Institute for Educational Leadership Meetings 3

Responsibilities Problems and Practices 5

Selected Programs and Practices 5

EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS: DISSEMINATIONAND IMPLEMENTATION 7

Policy Recommendations 7

Policy Statements 8Legislation 9

PROJECT EVALUATION 11Reports 11Task Force Meetings 11Other Meetings 12Specific Accomplishments in Target States 13Related Accomplishments 14Conclusions 15

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION 17

6

Introduction

The Indian Education Project at the Education Commission of theStates (ECS) funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Officeof Indian Education to begin on October 1, 1978 officiallybegan its tasks with the arrival of the project director, Lee Ante ll,on January 1, 1979. Due to end on May 30, 1980, the IndianEducation Project received a "no-cost" extension to September30, 1980.

Two primary project goals were (a) to identify and discuss theinvolvement of federal, tribal and state governments in theeducation of Indian children and (b) to assist states in fulfillingtheir responsibilities in Indian education. Five states Alaska,Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma and South Dakota wereselected for participation in the project, and a national task forcecomposed of Indian and non-Indian leaders was chosen to helpproject staff perform the tasks necessary to clarify roles and torecommend changes in educational practices, policies and legisla-tion necessary to improve education for Indian children.

Five reports covering involvement of the V ill tolls entities federal,tribal and state governments problems in need of resolution,current educational practices, suggested progriim and policyrecommendations, and existing state levi-latioi. have been pre-pared by project staff. These reports wJ1 be disseminated to awide audience of Indian and non-Indian people throughout thenation.

In this summary report, major project goals and objectives arediscussed in detail. Recommeneations for future tasks are alsoarticulated in this final report of the Indian Education Project.

7vii

Constitutional andStatutory Responsibilities

for Indian Education

Research, Documentation and Publication

During the first several months of the project, Indian Educationstaff did extensive research on Indian Education. Sources utilizedincluded previous national task force reports, court cases invarious publications located in the state supreme court library,prior ECS discussions of Indian education, materials situated inthe ECS Resource Center, and dialogue with others concernedabout the education of Indian children.

A rough draft of Indian Education: Involvement of Federal, Stateand Tribal Governments was prepared for the first national taskforce meeting in Portland, Oregon. Chaired by Governor Atiyeh ofOregon, the spirited dialogue over the directions that Indianeducation should take, and who should be responsible for Indianeducation set the tone for the other meetings held at Rapid City,South Dakota; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Duluth, Minnesota; andCraig, Alaska. Defining involvement and responsibilities for tribal,federal and state entities proved to be a most demanding andinvolved assignment for the task force. Task force participantsexpressed the concern that project reports should emphasize theprimary role of the Indian education of Indian children aresponsibility given to the states by the U.S. Constitution and thecourts.

A number of Indian and non-Indian individuals, including educa-tors, legislators and others involved with Indian education, joinedthe national task force meetings at various times. These individualsfurnished important input on the issues concerned with theeducation of Indian children.

Tribal communities, Indian organizations including the NationalIndian Education Association, the National Congress of AmericanIndians, and the National Tribal Chairmen's Association were

8

asked to respond to draft reports concerning the involvement oftribal, state and federal entities with Indian education, Representa-tives from state legislatures, state boards and departments ofeducation, local education agencies, state Indian education clime -

tors, and others were also asked to document the desired and theconstitutional/moral/legal involvement of these various govern-ment entities with Indian education,

Examining Divisions of Responsibility for Indian Education

Important data for the initial report was also gathered fromparticipating states through a June/July 1979 survey of projectstaff with local education agencies, state legislatures, Indianeducation directors, state boards and departments of education,tribal leaders, Indian parents and children, and Indian communi-ties in the five target states. This same survey also collected dataon how involved states were with federal education programs, howextensive federal assistance was for the states, and what kinds ofspecial state programs for Indian education benefited Indianstudents. In addition, state personnel with direct responsibility forIndian education and local education agency personnel responsiblefor Indian children were identified by this survey. Other materialsconcerned with Indian education, collected from the ECS resourcecenter, state supreme court library and various Indian and non-Indian individuals were analyzed.

One other primary source of information for defining theinvolvement of state, federal and tribal entities with Indianeducation came from in-state task force meetings. Project staffdesigned and coordinated these meetings to determine how stateeducators, legislators, Indians and others concerned with theeducation of Indians perceived responsibilities and involvement in

their states.

In-State Task Force Meetings

Two in-state task force meetings were held. These meetings wereheld in Rapid City, South Dakota and in Helena, Montana. At theRapid City meeting, project staff members Lee Antell and GeorgeWilliams joined to meet with Indian and non-Indian educators,legislators, school board members and others involved with andinterested in defining roles and responsibilities. Issues included thelack of communication between state education agencies andtribal communities, the lack of tribal involvement in the decision-making process involved with the education of Indian children, theneed for more Indian teachers and school administrators, and

29

other areas of concern, Recommendations included the need fortribal education codes, sophisticated data collection by the state(101011I111011( of 0(11-101111011 1111(1 100111 education agencies on Indianchildren, a need for multi-ethnie curriculum ()enters established bythe state to collect and disseminate requested Indian educationmaterials, the need for improved and expanded certificationprovedures for teachers, and the need for Indian teachers withmodified credentials, the need for the expansion of the number ofIndian teachers and school administrators, and the nemd for bettercommunication between tribes and education agencies, and theshift of control over Indian odueaticm to Indian people,

Non-Indian people learned firsthand the concerns and frustrationsof Indians about the education of their children, Indian individualslearned more about fiscal, legislative and other problems thatprevent state and local education agencies and others fromresolving Indian education issues.

The second in-state task force meeting was held at Helena,Montana on March 13-14, 1980. It was co-chaired by Ottis Hill ofthe governor's office and also an Indian Education Project nationaltask force member; and by another member of this group, StanJuneau, at that time . vice chairman of the Blackfeet Tribe.Governor Thomas Judge addressed the assembled task force,

Participants addressed such issues as funding Indian education,policy changes that could be implemented at the state level andother issues. Recommendations included the need for creativesolutions to finance public school construction on tax-exemptIndian reservation lands, demand for fully recognized and encour-aged Indian-controlled community colleges, the necessity ofholding statewide hearings on the state of Indian education, and aneed for tribes to exert a greater influence over all public schoolswithin reservation boundaries.

As a result of this meeting, the governor's office made a request tothe legislature that an Office of Indian Education within the stateOffice of Public Instruction (OPI) be funded by the state.Meaningful dialogue between Indian and non-Indian individuals inattendance also increased and expanded their knowledge of eachother and how they viewed the problems and concerns of Indiansabout the education of their children.

Institute for Educational Lr Tship Meetings

National task force members, project staff, Indian and non-Indian

3 10

logi4lators, taltitattors and tailor interested persons were alsoinvolved in two 41111i11144 1111111 in 0011.n-1001On with regular 1.04for eetings, Tho special seminars were 1101(1 1111(114 1,111) atispiees

Of the Institute of Educational Leadership, organkationsponsorial by Ocorge Waihington University and funded by privatesourcos,

Tho first seminar was hold at Rapid City, South Dakota mulct' 1110direotion Of Judy Olson, Connor presitIont of the South DakotaStato hoard of Edtioation, conlortal around 1110 issuesInvolved with educational responsibilities and the ofIndian children, such how to determine Who 111 r0111)0110111111 for

0(1110111111g 111(111111 01111(111111, 11OW to reduce 11011001 (11'011011k, how

11111)rOVO 1110 111VOIV1/1110111, Of 111(11111111 In 1,11() (1(1110141011 of their

children, and how to improve education opportimillos for Indianchildron, Suggested remedies Inrluclecl more two of Indian toachortias rule models, bettor communication between tribal 00111111%11141es

and local/state education agencies, and more bilingual andbicultural Indian programs for both Indian and no,Indianchildren,

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was the site of the second Institute forEducational Leadership Seminar, under the cliroction of GailScott. National task force members and project staff membersJoined other interested individuals in a special discussion on Indianeducation presented by Minnesota State Senator Allan Spear,Senator Spear articulated a number of methods that states coulduse to improve education opportunities for Indian children,including a statewide needs assessment, legislation such as theMinnesota Indian Language and Culture Education Act that hehelped to sponsor, and more involvement of Indian parents andcommunities in the education of Indian children.

As a result of these special seminars, Indian and nonIndian peoplein two of the target, states for the project South Dakota andOklahoma benefited greatly from dialogue that clearly definedthe issues and solutions involved with the education of Indianchildren, and determined more thoroughly for participants whattribal, state and federal roles should be,

What emerged from research, documentation and evaluation of theresponsibilities of the various government entities, tribal, state andfederal, toward Indian education was that all of these agenciesneed more cooperative, interacting, and inclusive operationalprocedures and policies for the education of Indian children.Regardless of who has primary constitutional, legal and/or moral

411

resimusihility for die educittion of Indian children, there is a!,:ritical need to revise the sitelliods under which they are edocaledincluding novo parte.71piition of (whims in the ocitiotion Uf their

111'(tic.!ct 1.01)0t was illyroed for distribution midIliseminititln at 1110 A111"11 1110011111; in 1111111111, 1\ljuilesota ofthe N4tiottn.l T441 F1104 for the Indian Edttetttion Pro leot, Fithdinput. ttlul tribal colliwils mid Int 14111 1111011i4ith1l114 4314144 1,1113

11411111Y ile 41114;001 111. 11114 41111 wire 111411111141 in t110 1VVi41311141111111,

lIesponsi h dittos -7 Problems owl Pow Woo

Tile July I1)70 survey of five target states,Montana, (11i111111111111 and tiotall Dakota, ciao Ktulticod importantinformatiuu and data on (1) problems associated with rudstingdivisions of esponsiltilities for Indian eilocatiort (41)41 t 4) programpractices in the five "target" states, Two projtiet reports wereprepared through the intimation that WO4 11011001141;1111111y7,141 andevaluated by the Indian Education Project,

The ric4 of (how two Ecip4111.4, /Milan MiliettliOtl,' 1'rObit1SNeed of Resolution, articulated problems including a severe lackof Indian bilingual and bicultural programs, a drastic shortage ofIndian teachers and school administrators, many Insensitivenon,Indian teachers and related stuff, 111111.1ffilli0111, 11111) and federalfunds for Indian education programs, almost total absence ofIndian involvement In education decision making involving Indianchildren, and high Indian student dropout rates from the public,school systems, Defining and interpreting involvement, roles andresponsibilities also was Cited by survey respondents,

Selected Programs and /'radices

The second report wits Indian Education: Selected Programs andPractices, The report discusses "selected" programs and practicesin Indian education, at all levels of education, that wore beingutilized in various schools and achieving success, Particularemphasis on Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma and SouthDakota schools is apparent in this report.

The report emphasized examples of statewide needs assessments ofIndian students and programs, Indian operated and controlledschools, college teacher training programs, American Indianstudies, bilingual and bicultural programs, and others. The

12

discussion also demonstrated that most Indian education programswere federally funded, and that many states did not have Indianbilingual and bicultural programs funded from state resources.

These reports have been approved for distribution and dissemina-tion by the National Task Force for the Indian Education Projectat the Education Commission of the States. They are available inlimited quantities from the Publications Department at ECS at acost of $3 for the first copy and 300 for additional copies.

13

6

Effective AlternativePrograms: Dissemination

and Implementation

Policy Recotntnendations

The fourth project report, Indian Education: Policy Recomtnen-dations, contains both legislative and policy recommendations.This report was prepared from recommendations made by thenational task force. It also includes suggestions made by a taskforce subcommittee composed of Lee Antell, Ruth Myers, HaroldSchreier, Dave Beaulieu and Sam Homan. Also included arerecommendations suggested in earlier studies on Indian educationand directives made by instate task force people in Montana andSouth Dakota, and from other sources. Recommendations includethe need for more direct Indian involvement with the education ofIndian children, improved communication between tribal commu-nities and educators, more state and federal funding of Indianeducation programs, more Indian control of the education of theirchildren, more Indian teachers and school administrators, andmore state bilingual and bicultural Indian-oriented programs in theschools.

This report furnishes the basis for activity in the target states andin other states with significant Indian populations to affectchanges in Indian education. The project director, Lee Antell,corresponded by telephone and letter with policy makers at thetribal, state and federal level to persuade them to work forsignificant legislative and policy changes in Indian educationprograms in schools at all levels of education.

Lee Antell also made presentations on Indian education policies atthe National Indian Education Association meeting in December,the Chief State School Officers meeting in Washington and atother meetings. Reports and resolutions were also introduced andapproved at the ECS annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.

Throughout the life of the project, staff maintained close working

7 14

relationships with the participating states and with the nationaltask force, members. Consultative services to Indian educationdirectors, state .departments of education, and others interested inor involved with the education of Indian children was provided bythe project director, Lee Antell. Updated information and datawill be furnished to Indian and non-Indian educators, legislators,school board members, departments of education and othersinvolved and concerned with Indian education by the fourthreport, Indian Education: Policy Recommendations.

Policy Statements

The fifth report, Indian Education: An Overview of State Lawsand Policies concentrated on a project goal to determine andarticulate legislative and non-legislative changes that could bemade in the states to improve education for Indian children. Onlya few states have made non-legislative policy statements throughwhich state boards and departments of education could work toimprove Indian education. These states are California, Michigan,Montana, New York and Washington. South Dakota is in theprocess of considering a state policy statement on Indianeducation.

For instance, the California Department of Education has a policystatement that provides (1) each Indian child with equal access toeducational opportunities, (2) program expansion and modifica-tion that clearly and fully recognizes the cultural uniqueness ofAmerican Indian children and (3) education that clearly addressesthe special needs of Indian children.

Michigan has adopted policy statements that encourage schooldistricts to incorporate appropriate American Indian cultural andheritage studies where Indians attend public schools, to require aminimal number of credits in Indian education for teachersinstructing Indian children and to encourage and support work-shops on Indian education for school administrators, teachers andcounselors employed where Indian students attend school.

Montana has adopted a Master Plan calling for the development ofprograms in public schools that emphasize American Indiancontributions and perspectives. The plan also encourages therecruitment and appointment of Indians to administrative andteaching positions, and stresses the preservation of AmericanIndian languages as a basic and functional part of Indian culture.

New York has called for a statewide Native American Education

8 15

Advisory Committee, a greater voice for Indian people inthe education of their children, effective affirmative action forIndians, expanded teacher training education in Indian culture andtradition, and curriculum to reflect the needs and concerns ofIndian parents and their children.

South Dakota is in the process of considering a state departmentof education policy statement that calls for involvement of Indianson local education decision-making boards and committees,curriculum that reflects a true picture of the American Indian,inservice programs for American Indian paraprofessionals, ex-panded and improved affirmative action and recruitment policiesfor American Indians, and active participation of Indian parentsand communities in local school district decision making oneducation matters. However, no formal adoption of this statementhas been made to date.

The office of the state superintendent of Washington has issued apolicy statement that calls for the special training of teachers ofIndian students, career ladder training for Indian paraprofessionalsand involvement of Indian parents and communities in thedevelopment and evaluation of all programs affecting theirchildren.

The above policy statements are discussed a length in the fifthIndian Education project report, Indian Ed An Overviewof State Laws and Policies, along with the sta. gislation that hasbeen passed to this date.

Legislation

The state of Minnesota passed an "Indian Language and CultureEducation Act" in 1977. Wisconsin passed a similar act recently,and states including California, Montana and New York havepassed legislation that mandate the inclusion of Indian educationprograms and materials in the public schools. California has alsoestablished 10 Indian technical centers across the state to work forthe improvement of Indian education and employment of Indians.

All 50 states were surveyed during June 1980 by project staff todetermine the basis of their commitment to Indian educationlegislation. Research indicates that only 16 states do not have anytype of Indian-oriented education legislation. States with Indianeducation legislation have established departments or directors ofIndian education, scholarships for Indian students, advisory

9 16

councils on Indian education, and limited bilingual and biculturalprograms.

This material on legislation is discussed along with policystatements in the fifth report, Indian Education: An Overview ofState Laws and Policies. The national task force has approved thereport for dissemination and distribution. Project states and othersinterested in Indian education will receive copies of this report onlegislation and policy statements.

10

Project Evaluation

Reports

Six reports on the state of the art of Indian education have beencompleted. They are

Indian EducationGovernments

Indian Education:Indian Education:Indian Education:Indian Education:Indian Education:

: Involvement of Federal, State and Tribal

Problems in Need of ResolutionSelected Programs and PracticesPolicy RecommendationsAn Overview of State Laws and PoliciesFinal Project Report

On the basis of these reports significant and relevant dialogue hasalready occurred between Indian and non-Indian individuals,organizations and agencies, including local education agencies,state boards and departments of education; legislators; tribalcommunities; state directors of Indian education; and othersconcerned with the education of Indian children.

Moreover, resolutions supporting project efforts to improveeducation have been passed by Indian and nc,n-Indian organiza-tions on the basis of project staff interaction, reports, andpresentations at seminars, meetings and institutes on Indianeducation. Groups such as the National Congress of AmericanIndians, the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards, theNational Advisory Council on Indian Education, the NationalIndian Education Association, American Indian Higher EducationConsortium, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and theNational Association of State Boards of Education, have indicatedtheir support.

Task Force Meetings

Meetings were held in Portland, Oregon; Rapid City, SouthDakota; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Duluth, Minnesota; and Craig,Alaska. With the exception of the first meeting chaired byGovernor Atiyeh of Oregon, task force chairman, all meetingswere chaired by task force vice chairman, William Demmert Jr.

11 18

Task force members contributed a wide variety of expertise to thesessions and worked successfully to make sure that project reportsreflected a clear understanding of what involvement the variousgovernment entities tribal, federal and state should have inthe education of Indian children.

Moreover, task force members helped to make project reportspertinent and relevant, made important suggestions about theeducation of Indian children and kept project staff aware of theneed to unify many divergent opinions.

Other Meetings

Project staff participated in a number of meetings and seminarsdesigned to promote their tasks of articulating how tribal, federaland state entities could improve the education of Indian children.One such meeting was a "state of the art" meeting sponsored bythe National Indian Education Association in Denver on August13-14, 1979. Indian education directors and others discussed andrecommended changes in Indian education policy making at alllevels of education. Lee Antell, project director, participated inthis meeting on behalf of ECS.

On October 24-25, 1979, the Indian Education Project of theEducation Commission of the States hosted a joint meeting thatinvolved the U.S. Office of Education/Office of Indian Educationand 17 state directors of Indian Education. Project staff played acatalyst role in bringing all these individuals together to discussTitle IV, Part A of the Indian Education Act of 1972. Sessionsc-,ncentrated on how state departments of education could helplocal school districts, and how they could also work moreeffectively with the Office of Indian Education to monitor TitleIV, Part A. Sessions were also held on how the Office of IndianEducation could better work with state departments of educationon this important Indian legislation.

A spirit of cooperation and understanding characterized thismeeting of federal officials and state Indian education directors,chaired by the Indian Education Project Director, Lee Antell.State directors of Indian education stated that they would providetechnical assistance to Title IV, Part A grantees in their statesupon request. Interpretation of federal rules and regulations,however, would be left to the U.S. Department of Education/Office of Indian Education. State directors also agreed to workwith state departments of education to develop written policies onIndian education and to collect statistical data on Indian students.

12 .1.9

The U.S. Office of Indian Education agreed to improve communi-cation with the respective state departments of education.

Specific Accomplishments in Target States

Alaska. Staff met with the Commissioner of Education MarshallLind and discussed needs of Alaska Natives and Indians in thisstate. Project personnel also met with Robert Davis, director ofIndian Education, and Jeff Jeffers, special assistant to thecommissioner, receiving their support of project activities.

Minnesota. Staff gained support of project efforts to improveIndian education from Governor Albert Quie and from his directorof policy research, Robert Andzinga, recently named executivedirector for the Education Commission of the States. Project staffpromoted specific legislation in this state and also gained thesupport and assistance of Commissioner of Education HowardCasmey and State Senator Jerome Hughes, chairman of the SenateEducation Committee, and of Senator Allan Spear, 1977 sponsorof Chapter 312, the "Indian Language and Culture EducationAct." Personnel also gained support from President of theMinnesota State Board of Education Ruth Myers.

Montana. Staff met with Governor Thomas Judge and his staffassistants, Blake Wordal and Ottis Hill, gaining their support inimplementing task force recommendations in that state. Projectpersonnel also met with Thomas Thompson, Montana State Boardof Education, and received his commitment to work for a writtenboard policy on Indian education. John Richardson, executivedirector of the Montana State Board of Regents; Georgia Rice,superintendent of public instruction; and Bob Parsley, statedirector of Indian education for Montana, pledged their support inthe implementation of task force recommendations in that state.

On April 23, 1980, Lee Antell, project director, gave the keynoteaddress, "Quality Education for Indian Students", at the MontanaIndian Education Conference.

Oklahoma. Staff has received project support from Bette Ward,special assistant to the governor for education; also from LeslieFisher, chief state school officer and from Sam Homan, statedirector of Indian Education. Hollis Roberts, a state legislator andchief of the Choctaw Nation and State Senator Herbert Rozelle,who represents a large Indian population, agreed to support taskforce recommendations. Project staff participated in the Okla-homa caucus at the National Indian Education Conference in

13 20

Denver, December: 3, 1979, suggested that the Oklahoma StateDepartment of Education request state financial support for itsoffice of Indian education and persuaded the Oklahoma StateDepartment of Education to hold public hearings on the status ofIndian education in May 1980.

South Dakota. Staff gained project support from Harris Wollman,secretary of educational and cultural affairs and from JamesHanson, chief state school officer; legislative support from StateSenator Harold Schreier. Staff also worked with Judy Olson tohold an IEL seminar that brought state policy makers, legislators,Indian people and the project' staff together. In addition, LeeAntell, project director, addressed the South Dakota IndianEducation conference in October 1979; project staff persuadedthe state department of elementary and secondary education towork on a written policy statement on Indian education.

Related Accomplishments

Resolutions supporting project activities were received fromthe National Congress of American Indians, the Coalition ofIndian Controlled School Boards, the National Advisory Councilon Indian Education, the Council of Chief State School Officers,the National Association of State Boards of Education, theAmerican Indian Higher Education Consortium, the South DakotaIndian Education Association, Oregon Commission on IndianServices, the National Education Association and the NorthwestAffiliated Tribes.

Lee Antell, project director, spoke before the Chief StateSchool Officers Subcommittee on Indian Education at theirmeeting on June 2, 1980. He spoke on recommendations to statesfor improved Indian education.

Stimulated by project activities, timely recommendations onIndian education are being discussed by tribes and state-levelpolicy makers.

Task force meetings and related IEL seminars, along withinstate task force meetings in Montana and South Dakota havegenerated suggested policy changes and project recommendations.

Lee Antell, project director for Indian Education, providedtestimony on Indian education at various Indian and non-Indianmeetings including the Council of Chief State School Officers,National Advisory Council on Indian Education, National Con-

14 21

gress of American Indians and others. Project staff made presenta-tions before the Minnesota Indian Education conference and atother state meetings. Awareness of the complex issues were thefocus of these presentations and staff members believe theyaccomplished this task.

Project staff also interacted with government officials at alllevels; with Indian and non-Indian educators; with legislators, withstate boards and departments of education; with tribal councils,tribal education committees, Indian education directors, parentsand students. They were able to inform and make manyindividuals aware of the need to provide more educationalopportunities for Indian children.

Conclusions

Twenty months was not enough time to create a firmadvocacy role for Indian education legislation and policy makingat the state level.

Important strides, however, in terms of Indian and non-Indian interaction and awareness of each other's concerns weremade by project staff and task force.

The Indian Education Project at the Education Commissionof the States provided impetus and direction for importantdialogue between the Office of Indian Education and statedirectors of Indian education; between non-Indian and Indianindividuals and organizations; between legislators, educators andIndians; between state superintendents and state boards ofeducation, and others. This interaction has already createdimportant communications channels in at least two statesMontana and South Dakota. Stimulated by project activities,moreover, important recommendations on the involvement, rolesand responsibilities of tribal, state and federal entities are beingdefined more cohesively than ever before by Indian and non-Indian policy makers and decision makers. State and federalofficials are more aware, too, of the concerns that Indian peoplehave about the education of Indian children, and how they believethe federal government can work with the states to improve theireducational opportunities.

Project staff have also helped identify appropriate actionsthat the five "target" states Alaska, Minnesota, Montana,Oklahoma and South Dakota can take to improve the educationof Indian children.

155,2

Project influence may well extend beyond the life of theiractivity through reports that will have direct application to theimprovement- of Indian education throughout all 50 states andthrough a reaffirmed commitment of ECS at the annual 1980meeting to the continued improvement of educational opportu-nities for Indian children.

The project began its task of becoming an advocate forIndian legislation by informing the states represented in theproject about the still unmet needs in the education of Indianchildren.

16

Recommendations forFuture Action

Were the Indian Education Project to be continued, projectactivities should focus on

State Implementation of Recommended Indian Education Policies,Legislation, Programs and Practices

To increase educational opportunities for Indian children bysuggesting that state boards of education, state departments ofeducation and legislatures implement policies, legislation, pro-grams and practices, such as those proposed by our project taskforce, that address the needs and concerns of Indian pupils.

National Implementation

To communicate with Congress, appropriate federal agencies,Indian tribes, national education organizations and other groups,to expand their awareness of and commitment to educationalopportunities for Indian children at all levels of education.

Tribal Involvement in Indian Education

Involve Indian tribes, communities, parents and other concernedIndian citizens in the improvement of the education of Indianchildren at the state and local levels and assist educators to suggestthe development of programs that will insure success for Indianstudents and positive practices in the schools.

Implementation of Task Force Recommendations

Expand the impact of the Indian education project at state, tribaland federal levels through active utilization of the individual statestructures, national contacts, ECS Commissioners and projectsaffiliated with the Education Commission of the States.

To achieve these goals, project staff would

Make individual visits to legislators, educators, tribes and

17 24

others concerned with the education of Indian children and sharetask force recommendations and legislative suggestions with them.Project staff would also provide consultative services and focuswith states on the needs and concerns that Indian people haveabout the education of their children, including the considerationof programs, practices, policies and legislation that would improveIndian education. Project staff would also visit and encouragelocal, regional and national education and political associations tosupport project efforts to improve Indian education.

Use task force recommendations to raise the political profilefor Indian people in the area of education at federal, state andlocal levels. Personnel would focus at the national level on meetingand working with appropriate federal agencies and individuals andwith Congress to seek discussion on changes in federal policies andlegislation that would improve Indian educational opportunities.Staff would make personal visitations and make presentationsfocusing on the encouragement of national Indian and non-Indianorganizations to support, endorse and work for the implementa-tion of task force recommendations on Indian education.

Project staff would work to involve tribal communities andIndian parents in education policy making and to inform bothIndians and non-Indians about the problems associated with theeducation of Indian children. Staff would gather, analyze anddisseminate information on Indian education problems, concerns,strengths and weaknesses; hold regional conferences on Indianeducation; meet with and encourage educators, legislators, Indianpeople and others to involve Indian parents and communities ineducation policy making; encourage target states to implementprograms and practices designed to improve education for Indianchildren, as suggested by the tribes.

The Indian Education Project would finally encourage theEducation Commission of the States, utilizing its efforts and thatof the Indian Education Project and Task Force, to improveIndian education in the five participating states of Alaska,Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma and South Dakota, as well as inadditional states. Project staff could meet and share recommenda-tions with ECS Commissioners in project-related meetings, encour-age official ECS support by involving the executive staff inworking for the implementation of task force recommendations,and by compiling a resource bank of Indian and non-Indian peopleconcerned with Indian education that would be utilized tomaintain communication.

18 cs4#

A strong advocacy role for the Indian Education Project continuedby the Education Commission of the States could result insignificant improvement of Indian education in many ways assuggested in this final project report.

19 6

Indian Education reports available from the ECS PublicationsDepartment:

Report No. 135Indian Education: Involvement of Federal, State and TribalGovernments

Report No. 136Indian Education: Problems in Need of Resolution

Report No. 137Indian Education: Selected Programs and Practices

Report No. 138Indian Education: Policy Recommendations

Report No. 139Indian Education: An Overview of State Laws and Policies

Report No. 140Indian Education: Final Project Report

Additional copies of these reports may be obtained from the Publications Department,Education Commission of the States, Suite 300, 1860 Lincoln St., Denver, Colorado80295. Please enclose $3 for the first report ordered. For each subsequent copy of anyreport listed above, please add 300. This price covers postage and handling. Prepaymentrequired.

27