[Senate Hearing 119-85]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-85
NATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATION: EXAMINING
FEDERAL PROGRAMS AT THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-554 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Vice Chairman
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
STEVE DAINES, Montana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TINA SMITH, Minnesota
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Amber Ebarb, Majority Staff Jennifer Romero, Minority Staff
Director Director and Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Chief Counsel Alanna Purdy, Policy Advisor
Sarah McKinnis, Legislative Caroline Ackerman, Legislative
Assistant Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 2, 2025.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 37
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 42
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 1
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 35
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 31
Witnesses
Dropik, Jason, Executive Director, National Indian Education
Association.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Rose, Ahniwake, President/CEO, American Indian Higher Education
Consortium..................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Russell, Nicole, Executive Director, National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools..................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Worl, Rosita, Ph.D., President, Sealaska Heritage Institute...... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Yellowfish, Sydna, Director of Indian Education, Edmond Public
Schools........................................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Appendix
Becenti, Shawna Allison, Head of School, Navajo Preparatory
School, prepared statement..................................... 60
Butler-Wolfe, Edwina, Education Director, Sac and Fox Nation,
prepared statement............................................. 89
Firethunder, Cecilia, President, Oglala Lakota Nation Education
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 77
Gish, Brent D., Executive Director, National Indian Impacted
Schools Association, prepared statement........................ 71
Harjo, Lucyann, Coordinator of Indian Education, Norman Public
Schools, prepared statement.................................... 73
Ishigo, Amanda, Project Director, Tutu and Me, prepared statement 79
Johnson, Dr. Sherry, Tribal Education Director, Sisseton-Wahpeton
Oyate, prepared statement...................................... 97
Kahawai, Armond Jason, Project Director, Keiki Assets Accounts
Program, Partners in Development Foundation, prepared statement 110
Kamana, Dr. Kauanoe, Director, Nawahiokalani`opu`u Laboratory
School, prepared statement..................................... 62
Kanai`aupuni, Dr. Shawn, President/CEO, Partners in Development
Foundation, prepared statement................................. 86
Kimura, Ka`iu, Director, Ka Haka `Ula O Ke`elikolani College,
prepared statement............................................. 55
Indigenous-Language Immersion and Native American Student
Achievement Study Research Team, prepared statement............ 52
Laeha, Ka`iulani, CEO, `Aha Punana Leo, prepared statement....... 47
Letters submitted for the record by:.............................
Momi Akana, CEO, Keiki O Ka Aina Family Learning Centers..... 113
Naomi L. Miguel, MPAP, Executive Director, White House
Initiative on Advancing Education Equity, Excellence, and
Economic Opportunity for Native Americans, and
Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities............. 115
NACA Inspired Schools Network (NISN)......................... 115
Porter Swentzell, Ph.D., Executive Director, Kha'p'o
Community School........................................... 113
Hon. Shannon F. Wheeler, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe........... 115
Lowes, Hon. Austin, Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians, prepared statement.................................... 94
Mackey, Ryan B., Ph.D. Student, College of Hawaiian Language,
University of Hawai`i, prepared statement...................... 60
Martinez-Tom, Chrystal, Principle, Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community
School, prepared statement..................................... 48
Masutani, Alison Kulanikauha`a, President/CEO, Malama `Aina
Foundation, prepared statement................................. 58
National Education Association, prepared statement............... 66
Nygren, Hon. Buu, President, the Navajo Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 75
Pierrard, Sara, Project Director, Ki`apu Career and Technical
Education for Justice-Involved Youth Program, prepared
statement...................................................... 81
Popken, Kasey Galariada, Project Director, Ka Pa`alana Homeless
Family Education Program, prepared statement................... 83
Power, Alana, Project Director, Piha Me Ka Pono, prepared
statement...................................................... 84
Ricketts, Sharei, Superintendent, Little Wound School, prepared
statement...................................................... 56
Vanamberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita, Gomez & Wilkinson, LLP, prepared
statement...................................................... 100
Walking Eagle, Danielle, Superintendent, St. Francis Indian
School, prepared statement..................................... 98
NATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATION: EXAMINING FEDERAL PROGRAMS AT THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Calling the oversight hearing to order. We
were in the midst of a couple of votes when we started, and we
will have another one when this one completes. So it is a
little bit disruptive here this afternoon, but we are going to
make do because we have a lot to talk about. And it is the
business of the Committee to just proceed.
Today we are here to learn more about the U.S. Department
of Education programs that work to meet the trust
responsibility that the Federal Government has to our Native
students and elementary, secondary and post-secondary
education. We spend a lot of time in this Committee talking
about the Bureau of Indian Education, and that for good reason.
We are going to continue to do so.
But we really cannot lose sight of the fact that more than
90 percent of Native students across our Country attend public
schools. The government fulfills its trust responsibility to
those students through programs at the Department of Education,
in addition to programs at the Interior, at USDA and HHS.
Title VI of the Indian Education Formula Grants Program at
DOE represents a significant Federal investment in American
Indian and Alaska Native students, and is a cornerstone of
Federal Indian education policy. This program helps public
schools provide additional tutoring, mentoring and social
support to Native kids who need it, so that they can graduate
on time.
Programs like the Native American Language Grants or the
Alaska Native Education Program, which we call ANEP, or ANE,
connects students to culture to keep them motivated and engaged
in learning. Then funding from Title III of the Higher
Education Act supports Native American post-secondary
educational institutions that allow Native students to remain
in their communities, raise their kids, and take care of their
families, all while earning certificates and degrees that will
help them be better prepared leaders, fill gaps in the
workforce and grow the local economy.
These funding streams and many others at the Department of
Education are especially critical in fulfilling the Federal
trust responsibility.
And this is particularly important to me, because we don't
have Bureau of Indian Education, BIE schools, in my State of
Alaska. And this Department of Ed money has flexibilities
associated with it that allows tribes, Native organizations,
parents, communities, and families input into the development
and the delivery of Indian education programs.
Funding like ANEP, for example, has allowed the growth of a
number of educational options for kids in my State by funding
after school, summer, and public tribal charter school
opportunities.
Given the major role that the Department of Ed funding
plays in educating the next generation of Native students, I
have heard, and I know many of my colleagues have heard,
questions and concerns about recent proposals to alter or
dismantle the U.S. Department of Education as well as the
recent Executive Orders calling for Federal agency RIFs and
reorganization plans.
So we are here today to better understand the Indian
Education programs at the Department of Education, how they
impact Native students, Native students' families, and the
schools across our States, and really why they must continue
and not be negatively impacted by these reductions in force and
the reorganization plans. We need to make progress on the
ground, and we owe it to our Native kids across the Country.
So the insights, the experiences, the feedback provided by
witnesses at today's hearing will also help us chart our path
forward on Federal education programs. Thank you to all of you
who have joined us today. I know it is never easy to make the
long slog all the way back to Washington, D.C. But I appreciate
it, and I am looking forward to hearing from you.
When the Vice Chair of the Committee arrives, he will have
an opportunity to make an opening statement. But in the
interest of time, what I would like to do is just begin the
proceedings within the Committee. We will go in order from my
left to right, beginning with Mr. Jason Dropik, who is the
Executive Director of the National Indian Education Association
here in Washington, D.C. He will be followed by Sydna
Yellowfish, the Director of Indian Education at Edmond Public
Schools. You have come to us from Edmond, Oklahoma, so,
welcome.
Next we have my friend and a friend of the Committee, Dr.
Rosita Worl. She is President of the Sealaska Heritage
Institute, and she has joined us from Juneau, Alaska. Thank
you, Rosita. And Ms. Nicole Russell is the Executive Director
of National Association of federally Impacted Schools, also
here in Washington, D.C.
Then rounding out the panel is Ms. Ahniwake Rose, who is
the President and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium, just across the river in Alexandria, Virginia.
I would remind everyone on the panel that we do have your
full written testimony. It will become part of the official
record, so I would invite you to keep your oral testimony here
today to less than five minutes, so that we have plenty of time
for questions and your responses following.
Mr. Dropik, we will begin with you. Then again, as Senator
Schatz comes, we might interrupt the progression of the panel
for his opening statement. But please, proceed.
STATEMENT OF JASON DROPIK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INDIAN
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dropik. Miigwich. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski.
[Greeting and introduction in Native tongue.] Good afternoon,
my name is Jason Dropik. I am the Executive Director of the
National Indian Education Association.
On behalf of the students, educators, and tribal nations
NIEA serves, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
Native education programs at the U.S. Department of Education,
and more importantly on the Federal Government's sacred trust
and treaty obligations to Native students.
This is a unique moment in time, one where the eyes of the
Nation are focused keenly on the American education system, and
likewise the eyes of Indian Country are focused on Indian
education. While conversations are happening across the Federal
Government about restructuring education, strengthening local
control and potentially dismantling the Department of
Education, those conversations raise serious questions for
Native communities.
As you engage in these continued conversations following
today's hearing, we urge you to remember the Federal Government
has a direct and unique responsibility to Native students, one
that cannot be delegated to the States.
Sovereignty is the foundation of effective education in
Indian Country. Since the earliest treaties, the Federal
Government dutifully promised education to tribes in exchange
for land and peace. That promise, enshrined in treaties and
Federal law, did not come with an expiration date.
The Federal Government works to meet these obligations
through three primary mechanisms, Native specific programs,
programs with tribal setasides, and broader programs that
tribal nations are eligible for. While today's hearing focuses
on the Department of Education, I want to underscore that this
responsibility of the entire Federal Government, Native
education is supported by a network of Federal agencies beyond
Education, including HHS, USDA and Commerce, that cannot be
separated from this trust responsibility.
The Department administers several critical programs that
directly support Native students and fulfill trust obligations.
Title VI Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
is the cornerstone. It provides flexible, community-driven,
parent-directed support for Native students in public, BIE, and
charter schools.
Part B and C of Title VI serve Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiians, communities that do not receive education funding
under Interior. These programs are essential lifelines to
communities which would otherwise not be served and must remain
intact.
Impact Aid is another key program. It was established in
1950 to provide financial assistance to school districts that
lose local tax revenue due to the presence of Federal or tribal
lands. Impact Aid offsets the loss of tax revenue on tribal
lands, supporting over 100,000 Native students. For many
districts, it means the difference between maintaining teachers
and/or programs or going without them.
Title I and IDEA are foundational to Native education,
particularly in rural and low-income communities, where most
tribal nations are located. Title I supports schools in
economically distressed areas, while IDEA ensures students with
disabilities receive the services they need, services that are
often harder to access in underfunded remote schools.
Native students with disabilities face additional barriers,
including geographic isolation and a shortage of qualified
providers.
Critically IDEA and Title I include setasides for BIE
schools. It is imperative that there remain setasides for
tribal nations directly from the Federal Government for any
funding structure these programs may take. We recommend
increasing this setaside to 5 percent to reflect tribal
administrative costs and the lack of tax revenue. This setaside
is not an interest group carve-out; it is critical to the
Federal Government fulfilling its legal and fiduciary
obligations.
Protecting institutional knowledge is critical. Many Ed
staff working in Native programs are Native themselves, or have
longstanding relationships with tribal communities,
relationships which are vital to effective program delivery.
However, recent executive actions have resulted in some of
Native-serving staff at Ed being removed or placed on
administrative leave.
Further, the agencies which have been proposed for
relocations have also been cut, threatening their ability to
serve the programs they already operate, much less to take on
additional ones.
We urge Congress to ensure Native education programs are
protected. That means safeguarding funding, staffing, and
program integrity, preventing funding from being rerouted
through States and conducting meaningful government-to-
government consultation. Consultation is not just a legal
checkbox. It is a responsibility. It cannot be ignored due to a
burdensome nature. It is the foundation of effective and
respectful trust relationships.
Each of the programs mentioned today are unique. They
already represent local control in our education systems.
Tribal leaders, Native educators and families are the experts
in what their students need. Our leaders and our communities
stand ready to work with you to strategically solve the
problems our education systems face together in a way that best
serves our most sacred gifts, our children.
Miigwich for the opportunity to share with you. I
appreciate this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dropik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Dropik, Executive Director, National Indian
Education Association
On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), and
the students, educators, and Tribal Nations we serve, we thank you for
this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the Native education
programs at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the federal
government's trust and treaty obligations to Native education. We
recognize the conversation of the moment is on strengthening local
control over education and reducing federal oversight. Both the
Administration and Congress have been engaged in discussions about
restructuring federal education systems. Regardless of the direction
the federal government ultimately takes, NIEA will always stress the
importance of fully honoring trust and treaty obligations. We remain
committed to safeguarding programs and funding which support education
for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, and
ensuring Tribal Nations and communities have a meaningful role in
determining the best ways to serve their citizens educational needs.
Sovereignty is the foundation of effective education in Indian
Country. From the earliest treaties, the federal government has
promised education to Tribal Nations in exchange for land and peace.
Education is integral to supporting Tribal self-governance,
participation in the economy, and cultural preservation. Over time, the
federal government has consistently acknowledged its commitment to
providing education to American Indian and Alaska Native peoples, as
reflected in treaties, laws, and legal precedents. Similarly, the trust
responsibility to Native Hawaiian education, as clarified under 20
U.S.C. 7511 et seq., further reinforces the federal obligation to
support Native education. These obligations are fulfilled not only
through the direct delivery of programs and services but also through
federal funding that enables Tribal Nations to serve their own
communities. The entire Federal government retains an obligation to
uphold these commitments through Native specific programs and funding,
programs and funding with Tribal set-asides, and programs and funding
for which Tribal Nations are eligible.
U.S. Government Trust and Treaty Obligations
Education for Native students is not the sole responsibility of one
federal agency alone. While this hearing is focused on ED, we want to
recognize the vast network of federal agencies and programs which
together work to serve the government's obligations to Native
education. When the topic of Indian education arises, people first look
to the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE). While DOI was the first federal agency to establish
federal Indian education policies, it is not comprehensive of the needs
our youth face. As early as 1934, with the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) Act,
Congress acknowledged the limitations of DOIfunded schools and created
additional funding streams to serve Native children outside of those
schools. JOM funds are administered by the BIE, but since over 90
percent of Native children now attend public schools, the obligation to
serve Native students outside of DOI-funded schools has expanded.
Today, the responsibility spans multiple federal agencies. The
Department of Health and Human Services funds early childhood education
through Tribal Head Start and Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
programs. The Department of Labor supports career training through
Native Career and Technical Education programs. The United States
Department of Agriculture supports child nutrition programs essential
to our rural and remote communities and together with the Department of
Commerce, these two agencies support access to high-speed Internet and
broadband which is essential to our academic environments. And ED, the
agency which has administered most federal education programs for the
entire country since 1980, also houses key programs which are essential
to fulfilling trust and treaty obligations to Native education. Many of
these programs predate the establishment of the ED, and must be
maintained in both staffing and scope, even if the structure federal
education changes.
The U.S. Department of Education
ED administers a broad range of Native-specific and Tribal-eligible
programs and services that support Native students in public schools,
charter schools, and BIE schools. Each of these programs play a crucial
role in fulfilling trust obligations and in securing the practical and
economic futures of our communities. Key programs include Title VI
Indian Education, Impact Aid, and components of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Title VI, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) serves as a cornerstone of Native education policy, providing
critical funding for academic enrichment, cultural programming, Native
language revitalization, dropout prevention, and mental health supports
specifically for American Indian and Alaska Native students. These
formula-funded grants are awarded directly to local education agencies
(LEAs), Indian tribes, and organizations, ensuring flexible, community-
driven programming that centers Native identity and values in
educational settings Uniquely, the implementation of these programs
requires the involvement of an Indian parent committee, empowering
families to guide how these funds are used to support their children's
education. Additionally, Title VI, Part A, Subparts 2 and 3 further
enhance these efforts by providing professional development grants to
combat teacher shortages and retention, directly support funding for
Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs) to advance the cohesion of tribal
schools, both BIE funded and tribal charter schools, and offer grants
and technical assistance for Native languages revitalization across the
Nation.
Title VI, Part B includes competitive grants which are tailored to
the needs of Native Hawaiian students and supports education programs,
teacher development, and curricula that reflect Native Hawaiian culture
and language. Title VI, Part C funds similar programs in Alaska Native
communities, integrating tribal knowledge and traditional lifeways into
the school experience. For Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students,
Title VI is one of the only ways the federal government works to fulfil
its commitments to these communities, as they are not eligible for
funding under the BIE. Collectively, Title VI provides a unified
framework for education that is responsive to the specific needs of
Native communities, with priorities set by the communities themselves.
Impact Aid, under Title VII of ESEA, provides financial assistance
to school districts where federal and Tribal lands reduce local tax
revenue. This funding primarily benefits two communities for which the
federal government holds direct responsibility: active-duty service
members and their families, and Native children on federal lands.
Impact Aid helps support operational costs in districts serving high
numbers of federally impacted students, ensuring they have access to
adequate facilities, teachers, and resources.
Title I of ESEA provides vital support to low-income school
districts, many of which serve Native communities in rural and
economically distressed regions. Title I includes a specific setaside
for Indian Education Grants to the BIE. We strongly urge that any
changes to this program protect and strengthen this set-aside while
also establishing clear assurances that Tribally operated charter
schools are eligible to receive funding. Similarly, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)includes a dedicated set-aside
for BIE schools and serves as a critical resource for Native students
with disabilities and special needs. Maintaining this set-aside and
ensuring continued IDEA funding for Native-serving public and charter
schools are critical to the success of students with special needs in
our communities.
At the postsecondary level, the Native Career and Technical
Education program plays a crucial role in fostering workforce
development in Tribal communities. Title III of the Higher Education
Act provides essential support to Tribal Colleges and Universities,
which must continue to receive direct funding to maintain institutional
stability and accreditation. Finally, reliable education data remains a
challenge due to the small population size of Native students. The
National Indian Education Study remains the most effective tool for
collecting disaggregated Native education data and should be preserved.
Protections for Native Education
The March 19, 2025 Executive Order (EO) 14242 Improving Education
Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities and other
recent legislative proposals have outlined the framework to close ED
and shift control of education entirely to the states. However, as
mentioned above, there are two clear populations that the federal
government must provide educational support for, as they are not
typically under the jurisdiction of state governments: military
connected families and Native students. Acknowledging the significant
overlap between our two communities, as Natives serve in the military
at the highest per-capita percentage, and the joined commitment to this
land above all else, we know there will continue to be federal
programing for Native and military education to fulfill these
obligations.
For our part, we respectfully urge Congress to ensure that federal
programs and funding for Native education are maintained at every
level. It is essential that the staffing levels necessary to adequately
support these programs are protected, that funding for Native education
is never funneled through the states, and that at every step, and that
Tribal sovereignty is respected at every stage. This includes
conducting full tribal consultation and additional Congressional
hearings, such as this one, to ensure Native communities are heard.
As changes to the American education system, and to federal
agencies more broadly are undertaken, Congress must ensure that Native
education programs continue without interruption. Funding must remain
strong for all levels of education--from early childhood through
college. The only way to achieve this is by maintaining staffing levels
for these programs including staff within the Office of Indian
Education (OIE), agency officials in charge of funding disbursements,
and personnel specifically dedicated to Native education. Most federal
agencies have formally acknowledged the distinction between Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion program administrators, and administrators that
serve trust and treaty obligations. However, at ED, two staff--one
within OIE and another service Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
education programs--were placed on administrative leave as part of
recent executive actions on DEI. While the OIE administrator has been
fully reinstated, the staff member for the Alaska Native Education
Program (ANEP) and Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP) has not,
and an additional staff member responsible for the National Indian
Education Study was let go during agency-wide reductions in force.
These are the very staff members that we hope will remain in their
positions, and we urge Congress to partner with us, along with Tribal
Nations across the country, to ensure Indian Country is not
inadvertently harmed during ongoing reductions. Many of the individuals
working in Native-specific offices at ED are Native themselves or
possess deep knowledge and longstanding relationships with Tribal
leaders and schools. These connections are crucial for ensuring that
programs are effective, and that Tribal sovereignty is respected.
Finally, we urge Congress and federal agencies to carry out full
Nation-to-Nation Tribal consultation before any changes are
implemented. Tribal Nations know what will best serve their communities
and can also help ensure changes work for all parties involved.
Moreover, consultation not only a legal requirement but also a critical
component of the trust relationship. Tribal leaders, educators, and
families are the experts on what their students need. We ask Congress
to request ED, and all other federal agencies involved in Native
education to engage in formal, government-to-government consultation
prior to any structural changes.
Conclusion
The federal government has a sacred trust responsibility to Native
peoples, particularly when it comes to education. We appreciate your
leadership in advancing the well-being of all children and families. We
look forward to working with you to ensure that Native students
continue to have access to the opportunities and services that are
critical for their success. Thank you for your time and your commitment
to fulfilling the federal government's trust and treaty obligations. By
protecting and strengthening these crucial programs, Congress can help
safeguard the future of Native education, empower Tribal Nations to
shape their own educational systems, and promote economic opportunities
for Native communities. By honoring the commitments made to Native
students and strengthening sovereignty in education, we can ensure that
Native students receive an education that will strengthen Native
communities for generations to come.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dropik.
Ms. Yellowfish, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SYDNA YELLOWFISH, DIRECTOR OF INDIAN EDUCATION,
EDMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ms. Yellowfish. Good afternoon. My name is Sydna
Yellowfish. I am an enrolled tribal member of the Otoe-
Missouria tribe and descendent of the Osage, Sac and Fox and
Pawnee tribes.
I am the Coordinator for the Title VI and our Johnson
O'Malley program for Edmond Public Schools, and I am humbled to
be able to share my testimony with you.
Education has always been a core value for our Native
communities. This commitment is rooted in many treaties tribal
nations made with the U.S. Government, which confirmed the
foundation of government-to-government relationships. For
example, the 1825 treaty with the Osage Nation established
funding to support schools for Osage children. The 1833 Treaty
with the Otoe-Missouria included funds for the purposes of
education.
Programs like Title VI and Johnson O'Malley are modern
extensions of these treaty commitments, continuing the legacy
of education for Native students.
I stand before you because of the strength of generations
before me. My parents, grandparents and great-grandparents
attended boarding schools such as Carlisle, Pawnee Boarding
School, and Haskell Institute. We know these historical
education policies led to traumatic outcomes.
However, we also know that when policies align with the
passion of the people, we witness the determination and
resilience of our ancestors.
Title VI is vital for our Indian students. Our State has
one of the largest Indian student populations attending public
schools. Within my school district, there are 1,950 Indian
students out of 25,754 total students enrolled in Edmond public
schools. Our Indian students represent 56 diverse tribes from
Oklahoma and across the Nation that we work with.
The Oklahoma City metro area has 11,000 Title VI students
as determined by our recent tribal consultation. These numbers
show the impact this program provides for.
Indian students and families that attend Edmond and the
surrounding metro area schools reside away from their tribal
jurisdiction areas and communities, often limiting access and
eligibility to services and support from their tribes. Title VI
funds for public school students provides services directly
related to educational and cultural needs, a primary reason why
Title VI should remain intact.
One highlight has been creating and implementing a high
school class that teaches our tribes' history and culture. This
class was established 26 years ago as a high school credit, and
is supported by our parent committee. A semester course had to
be developed in a creative way that included cultural
consultants, tribal representatives, and the partnerships made
with several tribes with teaching resources. This class
benefits all students by fostering respectful understanding of
cultural differences, critical thinking, and cultivating a deep
appreciation for our society today.
It is also important to acknowledge the school district's
commitment and trust in the Indian Education program.
Professional development learning for teachers in districts,
statewide, and on a national level are a regular occurrence. In
addition to cultural learning, academic achievement and
graduation for our students is also a significant outcome.
Most recently, our program worked extensively with the
student displaced from home during the final nine weeks of her
senior year. For this situation, the staff was able to help
this student transition to virtual Edmond by securing the
device, supplies, and broadband needed to graduate.
Administration and staff worked tirelessly to make sure this
student graduated on time.
Even beyond the scholastic support, staff was able to
intervene when the student was confronted with an unexpected
situation and misunderstanding concerning their beaded cap
being worn at graduation. Title VI staff handled this situation
immediately. This student's commencement experience could have
gone from being one of the happiest days to the worst day.
Acknowledgement of the challenges such as suicide,
substance abuse, bullying, homeless, foster care, sexual
assault, missing indigenous children, and the struggle to meet
basic needs is evident. These challenges are not just
statistics we look at. They are the lived experience of many
students.
These challenges may not always be fully resolved, and
outcomes may not always align with what our families hope for.
But the Title VI program helps make each situation more
manageable. Our staff works directly with families to do what
is needed and to help Native families in our schools feel
comfortable. Without Title VI, our students are at risk of
continuing to be left behind.
Supporting the success of thousands of Native students is
critical, and direct funding to school districts should
continue without interruption. I thank you for this opportunity
to speak before you. [Phrase in Native tongue.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yellowfish follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sydna Yellowfish, Director of Indian Education,
Edmond Public Schools
Dear Committee on Indian Affairs
Good Afternoon, my name is Sydna Yellowfish. I am an enrolled
tribal member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe and descendent of the Osage,
Sac-Fox and Pawnee tribes. Thank you for this opportunity. I am humbled
to share my testimony based on thirty-nine years of memories as the
Coordinator for the Title VI Indian Education (formerly known as Title
IV, Title V, and Title VII) and our Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program at
Edmond Public Schools in Edmond Oklahoma, a suburb of the Oklahoma City
metropolitan area.
Education has always been a core value for our Native communities.
This commitment is rooted in many treaties Tribal Nations made with the
U.S. Government, which confirmed the foundation of government to
government relationships. For example, the 1825 treaty with the Osage
Nation established funding to support schools for Osage children.
Similarly, the 1833 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri (Otoe-Missouria)
included funds for the purposes of education. Programs like Title VI
and JOM are modern extensions of these treaty commitments, continuing
the legacy of education for Native students.
I stand before you because of the strength of generations before
me. My parents, grandparents and great grandparents attended boarding
schools such as Carlisle, Pawnee Boarding School, and Haskell
Institute. Institutions that were shaped by federal education policies
established by Congress for Native youth. We know these historical
education policies led to traumatic outcomes. However, we also know
that when policies align with the passion of the people, we witness the
determination and resilience of our ancestors for our current and
future generations. I am a JOM program recipient. I attended the
University of Oklahoma as a first generation student and received
educational assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Pawnee
Agency benefiting from the same legacy of support that the treaties
promised generations ago. These opportunities were critical in my life
long career as an educator which has enabled me to give back to our
community and work with Indian students, families, tribes.
Title VI Indian Education
Title VI was originally enacted in 1965 as a part of Public Law 89-
10. It has been amended providing financial resources to public schools
for Indian students and their educational and culturally related needs.
This is vital for Oklahoma, which according to the Department of
Education has the largest number of Title VI grantees with 401 school
districts receiving direct funding from this grant, affecting 128,401
Native American students. As a state, Oklahoma has the largest Indian
student populations attending public schools. Oklahoma counties and
Tribes share jurisdictional land boundaries, creating challenges and
opportunities such as partnership in educational endeavors for native
youth. Due to the shared jurisdictional land base the majority of our
Indian students attend public schools. Within my school district there
are 1950 Indian students from 56 diverse tribes across Oklahoma and
Nations that we work with. Within the Oklahoma City metro area there
are 11,000 Title VI students as determined by our recent tribal
consultation. These numbers show the impact this program provides for.
Indian students and families that attend Edmond and metro public
schools reside away from their tribal jurisdiction areas and Indian
communities, limiting access and eligibility to services and support
that may be offered through their tribe. Title VI funds for public
school students provide much needed services directly related to their
educational and cultural needs, a primary reason why Title VI should
remain intact. The program allows our staff to support Indian students
in broad ways as well as individually tailored which keeps them from
falling behind.
Key Impacts
One highlight has been creating and implementing a high school
class that teaches our tribe's history and culture, including tribal
government, sovereignty, art, leaders, music and current issues. This
class was established twenty six years ago as a high school credit and
is supported by our parent committee. Textbooks are not available about
tribes and oftentimes resources lack accurate information. A semester
course had to be developed in a creative way that included cultural
consultants, tribal representatives, Native artists and the
partnerships made with several tribes to assist with teaching
resources. The class models respect for tribal teachings through
intentional engagement with tribes and community partners. Teaching
resources, tribal guides, tribal video series, and lessons for this one
of a kind class are provided for student learning. Students have
expressed the value of learning from history and Native people in the
contemporary context, learning first hand knowledge from guest
speakers, and building confidence in their own identity, culture, and
language. Also, this class benefits all students by fostering
respectful understanding of cultural differences, critical thinking and
cultivating a deep appreciation for our society today.
It is also important to acknowledge the school district's
commitment and trust in the Indian Education programs certified
teaching staff which has resulted in sustainability of the class and
overall outcomes. In addition, professional development learning for
teachers in district, state wide and on the national level are a
regular occurrence. The consistent presence of the class, resources,
professional development and learning tools are only possible with the
support of Title VI.
In addition to cultural learning, academic achievement and
graduation for our students is also a significant outcome.
Most recently due to unforeseen life circumstances, our program
worked extensively with a student displaced from home during the final
nine weeks of their senior year. Title VI was the connection for this
student. For this unique situation, the staff was able to help this
student transition to virtual Edmond, secure the device, supplies and
broadband needed to continue their learning. Administration and staff
worked tirelessly to make sure this student graduated on time.
Even beyond the scholastic support, the staff was able to intervene
when the student was confronted with a barrier from a new teacher
representative on graduation day. There was a misunderstanding
concerning the beaded cap being worn. Without Title VI staff present to
rectify this situation and avoid another possible obstacle or
humiliating moment, this student's commencement experience could have
gone from being one of the happiest days to the worst days. Furthermore
it spared a potentially disastrous experience for the school and a
stain on the district. As the staff witnessed this student reach this
major milestone to walk at graduation with joyful tears in our eyes, we
know why Title VI is needed in the lives of Native American students
throughout the Nation.
This program is about the future of our Indian children who we all
desire to become productive citizens of our society. Prioritizing areas
of academic achievement, college and career readiness, cultural
knowledge, tribal languages, dropout prevention, and the social
emotional well-being of our students is critical for student success.
These priorities have been implemented in multiple ways with little
increase in funding from year to year.
While we focus on the positive impact that Title VI can provide for
our Native students, we must also acknowledge challenges that some
students face. Such as suicide, substance misuse, bullying,
homelessness, foster care, sexual assault, missing Indigenous children
and the struggle to meet basic needs. For our program, these challenges
are not just statistics we look at, they are the lived experience of
many students. Although these challenges may not always be fully
resolved, and outcomes may not always align with what our families hope
for, the Title VI program helps make each situation more manageable.
Our staff directly works with families to do whatever we can to support
them, we are the main place Native families in our school feel
comfortable. Without Title VI, our students are at risk of continuing
to be left behind.
The 401 school districts receiving Title VI programs throughout
Oklahoma provide significant support. Without Title VI, we are not able
to reach the estimated 90 percent of Indian students attending public
schools this program was created for. However, to support the success
of thousands of Native students it is critical that these programs
continue and direct funding to school districts continues without
interruption.
These are just some of the ways our Title VI program impacts out
students:
Grades, attendance and behavior monitoring showing student
progress.
Connecting students on IEPs, 504s, Alternative Education,
Virtual programs, Concurrent classes and other school services.
Parent Committee Involvement for the direction of the
program and their willingness to volunteer, make program
suggestions and provide feedback for the betterment of the
program.
Developing and implementing a high school Native Expressions
class for twenty-six years, engaging and connecting all
students to tribal learning.
Partnering with tribes on tribal languages and history from
their perspective with cultural learning opportunities.
Working with the homeless and assisting with basic needs so
that students can attend school and look toward the goal of
graduating.
Providing weekly after school tutoring and remedial sessions
for students.
Ensuring students have specific needs met with technology,
child nutrition, and counseling.
Collaborating with universities for College and Career
events for over thirty years. (Indian Youth Career Day)
Creating dropout prevention strategies (Broncho Bound)
Recognition of 3.9 GPA students for the Oklahoma Indian
Student Honor Society.
Cultural student programs designed to assist students with
their participation in the Oklahoma Native Language Fair,
Oklahoma Indian Student Challenge Bowl, Red Earth Festival, and
traditional hand game tournaments.
Collaborating with tribes on services for their citizens who
attend public schools outside of their tribal jurisdiction
area.
Providing Professional Development for staff and teachers so
that accurate teaching resources are made available for the
teaching of our tribal nations.--Establishing community
partnerships with local, state, tribal and national
organizations to increase student involvement and
opportunities. (DAR/OKCIC/FAM/NIEA/OCIE)
Johnson O'Malley
The JOM program for the metro public schools under the BIE Oklahoma
Area office is extremely important for those schools who do not reside
in a tribal jurisdiction area, in many cases, Title VI and JOM programs
work side by side to support our students in public schools. JOM which
was first authorized in 1934 and has been in the Edmond Schools since
1988 provides separate guidelines and services for students enrolled in
a federally recognized tribe attending public schools. However, the
program budget was frozen in 1994, and has not increased to reflect the
current reality. When the funding was frozen our program's student
count was 211 students. Thirty-one years later in 2025, our JOM student
count is 1,624, increasing by approximately 669.7 percent. Today, funds
average out to $26.42 per student. This is based on our most recent
student JOM count submitted. This funding needs to be lifted to align
with today's student count. It is imperative that school districts not
under a tribe be afforded the mechanism to keep and maintain their JOM
program as is.
I urge you to hear our words and our stories from those that work
directly with students on the ground, day in and day out, on behalf of
thousands of Indian children. Thank you for this opportunity to share
with you. We carry the determination of our ancestors, we honor the
strength and promise within the eyes of today's youth, and we embrace
hope for future generations.
Attachment
Oklahoma Indian Education Metro Consortium--2024-2025 Title VI Programs
Student Count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School District # of Title VI Students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Public Schools 1,902
El Reno Public Schools 651
Mid-Del Public Schools 861
Moore Public Schools 2,815
Norman Public Schools 2,299
Oklahoma City Public Schools 2,482
Putnam City Public Schools 650
Western Heights Public Schools 284
Yukon Public Schools 853
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 12,797
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Worl, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROSITA WORL, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, SEALASKA HERITAGE
INSTITUTE
Dr. Worl. Madam Chair, Senator Murkowski, [phrase in native
tongue.] And honorable members of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs. May I first thank the Committee for holding
this critical hearing.
My name is Rosita `aahani Worl. I serve as president of the
Sealaska Heritage Institute, which is an affiliate of Sealaska
Corporation. Sealaska was created under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 to settle our aboriginal land
claims.
SHI's mission is to perpetuate and enhance Tlingit, Haida,
and Tsimshian cultures of Southeast Alaska. We have been
fortunate in establishing relationships with Native entities
throughout Alaska and with the Native Hawaiians that implement
Native education funded by the Department of Education grants.
We have discussed with them the challenges of indigenous
education and the persistent lack of funding. The fiscal crisis
that the State of Alaska has been experiencing has translated
into minimal funding for Native education, making Federal
funding even more important.
Despite these challenges, we can confidently state that
through our culture-based programs, that we have integrated
into schools with DOE funding, we have witnessed measurable
educational achievements among Native students as well as
improvements in their social and emotional wellbeing.
Through our discussions and relationship with Native
Hawaiians, we also found that we share similar priorities,
programming, and demonstrated benefits from DOE support and
funding. We also share a common theme: culture-based
educational programs supports educational achievement.
I would like to review key elements of Native educational
success. These findings are directly interlinked with support
and funding from the DOE and demonstrate the importance of that
department.
Key elements of Native educational attainment. Number one,
DOE support and Federal funding were key in supporting the
direct involvement of Native entities in their children's
education and to actively engage with school districts and
school boards to promote and develop relevant educational
programs for Native students. Native involvement all supported
policy and systemic changes in schools that have come to
recognize the importance of integrating Native studies.
The data we collected demonstrates academic progress had
largely been absent until Native entities began to receive
education grants to develop and implement culture-based
programming in schools.
Number two, DOE's support and Federal funding allowed
Native entities to develop culture-based programming, and to
develop curriculum and educational materials that embody and
reflect Native cultures, values, and world view.
Number three, DOE support and Federal funding supported
cultural orientations and instructions for non-Native teachers
and Native teachers training in the University of Alaska
system.
Number four, DOE support and Federal funding allowed Native
entities to establish partnerships and to infuse funds into
financially stressed partner school districts and the
University of Alaska system to support Native education.
Today, SHI has partnerships with 15 school districts, 16
tribes and tribal organizations, 2 educational organizations
that facilitate the disbursement of funds and programs
throughout our region. Additionally, we have partnerships with
the Bristol Bay Foundation and the Arctic Slope Community
Foundation, which are also supported by Federal educational
funding.
While we have made significant progress, Native students'
scores continue to trail behind reported averages for all
students, demonstrating that the need persists for continued
Native educational funding.
The academic success fostered among Native students can
largely be attributed to ANEP, the Alaska Native Education
Program. ANEP grantees have successfully intervened on behalf
of Native students and families to contribute to their success,
both academically and socially. However, we are aware that the
level of ANEP funding is not sufficient to allow more Native
entities to participate in ANEP.
Because of the significant impact in Alaska, SHI has
recommended an increase in the 2026 ANEP appropriation to $70
million.
I would like to conclude with the recognition and thanks to
the Department of Education and its staff for their invaluable
support, and to Congress for enacting laws and providing
funding to support quality education for Natives and students
across the Country. With adequate funding, students and
educators can have access to quality education and tools that
reflect their heritage while equipping them with the skills
necessary for future success.
Gunalcheesh.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Worl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rosita Worl, Ph.D., President, Sealaska Heritage
Institute
Chair Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz, and honorable members of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. May I first thank the Committee for
holding this critical hearing to hear directly from those who know
first-hand the importance of the Department of Education for Native
education and all students alike. May I also respectfully acknowledge
Alaska's Senator, Lisa Murkowski, whom we recognize and honor as
Aanshawatk'i, Lady of the Land, of the Deisheetaan clan of Angoon.
My name is Rosita Worl. My Tlingit name is Yeidiklas'akw and my
ceremonial name is Kaahani. I am Eagle from the Shangukeid! or the
Thunderbird clan and I am from the Kawdliyaayi H!t or the House Lowered
from the Sun in Klukwan in the Chilkat Region. I am also a Child of the
Lukaax.adi or Sockeye clan. I serve as the president of the Sealaska
Heritage Institute (SHI), which is an affiliate of Sealaska
Corporation. Sealaska was created under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971 to settle our aboriginal land claims.
Founded in 1980, SHI's mission is ``to perpetuate and enhance
Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian cultures of Southeast Alaska'' and its
goal is ``to promote cross-cultural understanding.'' Our early
historical leaders and grandparents had come to realize that quality
and equitable education for all students and the integration of Native
culture into schools were critical to the survival of Alaska Native
cultures. Our evaluations and assessments have consistently revealed
that integration of our federally funded cultural, language, and arts
programs into educational institutions leads to greater academic
achievement and school retention among Alaska Native students.
We have been fortunate in establishing relationships with Native
entities throughout the State of Alaska and with Native Hawaiian
entities that implement Native education programs funded by the
Department of Education (DOE) grants that are available to Native
organizations and tribes such as Demonstration Grants for Indian
Children and the Alaska Native Education Program. We have discussed
with them the challenges of Indigenous education and the persistent
lack of funding.
The fiscal crisis that the State of Alaska has been experiencing
has translated into minimal funding for Native education, making
federal education funding even more important. Despite these
challenges, we can confidently state that through our culture-based
programs that we have integrated into schools with funding from the
DOE, we have witnessed measurable educational achievements among Alaska
Native students as well improvements in their social and emotional
wellbeing.
I would like to add that the benefits of Native education
programming are widespread, with non-Native students learning about our
cultures and history, which has led to improved cross-cultural
relationships. Coincident with these benefits, Alaskans have come to
appreciate the value and richness of our region's cultural diversity, a
change from earlier periods in which suppression of Native cultures was
the norm.
Through our discussions and relationships with Native Hawaiians, I
have found that we share similar priorities, programming, and
demonstrated benefits regarding DOE support and funding, with a common
theme: that culture-based educational programming supports educational
achievement. Like Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians share a priority in
obtaining DOE support and grants to develop culturally appropriate
programs that address:
beginning reading and literacy among students in
kindergarten through third grade;
the needs of at-risk children and youth including early
learning and school readiness;
the needs in fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians
are underemployed; and, of course,
the use of the Hawaiian language in instruction.
In 2022, I had the opportunity to testify and submit written
testimony to Senator Murkowski's field hearing on ``Transformative and
Innovative Strategies for Better Educational Outcomes for Alaska Native
Students'' in Anchorage, Alaska. \1\ The successes I outlined in my
testimony resulted largely from the support of the DOE and direct
federal funding to Alaska Native entities. I would like to briefly
review the findings I shared then as they are directly interlinked with
support and funding from the DOE and demonstrate the importance of the
department. Based on our discussions and relationships with other
Alaska Native entities, I suggest that these findings are applicable to
other Native entities throughout the state receiving federal dollars. I
also note that the grants awarded to SHI were shared with school
districts, the state university system, other educational institutions,
and tribes to enhance Native education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ February 24, 2022. Worl, Rosita Kaahani, Ph.D., Sealaska
Heritage Institute. Written testimony submitted to Senator Murkowski's
field hearing, ``Transformative and Innovative Strategies for Better
Educational Outcomes for Alaska Native Students.'' Anchorage, Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An over-arching statewide strategic approach has been to integrate
Native culture into educational systems targeting Native students, but
not to the exclusion of non-Native students. To accomplish this
objective, we developed programs to educate teachers and
administrators, the majority of whom are non-Native, about Native
cultures and to enhance their abilities to support Native culture
instruction. We also supported art, language, and teacher training
programs at the University of Alaska Southeast, again with the support
of the DOE and federal grants that SHI received.
Another strategic approach was the development of formal
partnerships with school districts and educational organizations with
the ultimate objective of promoting systemic institutional changes that
support Native education. These partnerships were also a means of
maximizing our resources and infusing funds into financially stressed
educational systems. A recent study by The Foraker Group reported that
in 2022 SHI, with $19.8 million in revenues, was the sixth largest
public foundation in Alaska in providing funding totaling $3.5 million
to other entities. \2\ This does not include the 200 contractors SHI
retains annually to support its programming throughout the region and
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2024. The Foraker Group. ``Alaska's Nonprofit Sector:
Generating Economic Impact.'' Anchorage. Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, to ensure that our approach was successful, we continually
evaluated our programs to determine if we were meeting our goals of
promoting academic success and school retention as well as imparting
Native cultural knowledge.
With these strategic approaches that were supported by DOE and
grant funding, Alaska Natives had a direct role in promoting systemic
changes with the integration of Native culture instruction into
educational systems. The data we collected demonstrates academic
progress-academic progress that had largely been absent until this
period when Native entities began to receive education grants to
develop and implement culture-based programming in schools.
In my 2022 testimony, I highlighted several of our transformative
and innovative programs that had proven to be successful in promoting
the academic success of Native students. I have attached that reference
as Appendix A of this document for your review.
I also identified key components that led to success as a result of
the DOE's support and funding that I would now like to share with the
Committee:
Key Components of Native Educational Success
1. DOE's support and federal funding were key in supporting
Native entities' direct involvement in their children's education and
to actively engage with the administrations of school districts and
school boards to promote and develop relevant educational programs for
Native students.
2. DOE's support and federal funding allowed Native entities to
develop culture-based programs. One notable example is SHI's Baby Raven
Reads program, designed to support early childhood literacy and to
engage parents in their children's education. This latter point is an
especially important development. I am sure that you are aware that
generations of Native children were institutionalized in boarding
schools. They did not have the benefit of learning the value and
practices of parental involvement in their children's education. The
involvement of parents in Baby Raven Reads activities led to phenomenal
increases in childhood literacy (see Appendix A for more information on
this program).
3. DOE's support and federal funding supported cultural
orientations and instruction for non-Native teachers that they could
then teach to their students. SHI's funding also allowed us to support
Native teacher recruitment, training, and retention in the University
of Alaska system through scholarships, apprenticeships, and
internships.
4. DOE's support and federal funding allowed Native entities to
develop curriculum and educational materials that embody and reflect
Native cultures, values, and worldviews.
5. DOE's support and federal funding allowed Native entities to
establish partnerships and to infuse funds into partner school
districts and the University of Alaska Southeast to support Native
education, which ultimately promoted policy and systemic changes.
Today, SHI has partnerships with 15 school districts and two
educational organizations in Southeast Alaska. \3\ SHI also maintains
partnerships with the Bristol Bay Foundation and the Arctic Slope
Community Foundation (ASCF), which are also supported by federal
educational funding and play a crucial role in supporting education and
cultural preservation in their regions and throughout the State of
Alaska. For example, the ASCF relies on ANEP funding, which enables
them to provide essential financial resources that support initiatives
across 26 rural communities, including language revitalization, locally
responsive curriculum development, and academic enrichment programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chatham School District, Craig City School District, Haines
Borough School District, Hoonah City School District, Hydaburg City
School District, Juneau School District, Kake City School District,
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District, Klawock City School
District, Mt. Edgecumbe (independent from Sitka SD), Petersburg School
District, Sitka School District, Wrangell Public Schools, Yakutat
School District, the Alaska Association of School Boards, and the
Southeast Regional Resource Center.
Overall, DOE support and federal funding have supported
transformative and innovative Native educational programming that
promotes Native academic achievement throughout the State of Alaska.
All that said, I must also add that while we have made significant
progress, Native students continue to trail behind reported average
measures for all students. For example, the 2024 proficiency data from
the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development shows that while
20 percent of all Southeast Alaska students are Alaska Native, they are
trailing nearly 10 percent behind the average for all students in
proficiency demonstrating that the need persists for continued Native
educational funding.
Furthermore, I must also emphasize that the impacts of COVID-19,
wherein the closure of schools, social isolation, and lack of access to
computers to participate in virtual programing, exacerbated the
problems faced by Native students across the state. Reports from
schools indicate that the academic gains that we had made have since
been eroded. Additionally, these reports reveal an increase of self-
harm. While an infusion of federal funds had been made available to
address the COVID-19 impacts, I am concerned that the effects will be
long term and far outlast this limited cash infusion.
One of the primary DOE funding sources that I would like to
highlight is the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP). The late
Senator Ted Stevens originally authored the Alaska Native Education
Equity, Support, and Assistance Act in the 1990s to create equity in
education for Alaska Natives after the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools
closed in Alaska. Initially, ANEP funding was available to school
districts, educational organizations, the state's university system,
and Alaska Native entities. Under these regulations, Native entities
received only a fraction of allotted funds.
In 2016, as a result of an Alaska Federation of Natives resolution,
the regulations were changed to limit ANEP grant eligibility to Native
entities. From this period, we began to see improvements in Native
academic achievement with the direct engagement of Native entities
across the state in education. This is exemplified in part by the
graduation rate for Native students participating in ANEP-funded
programs, such as those administered by Cook Inlet Tribal Council and
SHI, which are consistently in the 90 percent range over the past
decade. This progress is the result of intentional effective
programming for students in kindergarten through grade 12, targeting
each developmental level with the necessary supports that lead to
academic success.
The academic success fostered among Native students that I have
outlined can largely be attributed to ANEP funding. ANEP grantees have
successfully intervened on behalf of Native students and families to
contribute to their success both academically and socially. However, we
are aware that the level of ANEP funding is not sufficient to allow
more Native entities to participate in ANEP.
SHI has continually advocated for increased ANEP funding to support
the inclusion of additional grantees because of the known educational
benefits ANEP-funded programs provide. Additionally, SHI will provide
grant writing training to other Native entities on May 5-9. We have
found that a minimal number of Native entities participate in federal
program-sponsored grant writing training. Since we partner with and
extend our grant funds to other Native entities and have relationships
with multiple Native organizations and tribes outside of Southeast
Alaska, we believe that an increased number of Native entities would
participate in our grant writing training that could potentially lead
to ANEP grant awards. Because of its significant impact in Alaska, SHI
has recommended an increase in the 2026 ANEP appropriation to $70
million from its 2025 appropriation of $44.953 million.
I would like to conclude with the recognition of the Department of
Education and its staff, who have proven to be invaluable in not only
administering grant funds, but in responding to the multiple and
ongoing questions we have posed about educational programming. They
have sponsored invaluable grant project directors' meetings in which
directors share lessons learned and information about approaches and
techniques that have proven to be successful. The dedicated DOE staff
share with grantees recent academic studies related to our programs
that highlight important lessons for academic and social success. They
also support and advance our recommendations to the Secretary of
Education and ultimately to Congress that we believe will lead to
improvements in Native education.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Department of Education for
their support and to Congress for enacting laws and providing funding
to support quality education for Natives and students across the
country.
We believe that the educational success of students in our
communities, state, and country can support enhanced quality of life
for individuals and healthy and self-sustaining societies. With
adequate funding, students and educators across Alaska have access to
quality education and tools that reflect their heritage while equipping
them with the skills necessary for future success.
Gunalcheesh
Appendix A
Tlingit Culture, Language, and Literacy Program
In 2000, SHI founded the Tlingit Culture, Language, and Literacy
(TCLL) program in the Juneau School District to increase the academic
performance of Native students in kindergarten through fifth grade. A
2013 longitudinal study found that over a ten-year span, TCLL students
generally did as well as or better than their non-Native peers on
standardized tests in reading and writing. It also showed that 60
percent of the first cohort of TCLL students graduated from high
school, compared to the overall Alaska Native graduation rate in
Juneau, then 47 percent. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Figures in this section come from the 2013 report published by
Sealaska Heritage Institute, ``Ten Years Later: A History of the
Tlingit Culture, Language, and Literacy Program in the Juneau School
District.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 2011, the program was operating with its own curriculum that
integrated Tlingit cultural history, arts, and oral narratives with the
district's curriculum. However, from 2012 to 2018, the district adopted
Alaska's new content standards for English language arts, mathematics,
social studies, and science and the TCLL program had to set aside its
own curriculum--though it continued to provide students with 30 minutes
of Tlingit language instruction, four days a week.
In 2017, the district asked the TCLL teachers to create a
culturally rich curriculum based on the district's adoption of Alaska's
new content standards. A three-year grant (2018-2021) awarded to SHI by
the US Department of Education allowed TCLL's teachers, fluent Tlingit
speakers, advanced second language speakers, and Tlingit linguists to
complete the first of two phases needed for TCLL to operate as a dual-
language program. During this phase, the TCLL program:
Hired three Tlingit language teachers, adopted a co-teaching
model, and provided content-based instruction (with Tlingit as
the medium of instruction) for its Native students.
Revised its Tlingit Language Proficiency Scope and Sequence
(based on the Northwest Indian Language Institute's Language
Proficiency Benchmarks) in order to implement leveled student
assessments.
Developed a new TCLL program curriculum aligned with the
Alaska content standards for K-5 English language arts,
mathematics, social studies, and science.
On average, 65 percent of the TCLL program's students were
economically disadvantaged at the start of the federally funded
project, a significantly higher rate than for the Juneau School
District as a whole (30 percent). Research shows that challenges
related to economic conditions in the home can delay children's
development of the oral language skills, vocabulary, and emergent
literacy skills necessary for reading \5\ and the number competencies
necessary for mathematics. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hoff, E. (2013). ``Interpreting the early language trajectories
of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for
closing achievement gaps.'' Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4-14.
\6\ Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (2009). ``Socioeconomic
variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in
young children.'' Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(1),
60-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal funding SHI received for the TCLL program also
supported Tlingit language revitalization by promoting the use of the
language in students' homes. At a meeting during this phase of the
project, a parent of a TCLL student explained: ``Learning our language
gives us connection to our ancestors, brings healing to our soul, and
brings us into our future. . . I tell my son we are blessed to be able
to learn our language because people tried to take it from us.''
A comparison of TCLL students' Measure of Annual Progress (MAP)
scores prior to SHI's use of federal funding to enhance programing for
TCLL students to their MAP scores at the end of the first year of the
grant demonstrate the efficacy of SHI's use of federal funding. \7\ In
one year, the percentage of TCLL students proficient in reading
increased by 17 points and the percentage of TCLL students proficient
in mathematics increased by 12 points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Note that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Juneau School
District was unable to conduct MAP testing for all of its elementary
school students in 2020 and 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further comparison, the percentage of change for the other
students served by the same elementary school where the TCLL program
operates as a ``school within a school'' demonstrated an increase in
reading proficiency of 6 percentage points and a decrease in math
proficiency of 1 point over the same time-period and based on those
students' MAP scores. SHI is now applying for funding from the US
Department of Education to support the second phase needed for TCLL to
operate as a dual-language program.
Baby Raven Reads Program
Since 2014, Sealaska Heritage has sponsored Baby Raven Reads (BRR),
a nationally recognized, award-winning program that improves early
literacy skills by translating cultural strengths into home literacy
practices. Alaska Native families with children up to age 5 receive
books published through the program and attend family literacy events
that are rooted in culture, community, and place. The pilot project
began in Juneau in 2014. Initial feedback was astounding. Through a
partnership with Tlingit & Haida Head Start, the program now serves 16
communities in Southeast Alaska, providing meaningful family engagement
opportunities and professional development for early childhood
educators throughout the region.
Through BRR, the number of Alaska Native students consistently
demonstrating phonetic awareness increased by 20 percentage points from
2014-2020. During this time, the proportion of non-Alaska Native
students consistently demonstrating phonetic knowledge decreased by 5
percentage points.
BRR was recognized in 2017 by the Library of Congress, which gave
SHI its Best Practice Honoree award, making it one of only 15 programs
in the world to receive the award that year. SHI has received several
awards for the incredible book series published through Baby Raven
Reads. Shanyaak'utlaax: Salmon Boy won the 2018 American Indian Youth
Literature Best Picture Book award from the American Indian Library
Association (AILA) and Raven Makes the Aleutians and Celebration
received AILA Picture Book Honor awards in 2020 and 2024, respectively.
How Devil's Club Came to Be was recommended by American Indians in
Children's Literature (AICL) and film producers have expressed interest
in producing an animated film based on the book. The board books Cradle
Songs of Southeast Alaska and Wilgyigyet: Learn the Colors in Sm'algyax
were also AICL-recommended titles.
One parent shared, ``I cried tears of happiness and sorrow when we
received [the 2018 Raven series] in the mail because I thought of how
amazing it was that my children will forever have something so powerful
in their lives that I didn't have and how my grandmother and those
others that came before me suffered and fought so hard for us to be
where we are today as Indigenous Peoples.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Parent feedback from a Baby Raven Reads Parent-Child Project
Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program evaluations reveal that the elements contributing to the
success of BRR are as follows:
1.Federal funding to support BRR programs
ANEP, STEPS, and ANA have contributed a combined total of
just over $6.5 million since 2014.
2.Direct involvement of Native entities in BRR programming
Tlingit & Haida Head Start centers in 10 Southeast Alaska
communities: Angoon, Craig, Hoonah, Juneau, Klawock,
Petersburg, Saxman, Sitka, Wrangell, and Yakutat.
Five Southeast Alaska tribal entities: Yakutat Tlingit
Tribe, Organized Village of Kake, Metlakatla Indian Community,
Chilkat Indian Association, and Ketchikan Indian Community.
Language immersion involvement in two schools: Haa Yoo
X'atangi Kudi Tlingit language nest in Juneau and Xantsii Naay
Haida Immersion Preschool in Hydaburg.
3.Involvement of Native parents in BRR programs including reading
to and with Native students
Current enrollment is near 500 families, serving more than
766 children.
4.Children's books based on Native culture and oral traditions,
written by Native authors and illustrated by Native artists
30 publications have been produced since 2016 with Tlingit,
Haida, and Tsimshian cultural themes.
SHI is ecstatic about the success of the Baby Raven Reads program
and believes it should be replicated statewide if not nationwide.
Thru the Cultural Lens
SHI is completing the ninth year of Thru the Cultural Lens (TCL), a
cultural responsiveness training program for educators. The core of the
program is a 50-hour professional development seminar for educators
designed to enhance participants' understanding of Alaska Native
cultures, provide strategies and resources for developing culturally
responsive classrooms, and foster a sense of community among those
dedicated to providing more place-based and culturally relevant school
experiences. Four seminars are offered annually, with two hybrid
cohorts in Juneau (fall and spring), and two virtual cohorts for
southern Southeast communities including Hydaburg, Ketchikan,
Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell (fall and spring). Participants
receive a stipend and three credits for successful program completion.
To support the growing community of educators working to become
more culturally responsive practitioners, TCL hosts an annual region-
wide education conference. In this third three-year grant cycle, TCL is
on track to meet its targets including expanding to southern Southeast
Alaska, serving 120 educators through the in-depth seminar, and
reaching 600 participants through the annual culturally responsive
education conference.
Seminar participants say the experience is transformative,
providing inspiration, confidence, and vital new connections to
colleagues, Alaska Native Elders and scholars, and resources. Further,
they report that they feel confident integrating what they have learned
into their teaching practice and say the program helps them create a
better learning environment for all students. Many describe it as life
changing, as demonstrated by this sampling of participants' post-
seminar comments:
''I think I cried at every class. What some of these
teachers have done in their classroom was just mind blowing. It
just made me want to be a better teacher. It was very
empowering.''
''I think this is a thing every educator in Alaska should
do. I think this should be taught to students in college. I
think this should be part of the required course for new
teachers to the state.''
''The content was unmatched. And being Alaska Native and
being in the culture, that's something to say for Sealaska. You
don't find that kind of content anywhere, and the way they
lined up the speakers was incredible.''
''I feel like my heart was opened in a lot of ways. It was
not textbook learning. It was actual personal stories and
people who were passionate about what they talked about. It
changed some of my views.''
''I feel so much more educated as a person in general.''
''I've been teaching for 28 years, and there were things
I've never heard before-methodologies and pedagogies. I grew so
much as a teacher.''
Traditional Native Games
While not viewed strictly as an academic program nor accepted by
schools as an official school sport, the participation of Native
students in traditional Native games has had a significant beneficial
impact on Native students. As one Juneau school board member commented,
it is the only program that is benefiting a population who she
identified as ``at-risk'' Native students.
First, we want to recognize Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC), long-
time host of NYO Games, for its 2016 evaluation report that prompted
SHI to integrate Native games into Southeast Alaska schools.
The Traditional Games of the Native Youth Olympics (NYO) includes
multiple events and competitions. They are based on traditional forms
of training used to build the strength, agility, and endurance
necessary for hunting and survival. These games have been practiced by
Indigenous people in Alaska and across the Arctic, going back hundreds
of years. The Games include events such as the Seal Hop, which is a
traditional hunting technique meant to mimic seal movements; the
Scissor Broad Jump, Kneel Jump, One-Hand Reach, and the Alaskan High
Kick to test agility; and the Wrist Carry, Dene Stick Pull, and Inuit
Stick Pull to test strength. The Games are open to Native and non-
Native students.
The start of the current NYO program for middle and high school
students in Southeast Alaska has been the work of coach Kyle Worl, who
is now a staff person with the Central Council of Tlingit & Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska (T&H). He was successful in establishing
partnerships with SHI, T&H, Goldbelt Heritage Foundation, and the
University of Alaska Southeast to expand the sport across the region
and to host the annual regional competition in Juneau.
NYO has had a quantifiable positive impact on Alaskan youth,
reaching 2,032 individual participants in the Juneau Traditional Games
in 2019 alone. Surveys from that event and CITC's 2016 report show
promising results for positive impacts on Alaskan youth. Notable
highlights include:
Improved academic performance
--74 percent of surveyed student athletes improved or
maintained good grades in order to continue participation in
NYO Games (CITC, 2016)
Reduced truancy
--77 percent of surveyed student athletes credited NYO as an
incentive to stay in school (CITC, 2016)
--When surveyed again in 2019, 89 percent of athletes responded
that NYO/Traditional Games made them want to stay in school
(SHI, 2019)
Improved physical and mental health and wellbeing
--66 percent of surveyed student athletes indicated improved
self-confidence (CITC, 2016)
--When asked ``How has your health changed through
participation in NYO Games?'' at the 2019 Traditional Games in
Juneau, 27 percent of participants reported improved general
health and 13 percent of participants reported a better sense
of wellbeing (SHI, 2019)
--97 percent of athletes reported an increase in ``hard work''
(SHI, 2019)
--95 percent reported an increase in ``self-confidence'' (SHI,
2019)
--87 percent reported an increase in ``self-esteem'' (SHI,
2019)
Both reports on NYO from 2019 and 2016 show promising trends in
academic performance and involvement and the wellbeing of the athletes.
Additionally, the athletes themselves noted how NYO has personally
affected their lives. When interviewed about NYO and participation in
school, one 2019 athlete shared the following: ``I do NYO because I was
alone, I couldn't find something meaningful. I play so I can feel proud
of myself, and get my family back into Native culture, starting with
me.''
NYO and Traditional Games influence young people to improve
academic performance, strengthen overall health and wellbeing, and
instill important tribal values, including leadership and respect--
values that make strong communities and build tomorrow's leaders.
Another 2019 athlete voiced these values in their interview, saying
``Mind, body, and spirit--the games help with all three of those
things.''
While we have managed to piece together funding to support
Traditional Games in our schools, the evaluations show that funding for
Traditional Games should be implemented as a program widely supported
by the federal government.
Native Leadership and Participation in Education
Key to SHI's and other Native entities' success has been the
leadership and direct participation of Natives in educational systems.
The data outlined below clearly shows that Native leadership and
participation in schools facilitated Native education success. It was a
stark change that transformed educational systems with a record of
dismal failure to one that promoted the academic achievement and school
retention of Native students.
Native communities and educators alike have long lamented that
Native families were not engaged in their children's education. We
believe that federal funding and programs that have been made available
to Alaskan tribes and Native entities have facilitated the direct
participation of Alaska Natives in educational program development and
management.
Federal funding has allowed tribes and Alaska Native entities to
become directly engaged in the education of Native children, including
the following accomplishments:
designing culture-based programs and curricula materials and
resources;
advocating for the integration of language and culture into
schools;
training teachers to provide culturally responsive training;
creating instructional practices in the classroom that
engage and connect with Native students;
collaborating with the University of Alaska to recruit and
train Native teachers; and
identifying key areas where Native students were under-
performing, and to then develop culturally responsive programs
to address those challenges.
The State of Alaska is responsible for providing education for all
of its citizens, but we as Native peoples had to go to court to ensure
that the State fulfilled its responsibility and established schools in
Native communities. Although we were able to secure schools in our
communities, significant disparities between the academic achievement
of Alaska Native and non-Native students persisted. It was only when
Native entities became directly involved in Native education that we
began to see improvement in achievement scores and graduation rates and
reduction in dropout rates.
To support this assertion, I would like to highlight a few data
elements from the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development
that reflect improvements in Native education.
The high school graduation tests in reading and math from 2003 and
2014 show that Native students doubled the increase in reading scores
in contrast to non-Native students. In math for the same years, Native
students had an increase of near 5 percent more non-Native students.
Pass Rates for Alaska High School Graduation Tests, 2003 vs. 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 Reading 2014 Reading Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White 81.5% 92% 10.5%
Native 44.6% 66.8% 22.2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 Math 2014 Math Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White 79% 85.1% 6.1%
Native 50.1% 60.7% 10.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of statewide graduation rates, we saw substantial
improvement in the graduation rates of Alaska Natives, which went from
49 percent in 2000 to 69 percent in 2017--an increase of 20 points.
Alaska High School Graduation Rates, 2000, 2010, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2010 2017 Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All students 61% 68% 78.2% 17.2%
White students 65% 75.2% 82.2% 16.8%
Native 49% 50.7% 69% 20%
students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Native student scores and graduation rates continue to lag
behind non-Native students', we have narrowed the gap. We believe that
federal funding that was made available to Native entities throughout
Alaska has contributed to this improvement. With the support of federal
grants and the participation of Native entities in education, we are
making progress.
We must continue to maximize the leadership and participation of
Alaska Natives in the planning and management of Alaska Native
education programs that have been made possible by federal funding.
This funding has become even more critical as the State of Alaska has
continued to reduce educational funding as a result of the fiscal
crisis Alaska has experienced in the last several years.
SHI readily concedes that we yet have much work to overcome the
serious educational disadvantages Native students face, but through
past and ongoing federal grants, we are making progress. Our success in
promoting systemic changes in schools has resulted in widespread
understanding of the necessity and benefits of integrating Native
language and cultures and culture-based programming into our
educational system.
We would like to recognize the efforts of the late Congressman Don
Young and thank Senators Murkowski and Sullivan for their continued
advocacy and support of Alaska Native education. Their work has
contributed to the progress we have made in Native academic achievement
and school retention.
Gunalcheesh.
The Chairman. Gunalcheesh, Dr. Worl.
Welcome, Ms. Russell.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE RUSSELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FEDERALLY IMPACTED SCHOOLS
Ms. Russell. Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz,
and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Nicole Russell. I am the Executive Director of
the National Association of federally Impacted Schools, or
NAFIS, representing more than 1,000 federally impacted school
districts nationwide that educate nearly eight million
students, more 105,000 on tribal lands.
federally impacted school districts are those which depend
on the continued support of Impact Aid, the oldest elementary
and secondary education funding program that represents the
Federal responsibility to reimburse public schools for lost
property tax revenue due to non-taxable Federal property, such
as Indian and restricted fee land, Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act lands, and other property.
NAFIS is grateful for Congress' bipartisan support and
hopes that strong support will continue. Eight committee
members have joined the Impact Aid caucus and seven signed a
bipartisan ``dear colleague'' letter, led by Senator Lujan,
supporting robust Impact Aid funding in Fiscal Year 2025.
Impact Aid is not a handout. It is a Federal obligation
borne of treaties, trust responsibility and the unique status
of tribal lands as non-taxable. Public schools that serve
Native American students and all students impacted by Federal
lands face significant fiscal disadvantages, because they
cannot rely on traditional property tax revenue to fund their
schools. Impact Aid exists to bridge that gap.
Today, we are confronted with serious discussions about the
potential dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and
the erosion of Federal support for public schools. Eliminating
the department would be devastating. In fact, well over 90
percent of Native American students are educated in traditional
public schools.
Impact Aid is administered efficiently, sending funds
directly to school districts which allows school leaders the
flexibility to make local decisions, precisely the kind of
governance many are advocating for today. Many schools that
receive Impact Aid are the economic engines that drive that
community forward.
Impact Aid can be used for any legal purpose, including
special services, transportation, culturally relevant
instruction, language revitalization programs, or teacher
housing. Moving Impact Aid to a different agency would
introduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, result in a loss of
valuable institutional knowledge and lead to significant delays
in payments.
If the Department is dismantled, the very schools that
heavily rely on Impact Aid will be the first to suffer. Despite
its importance, Impact Aid has not been fully funded since
1969, leaving schools struggling to fill those gaps. NAFIS is
grateful for Senator Lujan's and Senator Tillis' leadership of
the bipartisan Advancing Toward Impact Aid Full Funding Act
last Congress.
Many school facilities serving Native students are in
urgent need of repair. Unlike most public schools, federally
impacted districts have limited to no bonding capacity to fund
school construction or renovation. Impact Aid construction
grants funded at only $19 million annually provide critical
funding for infrastructure improvements, yet demand far exceeds
available resources.
That is why we are grateful to Senator Hirono for leading
and Senator Smith for cosponsoring the Impact Aid
Infrastructure Partnership Act, which proposes enough funding
for access to safe, modern educational facilities and expands
the use of funds to include teacher housing, a major challenge
for many Native communities.
Impact Aid has tribal consultation requirements, ensuring
that schools meaningfully engage with tribal representatives
and parents. These policies promote collaboration,
transparency, culturally relevant solutions, and equitable
access to educational resources.
Impact Aid reflects this Nation's moral and legal
obligation to Native communities. I urge Congress to prioritize
and protect Impact Aid, the education of Native American
students, the next generation of Native leaders, and the
integrity of our Nation's promises depend on it.
Thank you for your time, your attention, and your continued
commitment to tribal lands and federally impacted communities.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Russell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicole Russell, Executive Director, National
Association of Federally Impacted Schools
Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and distinguished
Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nicole
Russell, Executive Director of the National Association of Federally
Impacted Schools (NAFIS), and I am here representing more than 1,000
federally impacted school districts nationwide that educate nearly
eight million public school students, including over 105,000 students
living on Tribal lands. Federally impacted school districts are those
which depend on the continued support of Impact Aid--a program that is
not only foundational to public education in federally impacted areas
but is a critical promise kept between the federal government and
Native communities. It provides resources that empower Native American
youth with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to thrive
academically, professionally, and personally.
NAFIS is grateful for Congress's bipartisan support of the Impact
Aid program and hopes that strong support will continue. As an example
of that, eight committee members have joined the Impact Aid Caucus.
Seven signed a bipartisan Dear Colleague letter led by Senator Luj n
supporting robust Impact Aid funding in FY 2025.
Impact Aid is the oldest elementary and secondary education funding
program, celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Impact Aid
represents the Federal Government's responsibility to those local
communities where it holds significant non-taxable property, such as
Indian trust and restricted fee land, Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act land, military installations, Federal low-rent housing facilities,
national parks, national laboratories, and other federal property.
Among all student categories for the Section 7003 Basic Support
program, those who resided on Indian lands--to use the legal term--are
the group the receives the highest weight in formula allocations, and
the only group that increased enrollment from FY 2024 to FY 2025.
Native American student enrollment is not declining in public schools--
it is increasing.
Impact Aid is not a handout. It is a federal obligation--born of
treaties, trust responsibility, and the unique status of Tribal lands
as non-taxable. In the United States Code, Impact Aid's statutory
purpose acknowledges a need to provide financial assistance to local
school districts to, in part, ``fulfill the responsibilities of the
Federal Government with respect to Indian tribes'' (20 U.S.C. 7701).
Public schools--including public charter schools--that serve Native
American students, military-connected children, and all students in
districts impacted by federal lands face significant fiscal
disadvantages because they cannot rely on traditional state and local
property tax revenue to fund their schools. Impact Aid exists to bridge
that gap. It is the mechanism by which the federal government fulfills
its commitment to ensure educational access for these communities.
Additionally, Section 7002 Federal Property program compensates
local school districts for federal property and recognizes the trustee
relationship that the United States plays in administering trust and
restricted fee lands for Tribes or allottees. The Section 7007
Constructions Grants program helps pay for the construction and repair
of school buildings and sets aside 20 percent for schools who enroll
children living on Tribal lands.
Keep Impact Aid in the U.S. Department of Education
Today, we are confronted with serious discussions about the
potential dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and the
erosion of federal support for public schools. Eliminating the
Department would be devastating for federally impacted school districts
and the students they serve--many of whom are Native American. In fact,
despite some recent statements that suggest the Department does not
play a role in educating Native American students, the vast majority of
Native American students (well over 90 percent) are educated in
traditional public schools.
Impact Aid is unique. It is not a program administered with strings
attached, and by nature it is flexible to allow for maximum local
control. It does not impose curriculum or federal mandates. It is
administered efficiently by sending funds directly to school districts,
which allows school leaders to make local decisions with local
control--precisely the kind of governance many are advocating for
today. It does, however, require specialized technical knowledge from
the federal program analysts who lead and oversee its implementation.
Moving Impact Aid to a different agency would introduce unnecessary
bureaucratic hurdles, result in a loss of valuable institutional
knowledge, and lead to significant delays in payments to schools
serving Native students. If the Department of Education is dismantled,
the very schools that heavily rely on Impact Aid will be the first to
suffer.
Increase Funding for Impact Aid
Federally impacted school districts cannot afford stagnant or a
loss of funding, given their continuing high student needs and high
inflation. Despite its importance, Impact Aid has not been fully funded
since 1969, leaving schools struggling to fill financial gaps. Since
then, a needs-based proration formula determines payments, which is
included in the law, adding an additional layer of complexity to an
already intricate program. Schools serving Native students must make
difficult choices, such as cutting academic programs, delaying facility
repairs, or increasing class sizes, all of which negatively impact
student outcomes.
Impact Aid is one of the only federal K-12 education programs that
is not forward funded so relies on annual appropriations to distribute
payments. When Congress passes continuing resolutions that delay final
appropriations, many school districts serving large populations of
Native American students face uncertainty in budgeting and planning.
Ultimately, that can cause delays in hiring and staffing, reduced
program offerings, and cash flow challenges that hinder the quality of
education that students receive.
Impact Aid was designed to fulfill the federal government's
obligation to federally impacted school districts, yet chronic
underfunding and delayed payments undermines this responsibility. Fully
funding Impact Aid would provide schools with the financial stability
needed to enhance educational opportunities, improve infrastructure,
and ensure Native students receive the support they need.
NAFIS is grateful for Senator Lujan's and Senator Tillis's
leadership of the bipartisan Advancing Toward Impact Aid Full Funding
Act. We look forward to the re-introduction this year. That bill would
create a five-year plan to fully fund Section 7003 Basic Support and
offer a proportional increase to Section 7002 Federal Property. It
would also provide substantial boosts to Section 7003(d) Children with
Disabilities and Section 7007 Construction. These increases would
deliver significant annual funding improvements for school districts,
helping ensure all students have the resources they need to reach their
full potential.
Many schools that receive Impact Aid are the economic engines that
drive the community forward as a major employer and fulfill vital
community roles like a disaster shelter and civic center. Federally
impacted school districts can use Impact Aid for any legal purpose,
including special education services, technology upgrades, and
transportation, based on the needs of the local community. These are
not luxuries; they are essentials. For Native American students, Impact
Aid can provide critical support for culturally relevant instruction,
language revitalization programs, teacher housing, and safe, modern
school facilities.
Invest in School Infrastructure
Many school facilities serving Native students are in urgent need
of repair. Unlike most public schools, federally impacted districts
have limited to no bonding capacity or are unable to raise local
property taxes to fund school construction or renovation. Impact Aid
Construction Grants provide critical funding for infrastructure
improvements yet demand far exceeds available resources. Many schools
serving Native students operate in buildings that are decades old, with
documented health and safety concerns.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently gave public
schools a D+ on its 2025 Infrastructure Report Card, highlighting a
projected $429 billion funding gap for essential renovations between
2024 and 2033, based on current federal investment levels. Without
significant reform, this shortfall will continue to grow.
The average public school is 49 years old, reaching the critical
50-year design life, when essential facility systems need major
upgrades or replacements. However, less than one half of all public
school buildings have undergone significant renovations since
construction, and less than one third have seen improvements in the
last 15 years. Currently, 41 percent need HVAC updates, and 28 percent
require upgrades to lighting, roofing, or security systems. In many
cases, rebuilding is now more cost-effective than the extensive
repairs.
The current Impact Aid Construction allocation of just $19 million
per year is insufficient to meet most internal renovation needs and
provides no funding to build new schools or address teacher housing.
That's why we are grateful to Senator Hirono for leading the Impact
Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act, which proposes an additional $250
million per year over four years for the program, providing students
and staff in federally impacted school districts with access to safe,
modern education facilities. This legislation also expands the
allowable use of Impact Aid Construction funds to include teacher
housing, which is a major challenge for many school districts located
on Indian lands. These school districts are often remote, and teachers
must either live in district-provided housing or commute long
distances. This directly affects staff recruitment and retention, as
many educators leave these districts for better working conditions,
ultimately impacting the quality of education Native students receive.
Recognize the Importance of Tribes and Native Families in Education
Similar to Johnson-O-Malley and Title VI grants, Impact Aid has
Tribal consultation requirements. The Indian Policies and Procedures
(IPP) provision in the Impact Aid program ensures that school districts
receiving Impact Aid funds that serve students who reside on Indian
lands meaningfully engage with Tribal representatives and parents of
Native American students. These districts must develop and implement
IPPs to ensure Native American communities can provide input on
educational programs and services affecting their children. School
districts must respond to that input, facilitating government-to-
government communications with the Tribe on the needs of their
children. These policies promote collaboration, transparency,
culturally relevant solutions, and on par access to educational
resources, aligning with federal requirements to support the unique
needs of Native American students in federally impacted districts.
In addition, Tribal partnerships assist school districts in
maximizing their Impact Aid payments. Through working with the Tribe,
districts can more effectively navigate the Impact Aid student count
process--a crucial step in the application cycle that involves
certifying each student's connection to federal land--and ensure that
every eligible student is accounted for in the payment formula.
Conclusion
Impact Aid is not just a budget line item. It reflects this
nation's moral and legal obligation to Native communities. Eliminating
or reducing it would break faith with generations of families who have
entrusted their children to the public school system under the premise
that the federal government would do its part.
I urge this committee--and the full Senate--to protect and
prioritize Impact Aid. If anything, it should be expanded, not
endangered. The education of Native American students, the next
generation of Native leaders, and the integrity of our nation's
promises, depend on it.
Thank you for your time, your attention, and your continued
commitment to tribal nations and federally impacted communities.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Russell.
And we turn to Ms. Rose. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF AHNIWAKE ROSE, PRESIDENT/CEO, AMERICAN INDIAN
HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM
Ms. Rose. Chairman Murkowski and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is
Ahniwake Rose, I am a citizen of Cherokee Nation, and I serve
as the President and CEO for the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium, also known as AIHEC.
AIHEC's vision is strong sovereign nations through
excellence in tribal higher education. We accomplish this by
supporting our 34 accredited tribal colleges and universities
or TCUs, which operate more than 90 campuses and sites in 16
States.
TCUs serve students from over 250 federally recognized
tribal nations and embody a vital component of tribal higher
education. Rooted in treaties and authorized by the
Constitution, the Federal Government's unique responsibility to
tribal nations ahs been repeatedly reaffirmed. These trust and
treaty obligations are owed to tribal nations and their
citizens and do not have an expiration date.
They are also not bound just to the Department of Interior,
but extend across the Federal Government and education is a
central component to these obligations. The Federal Government
has long endeavored to uphold this duty through the
appropriations process and through the enactment of such laws
as the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance
Act.
Tribal nations began chartering their own institutions of
higher education in the 1960s for two reasons: the near-
complete failure of the U.S. higher education system to address
the needs of or frankly, even include American Indians and
Alaska Natives, and the need to preserve our culture, our
language, our lands, our sovereignty.
The guiding vision of the tribal college movement is an
education system founded on traditional knowledge, focused on a
prosperous future through job creation and strengthening our
communities. Today's TCUs offer certificates as well as
associates, bachelor's and master's degrees and Dine College
offers our first doctoral degree.
TCUs train professionals in high demand fields, including
law enforcement, agriculture, natural resources management,
information technology, early childhood education, and health
care. By teaching the job skills most in demand in our
community, TCUs lay a solid foundation for tribal economic
growth with benefits for surrounding rural communities and the
Nation as a whole.
In addition to the over 25,000 attending tribal colleges
this academic year, TCUs serve as community hubs, serving over
100,000 community members annually through various programs and
services such as our libraries, job training, high school
equivalency programs, Head Start, financial literacy, community
gardens, and youth in college prep.
To administer these programs, TCUs receive funding from
several agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education.
Our written testimony goes into detail for most of these
programs, but I want to quickly highlight the Title III,
Strengthening Institutions Program, which is frankly one of the
most important resources for tribal colleges.
The core funding is vital to the flexibility in meeting the
unique needs of our TCUs. It allows us to purchase research and
scientific equipment, support faculty development, develop and
improve academic programs, create and improve facilities for
distance learning, and most critically, it allows for the
construction and renovation of instructional facilities.
For example, at UTTC in Bismarck, North Dakota, Title III
dollars support and supplement new construction and
rehabilitation projects across their 124-year-old campus. This
includes a greenhouse, a cold storage building, and lighting
for outside spaces. At Chief Dull Knife College in Lame Deer,
Montana, Title III dollars fund math and science faculty,
cultural staff and language immersion programs.
As Congress begins to consider proposals to restructure the
Department of Education and whether tribal-specific programs
should be moved to other agencies, AIHEC requests that all
programs for which TCUs are eligible entities or receive direct
setasides, such as the Title III program, be considered. Any
cut in funding, freeze, or delay or frankly, any TCU-specific
funding that is block granted and inefficiently rerouted
through State governments would result in drastic cuts to
faculty and staff and frankly, threaten our accreditation
status.
It would also be inappropriate to send funds that are
directed to TCUs through the Federal trust and treaty
obligations to States.
AIHEC appreciate the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for
hosting this vital hearing. We remain committed to working
collaboratively with the Committee as a trusted resource to
ensure that TCUs, tribal nations and their citizens have a
voice in shaping their education future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rose follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ahniwake Rose, President/CEO, American Indian
Higher Education Consortium
About the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) is
comprised of 34 accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) in
the United States (U.S.). On behalf of the TCUs, the following comments
are provided in response to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs'
Oversight Hearing on ``Native American Education--Examining Federal
Programs at the U.S. Department of Education'' to be held on April 2,
2025. AIHEC's mission is to provide leadership and influence public
policy on American Indian higher education issues, including promoting
and strengthening Indigenous languages, cultures, communities, and
Tribal Nations.
About Federal Trust and Treaty Obligations
Rooted in treaties and authorized by the United States
Constitution, the federal government's unique responsibilities to
Tribal Nations have been repeatedly re-affirmed by the Supreme Court,
legislation, executive orders, and regulations. \1\ The trust
responsibility establishes a clear relationship between Tribal Nations
and the federal government. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has consistently held that the federal government has
a trust responsibility to Tribes, which has formed the foundation for
federal/Tribal relations. See Seminole Nation v. United States, 316
U.S. 286 (1942), United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225 (1983),
and United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003).
\2\ In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the Supreme Court
explicitly outlined that the relationship between the federal
government and the Tribes is a relationship between sovereign nations
and that the states are essentially third-party actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legal duty and trust responsibility applies across all
branches of the federal government. These trust and treaty obligations
are owed to Tribal Nations and their citizens and do not have an
expiration date. Education is a central component of the federal trust
and treaty obligations promised to Tribal Nations, Tribal citizens, and
Tribal communities. The federal government has long endeavored to
uphold this duty through the appropriations process and through the
enactment of laws such as the Snyder Act of 1921, the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, the Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978, and the
Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
About Tribal Colleges and Universities
In a bold expression of sovereignty, Tribal Nations began
chartering their own institutions of higher education--Tribal
Colleges--in the 1960s. The first Tribal College, like all that
followed, was established for two reasons: the near complete failure of
the U.S. higher education system to address the needs of--or even
include--American Indians and Alaska Natives; and the need to preserve
our culture, our language, our lands, our sovereignty--our past and our
future. The guiding vision of the Tribal College Movement is an
education system founded on traditional knowledge and focused on a
prosperous future through job creation and strengthening our
communities.
Tribal Colleges and Universities: Serving Students Across Indian
Country and Rural America by Providing Accessible and
Affordable Higher
Education
Currently, TCUs operate more than 90 campuses and sites in 16
states. These institutions serve students from over 250 federally
recognized Tribal Nations and embody a vital component of Tribal higher
education. Indeed, over 80 percent of Indian Country is served by TCUs.
All TCUs offer certificates and associate degrees; 22 offer
bachelor's degrees; 9 offer master's degrees; and one offers a doctoral
degree. Programs range from liberal arts to technical and career
programs. Nearly all TCUs offer certificate and workforce programs in
fields like nursing, IT, and building trades, addressing the healthcare
and business needs of Tribal Nations and rural economies. TCUs train
professionals in high-demand fields, including law enforcement,
agriculture and natural resources management, information technology,
and healthcare. By teaching the job skills most in demand in our
communities, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for Tribal economic
growth, with benefits for surrounding communities and the nation as a
whole. As open enrollment, community-based institutions, Tribal
Colleges welcome all students and proudly became a part of this
nation's land-grant family in 1994.
TCUs provide accessible and affordable options for higher education
for Tribal citizens and other rural students by offering low tuition
rates and fees; 97 percent of TCU graduates are debt-free.
Additionally, most TCU students are first-generation and low-income,
with 78 percent relying on Pell grants--far above the national average.
Pell funding supports working and returning students attend and
complete critical programs--education, nursing, and the building
trades--that strengthen Tribal communities.
TCUs also serve other community members through various community-
based programs and services each year, such as library services, job
training, High School equivalency program instruction and testing,
health promotion, Head Start and K-8 immersion programs, financial
literacy, community gardens, youth and college prep and summer camps,
and civic programs.
As Tribally chartered or federally chartered or federally operated
institutions, TCUs rely heavily on federal funding to provide a high-
quality education. TCUs operate through numerous grants and programs
provided by the federal government, which comprise over 75 percent of
the annual budget. Very few TCUs are appropriated state funding to
assist with operating expenses, thus highlighting the need for vital
federal funding to meet their respective missions and the federal trust
and treaty responsibility.
Key Programs and Funding Within the U.S. Department of Education
TCU Strengthening Institutions (Title III) Program
The purpose of the Title III, Strengthening Institutions program is
``to improve the academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal
stability of eligible institutions, to increase their self-sufficiency
and strengthen their capacity to make a substantial contribution to the
higher education resources of the Nation.'' 20 U.S.C. 1057. The
Strengthening Institutions Title III program for TCUs (Section 316) is
a set-aside from this program and is specifically designed to address
the critical, unmet needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students
and their communities through formula-based aid to TCUs through
discretionary (Part A) and mandatory (Part F) funding. This core
funding is so vital for TCUs because it has many allowable uses,
including much-needed construction funds. Through this program, TCUs
provide student support services, Native language preservation, basic
upkeep of campus buildings and infrastructure, critical campus
expansion, enterprise management systems, faculty for core courses, and
other necessary elements for a quality educational experience.
Tribal Post Secondary Career and Technical Institutions
Section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act provides funding for institutional operations for two Tribally
chartered career and technical institutions authorized by federal law:
United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) in Bismarck, North Dakota and
Navajo Technical University (NTU) in Crownpoint, New Mexico. These
institutions provide vital workforce development and job creation,
education, and training programs to American Indians and Alaska Natives
from Tribal Nations and communities with some of the highest
unemployment rates in the nation.
Indian Education Professional Development
The Indian Education Professional Development Program provides
grants to institutions of higher education (including TCUs) to prepare
and train American Indians and Alaska Natives to serve as teachers and
school administrators at elementary and secondary schools. There is a
growing teacher shortage across the country, especially in urban and
rural communities with high Native populations, where teacher
recruitment and retention pose unique challenges. In communities with
teacher shortages, existing obstacles to student success, such as
inadequate facilities and limited broadband, are further compounded by
overcrowded classrooms. Targeted resources like the Indian Education
Professional Development Program help address this shortage and ensure
that American Indian and Alaska Native students receive high-quality
elementary and secondary education.
Concerns Regarding Implementation of Executive Order 14242
Executive Order 14242 aims to close the U.S. Department of
Education and return education authority to states and local
communities. For TCUs, however, education has always been rooted in
Tribal community control. TCUs were founded as an expression of
sovereignty to preserve our culture, protect our lands, and sustain our
Native languages.
AIHEC Priorities for Protecting TCUs and Their Students Under any
Restructuring of the Department of Education
Since TCUs are chartered by Tribes--sovereign nations--any effort
to dismantle, restructure, or transfer the functions of a federal
agency must continue to honor the federal government's trust and treaty
obligations, the nation-to-nation relationships established by federal
law, and legal precedents. As such, programmatic funding supporting
TCUs and their core functions must be maintained, at minimum, at the
same funding and expert staffing levels within the federal government
and TCUs must maintain direct access to the programs and funding for
which they are eligible. While some proposals to restructure the
Department of Education contemplate moving some of the Tribal-specific
programs to the Bureau of Indian Education at the Department of the
Interior, it is important to remember that there are other programs for
which TCUs are either eligible entities or receive direct set-asides.
Any funding cuts, freezes, delays in continuation grants, or any of
this TCU-specific funding block granted and inefficiently rerouted
through 50 different state governments would force TCUs to scale back
vital programs and services that students rely on to complete degree
and certificate programs needed to succeed in their chosen career
paths. Any reduction or rerouting of these funds would result in cuts
to faculty and staff and would threaten TCU accreditation status.
Further, given the complex and nuanced relationships between
sovereign Tribal Nations and the federal government, it is also
important that key staff and personnel be retained to ensure continuity
and compliance with these longstanding commitments.
In addition, TCUs are concerned that Pell funding is at risk. The
FY 2025 Continuing Resolution included no Pell grant funding increases,
and the program faces a $3 billion shortfall this year, projected to
reach $9 billion next year. Without additional funding, grants may be
reduced, increasing college costs for millions, including TCU students.
Congress can address this shortfall--at no taxpayer cost--through
budget reconciliation. AIHEC urges you to support additional Pell
funding to ensure TCU students continue to access affordable education
and contribute to their communities.
Ultimately, TCUs are historically under-funded when compared to
other public institutions of higher education and we cannot afford to
lose critical financial resources and staff expertise that support the
mission of local, Tribal control over education.
Conclusion
TCUs provide thousands of American Indian and Alaska Native
students with access to high-quality, culturally appropriate
postsecondary education opportunities, including critical early
childhood education programs. The modest federal investment in TCUs has
paid significant dividends in employment, education, and economic
development. AIHEC appreciates the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
for hosting this vital Oversight Hearing and listening to testimony
from Indian education stakeholders. AIHEC remains committed to working
collaboratively with the Committee as a trusted resource to ensure that
Tribal Nations and Tribal citizens have a say in shaping their
education and their future.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Rose.
We have started our second vote, so I think what I will do
is turn first to you, Senator Smith, then I will ask a
question, then I may take off to vote. We will work this out.
But I want to try to keep us going without having to take a
break, if that works.
So let's begin with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
that. We will work it all out. Many thanks to all of you; this
is a very informative and useful panel. Thank you so much,
Chair Murkowski.
I would like to start by focusing in on Impact Aid and Ms.
Russell, I will direct my questions to you. I appreciate how
you are highlighting how cost-effective and efficient Impact
Aid dollars are. I also appreciate how the entire panel in one
way or another started with the unique trust and treaty
obligations that the Federal Government has toward Indian
education, that this is not a program that can just be cut by
somebody, that it is part of our longstanding obligation, too
rarely lived up to. So I think that was a really important
place to start.
We know, as I said, that Impact Aid is very cost-effective.
It is very efficient. And Madam Chair, I would like permission
to enter into the record testimony from the National Indian
Impacted Schools Association, which is headquartered in
Minnesota, related to this topic.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
In this testimony, Brent Gish, who is NIISA's Executive
Director, explains how Impact Aid is a model for efficiency, as
you have just described, and local control, and also how it has
never been funded to meet the intention of the program.
So Ms. Rusell, what I would like to ask you to discuss is,
we have the recent so-called continuing resolution with funding
through the end of this fiscal year, we have the executive
actions and their impact on Impact Aid. And I am hearing that
from my local school boards just how difficult it is to try to
hold it all together, given our serious worries about getting
shortchanged.
So could you just help people who don't understand this
completely, give me some good arguments for why this has such a
tangible impact on the ability of schools to do what they need
to do.
Ms. Russell. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
Impact Aid is one of the few Federal funding programs that
is not forward-funded, meaning we rely on annual appropriations
so that the school districts can receive their funds, which
they are still waiting on since passage of the Fiscal Year 2025
year-long CR.
Our federally impacted school districts are, we are
experiencing serious delays in funding, and have been because
Congress doesn't pass appropriations in recent years on October
1st. So these school districts have waited almost an entire
school year to receive current year funds.
Senator Smith. Right.
Ms. Russell. And we expect a couple of weeks from passage
of appropriations for the funds to reach Ed, to then be
disbursed to the school districts. Once they do reach Ed, they
can be disbursed very quickly, and those funds go directly from
the Department of Education to a school district's bank
account. So it is a very quick and direct funding.
Our concerns are we already know that the passage of the CR
and the funds have not gotten to these school districts, they
are running into serious cash flow problems.
Senator Smith. Right. That is what I am hearing as well.
Ms. Russell. Yes, not just because of Impact Aid but --
Senator Smith. They literally cannot pay the bills.
Ms. Russell. Right. One school district in particular I
heard from this week, we are talking three pay periods away
from needing to borrow funds just to make payroll. So these are
very dire circumstances that our school districts are facing.
When they so heavily rely on Federal funds, like federally
impacted school districts, Impact Aid and other Federal funding
programs you have heard about today, these are serious, serious
problems. We need to make sure that funds are getting to the
school districts in as quick a manner as possible.
Senator Smith. Right. I think this is something we all need
to pay such close attention to. I am quite concerned about it.
Ms. Rose, I want to just take a minute, of the very few
minutes that I have left. I am such a huge fan of TCUs. We have
four TCUs in Minnesota, and I just had a great opportunity to
meet with a graduate of one of them this past week.
I wonder if you could just take the bit of time that I have
left to talk about what you are seeing about the cutbacks at
the Federal level and the impact on TCUs.
Ms. Rose. We are so happy to have a fan of our tribal
colleges. Thank you, Senator, for all the work that you have
done to support us over the years. We are very, very grateful.
Our immediate impact that we saw, not only were we on the
chopping block right away with the elimination of our executive
order, so the loss of the office within the Department of
Education was incredibly heartfelt for us, as we lost an
ongoing voice that supported our tribal colleges and
universities across the Department of Education.
But the most immediate impact was frankly with Haskell and
SIPI, as they were targeted with the severe loss of staff, 25
percent, roughly, for both of them. We have been able to return
those staff, but at great challenges to the school, as the
students felt unloved, unappreciated. The faculty felt
desperate. A lot of concerns about whether they would be able
to maintain their programs or be able to graduate.
What you saw was the tribal college community come around
and support each other. So when we say we have a TCU family,
that is absolutely what happened.
Senator Smith. People mobilized.
Ms. Rose. Absolutely. We mobilized to ensure that there was
faculty present, administrative teams present, all there to
make sure SIPI and Haskell had all the resources they need.
But more largely than that, we are deeply concerned about
programs such as Title III. While there is a lot that has been
laid out about what the administration would like to see done
to some programs and services, there is other pieces within our
post-secondary portfolio that we just don't know what the
future will be. And post-secondary funding right now is not a
secure piece.
We are also deeply concerned about Pell grants. Seventy-
five percent of our students rely on Pell grants, a larger
portion than any other part of the population. So without
consistency in funding, that is going to really impact our
students, and in turn, impact our institutions.
Senator Smith. I am out of time, so I am going to be
respectful of the Chair's time. Thank you for that very good
summary in a short period of time.
The Chairman. Thank you for that.
Dr. Worl, you have spoken very well about the benefits that
we see through ANEP and the reason why we need to be focused on
doing all that we can. The average reading scores in 2022 in
Alaska for Native fourth graders and eighth graders, well, not
just in Alaska, across the Country, 14 to 20 points below
average compared to all students. So recognizing and trying to
address these gaps I think is important.
Over the years, I have been the recipient of the Baby Raven
Reads program. I am still working through my first and second
and third editions. I think right now I am on Eagle, which is
ch'aak'--I did okay?
Dr. Worl. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. I am learning, slowly. I look at
what has been done through programs like Baby Raven Reads,
where we are really working to address phonetic awareness and
some of the basic things. But when you mentioned that you have
15 different school districts now, many in the southeastern
part of the State, I visited the programs there in Juneau where
they have incorporated the Native language into these early
education programs.
We are benefiting not only the Native students, but also
the non-Native students within these schools. So can you just
share with the Committee how programs that are funded by ANEP
or the Native Hawaiian Education Grant Program, too, how we are
addressing that achievement gap between Native and non-Native
students? And then how is this different, really, than what is
already offered within the school district, how this insertion
actually makes that difference.
Dr. Worl. I think we have to enroll the Senator in the Baby
Raven Reads.
The Chairman. I think so.
Dr. Worl. We have three Baby Raven Reads books, and you
have been through three.
The Chairman. I have the more advanced ones too; I am
working on those.
[Laughter].
Dr. Worl. Senator, the answer to this, I will try to make
it simple, but it is complex and it is rooted in history. You
have to remember that when schools were first introduced in
Alaska in the late 1800s that the policy was suppression of
Native cultures. That was the policy. And that continued
probably up until the 1960s when self-determination became a
policy of the government. I think in Alaska, that was also then
followed by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which has
a social responsibility also to its constituents. So they were
able to put money into our schools as well.
And then we heard this rally, cultural survival, cultural
persistence. We then began to see measures of improvement in
Native education. But it was really when we started to get
Federal funds for Native education that was saw some real
progress in our educational achievement of Native students.
That was largely through a couple of things. Number one, it was
the direct engagement of Native people in education.
And you have to remember that a lot of our parents were
raised in boarding schools. So they hadn't had the benefit of
understanding and learning cultural values and practices, about
being engaged in their children's education.
So that fund allowed that direct participation of Native
entities and Native parents.
Then we had Baby Raven Reads, where we integrate Native
culture, Native integration of cultural programming into
educational curriculum, and then integration into the schools.
Just look at Baby Raven Reads. It is very different from the
books that we grew up with where Jane and Mary or Mary and Jane
--
The Chairman. Dick and Jane.
Dr. Worl. Yes, Dick and Jane. That was the norm. So Native
people, they saw little white kids doing little white things
that little white kids do. They didn't see themselves. They
didn't see brown kids. They didn't see their lifestyles,
picking berries, going fishing, and things like that.
So Baby Raven Reads, I think, is a really good example of
Native programming. And I noted that in 2020, the reading
scores improved by 20 points. That is significant.
I have to share with you that today, or as of September
2024, in Juneau, Alaka, in Juneau School District, that Native
literacy scores are higher than non-Natives.
The Chairman. Wow.
Dr. Worl. So I have said, this is a model that should be
integrated into Head Start across the Country.
The other part of your question talks about when you don't
have Native programming, what happens. Well, we still have
school districts that have not integrated cultural programming
into their schools. And we don't see the kind of academic
achievement that we see with schools that have that.
In fact, we have schools like in Juneau where, this is
earlier, where we didn't, there were schools within that school
district that did not have Native programming. We had Native
programming in one of the schools, and it was called TCLL,
Tlingit Cultural Literacy and Language. And when we did an
evaluation of those students at the end of the year, we found
that Native students who attended TCLL, their scores were
higher than Native students that did not attend TCLL, but
attended other schools in the same district that didn't have
Native cultural programs. Their scores were lower.
So we know, we know clearly from our data, our evaluations
that the integration of language and culture into schools
promotes academic higher achievement and higher school
retention and better social and emotional well-being.
The Chairman. Thank you for that, and congratulations. That
is not only marked improvement, but that is really breathtaking
when you think about how far you have come.
I am going to excuse myself and go vote. I will turn the
gavel over to the Vice Chairman. You haven't given your opening
statement, Senator Cortez Masto is next up. You get to decide.
And whoever is not speaking can actually read from my
collection of Baby Raven Reads while I am out.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. [Presiding.] Thank you, Chair Murkowski.
One of the Federal Government's core trust and treaty
responsibilities to American Indians and Native Hawaiians and
Alaska Natives is to provide education. The Department of
Education plays a critical role in fulfilling this promise on
everything from Impact Aid and Indian Education programs to
Native language revitalization. For over a century, Congress
has passed law after law affirming and reaffirming this Federal
obligation across the Department of Education, including the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, IDEA, the Higher
Education Act, the McKinney-Vento Act, Johnson O'Malley Act,
Indian Education Act, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, the
Tribally Controlled College and University Assistance Act, and
the Native American Language Resource Center Act.
Each of these laws was enacted to provide critical support
for Native students and schools across the Country, no matter
where they attend BIE schools, tribally controlled schools,
public schools, tribal colleges and universities, Alaska Native
and Native Hawaiian serving institutions or Native American
serving non-tribal institutions. Not to mention more general
education laws that benefit Native children and unhoused Native
children, people with disabilities and Federal loan programs
that help 87 percent of Native students attend college.
So what does it mean when the President by executive order
proposes to dismantle the Education Department, first by
gutting its workforce and then by handing control to the
States?
Let me start by saying this, and this is maybe the most
important thing. An executive order is not a law. It is an
instruction about how to implement a law. It can be a powerful
tool, but it does not supersede a statute, and it certainly
does not supersede a series of statutes. Congress passes laws
that the President signs and executes. And the duly enacted
Federal laws that I just mentioned govern Native education.
The President does not get to wash his hands of the Federal
Government's trust responsibility by memorandum. If he wants to
eliminate that trust responsibility, he has to come back to
this Committee and to this Congress.
So going back to the original question, what does the
proposal do? Well, Native students, more than 90 percent of
whom attend public schools, will be at the mercy of State
governments that have no trust and treaty responsibility to
meet their unique needs. For rural Native students, eliminating
the Department of Education would lead to fewer choices and
tremendous instability. High poverty in smaller schools,
especially those in rural Native communities, are at greater
risk of closing if enrollment drops below the minimum.
But do not take my word for it. I would like to enter into
the record, without objection, the accounts of tribal schools
that are operating day-to-day, not knowing how or even if they
will stay open amid the chaos that this administration has
caused.
I am committed to ensuring Federal laws implementing the
Federal promise of an education to American Indians, Native
Hawaiians and Alaska Natives is not broken. We have a duty to
fight this reckless plan on a bipartisan basis and protect
Native students.
So I thank the witnesses. I apologize for being late.
My first question is pretty simple, and we will just go
down the line, starting with Mr. Dropik. Did any of your
organizations ask to dismantle the Education Department or
voucherize its programs? Just a yes or no.
Mr. Dropik. No.
Ms. Yellowfish. No.
Dr. Worl. No, absolutely no.
Ms. Russell. No.
Ms. Rose. No.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rose and Mr. Dropik, did the Education Department
consult with the tribes on any of the proposals to date,
including dismantling the agency? Ms. Rose first.
Ms. Rose. They did consult on the EO for vouchering the
schools, but they did not consult on the closing of the
Department of Education.
Senator Schatz. In your view, does that violate the law?
Ms. Rose. Yes.
Senator Schatz. Mr. Dropik?
Mr. Dropik. Agreed, and they did not.
Senator Schatz. Okay. Ms. Yellowfish, does your Title VI
Indian Ed program currently answer to your State?
Ms. Yellowfish. No, it does not.
Senator Schatz. Ms. Rose, do TCUs currently have to answer
to States on how they spend their Federal funds?
Ms. Rose. No, they do not.
Senator Schatz. I will just end with one final comment,
because between my opening statement and the questions, I have
gone a bit long. This is not permissible under the law, and
that is not to be dismissive of the immediate damage that it is
causing. But I really think all of us have to not obey in
advance. One of the President's innate powers, regardless of
whether is in office or not, this President in particular, is
to bluff, is to make things seem inevitable or likely or having
momentum that may or may not be inevitable or likely or having
momentum.
In this case, what he is proposing is no more powerful than
a firmly worded tweet. That is not to say it is not having
immediate impact. But in the long run, these statutes govern
what we do. All of the authorizing statutes and all the
appropriations law are what we have to adhere to. We are still
a country of laws.
So I know it is cold comfort when you are trying to operate
a school, not knowing whether you are going to be able to
literally keep the lights on and make payroll. I understand
that. But it is worth saying on the record that the law is the
law, and an EO does not get to waive away a Federal statute.
Senator Cortez Masto?
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Thank you to the Ranking Member for his comments. I thank
you all for being here.
Let me follow up on that, because there is no doubt that
the treaties and laws have consistently acknowledged the
Federal Government's commitment to providing education to
American Indian and Alaska Native peoples.
Let me start with you, Mr. Dropik. For the benefit of an
administration that does not believe in consultation and does
not want to recognize necessarily those treaties and laws, can
you talk a little bit about the Department of Education
funding, like Title I and like IDEA, and how it actually evens
the playing field for Native American students, and how cutting
this funding could result in Native children, Native
communities being left behind.
Mr. Dropik. Thank you for that question. Definitely, when
you think about the impact that has, we know obviously the
historical context in which it educational systems and the
government-to-government relationships have continued to be
unmet, continued promises made and not kept. And when you
continue to create cycles of distrust and unmet promises, it
has an impact on communities and in those institutions
themselves.
So when we have programs and institutions and items that
help to validate someone's belief in who they are and the
validity of their experience, those programs aren't part of the
educational system for our Indian students.
Thinking back just to my own experience growing up and
being a first generation college graduate in my family,
checking the box for ``other'' for my ethnicity. I am glad we
have moved beyond that, that I am no longer an ``other,'' that
I can acknowledge that history. That is comforting.
But it has an impact on communities. I didn't get that
teaching. I had educational experiences within my public school
upbringing that didn't validate those experiences. So by
bringing in cultural programming experts and expertise in those
situations, you validate not just who they are and who their
ancestors are, who their families are, which we know our
communities are vital to who we are as people, but then you
also repair some of the harm that has been done that has been
purposefully ripped out of communities.
So those programs without them, then they don't exist, and
you continue to have the negative impacts that we are seeing
within educational outcomes, mental health. Then it impacts
industry and economics. It is a ripple effect that goes far
beyond just the school building.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. In your testimony you say,
reliable education data remains a challenge due to the small
population size of Native students and the National Indian
Education Study remains the most effective tool for collecting
disaggregated Native education data and should be preserved.
The National Indian Education Study is conducted on behalf of
the Department of Education.
So could you elaborate on the importance of reliable Native
student data collection, and how dismantling the Department of
Education would create challenges in obtaining that data?
Mr. Dropik. Absolutely. Part of it is in the relationships
and the understanding of the communities that you are serving.
So when you have individuals who are working within the
Department of Education and Native-serving programs, they have
relationships, they have connections, they have the ability to
be able to make sure that they are getting information. And
they understand sometimes what other mainstream or those that
come from a different point of view may not understand in terms
of how to collect data meaningfully within tribal communities.
Assuming that one size fits all, or one measurement is
going to give you all the information, others don't have that
knowledge of how do we make sure that we are accounting for all
of the statistics and numbers in the communities and areas in
which we need to. So taking away that does take away that
information and further creates confusion around the data and
how to continue to support it.
Senator Cortez Masto. I am running short on time, but let
me touch on something else that is just as important, it is the
mental health piece of that for our students. Ms. Yellowfish, I
am going to ask you, if you don't mind, after reading your
testimony and your discussion around some of the concerns,
really the higher than average suicide rates among Native
youth. In my time in the Senate, we have worked to get funding,
particularly funding for mental health, into our tribal
communities, and making sure that these issues can be
addressed.
Given your experience, can you explain the largest barriers
in addressing the mental health challenges of Native youth, and
actually how the Department of Education funding and what is
happening with it right now may help or hurt us reaching our
Native youth when it comes to their mental health needs?
Ms. Yellowfish. I think that with most Indian education
programs, priorities are set before us, and these challenges,
such as suicide and substance abuse, most recent bullying and
sexual assault that we have worked with, with our students, I
feel like we are obligated to address these challenges and work
with our students and our families the best we can.
However, the funding resource, the funding ability, has not
always been adequate to meet those additional needs. Because we
are doing cultural and curriculum, we are doing languages, we
are doing college and career readiness. And these are already
objectives in our grants and what we have.
And our priorities this year much more so is the social and
emotional well-being of our students and the lack of resources,
the lack of funding. However, with partnerships created with
the Indian Health Services, tribal communities, that does and
may alleviate some of those challenges as far as funding.
Ideally, it would be great if we can each have a social worker
or a counselor within our Indian education programs to help
specifically address those particular situations.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you to the
Chairwoman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I have heard from several of you that some of the important
aspects of, for instance, Title VI and Ms. Yellowfish, you have
kind of spoken to this, is the flexibility that comes with it.
I think you, Ms. Russell, mentioned that flexibility was key,
and I think you, Ms. Rose, when it comes to the tribal colleges
and universities.
So, flexibility is important. It helps address what you
have spoken to, Dr. Worl, which is the ability to shape these
programs so that it is responsive to those in the community, in
the region, even outside of the school there. There is the
discussion with, if we eliminate the Department of Education,
what that looks like. Because I think it has been stated, I
think it was Senator Smith when she started off her comments
that we have a trust responsibility and regardless of whether
you dissolve a department, that responsibility still stays in
place.
There are many aspects of the programs that we are talking
about here today that are required by law. You cannot get
around the requirement, the obligation, the commitment that we
have when it comes to funding for those with disabilities. You
can't get around your requirement of the Civil Rights Act for
enforcement there.
So what we are hearing is that, well, these would be moved
to other agencies. And I am sure that it is true that for
instance under Title VI you move that somewhere else, move it
to another department, again, whether we are talking about
Department of Justice, maybe some things moved to Treasury on
the financial assistance side, maybe some things moved to
Health and Social Services.
Can somebody, can you all weigh in here and speak to what
that actually might look like, what that actually might look
like if the programs were not eliminated, but housed elsewhere?
Are you concerned that you would lose the flexibility? Are you
concerned that you--I think the issue with regard to
consultation, because that is a requirement throughout, is one.
But if you can share with me and the Committee just some of
the, either the warning signs, the concerns, or perhaps what
you might think could even be an advantage moving out from
under the Department of Education to another department? Maybe
you see none, and that is fair. Tell me why.
Because this is what we are talking about up here on the
Hill. So share with me your perspectives.
Let's start with you, Mr. Dropik.
Mr. Dropik. Sure. I won't have a great answer for you, but
I will do my best.
The Chairman. I don't think any of us have really concrete
answers.
Mr. Dropik. Yes. The biggest challenge is we don't know
what that plan is. So in order for, if there was a plan, and I
believe everyone here in this room, whether they are here or
not, and all the other ones, they want what is best for
communities. They want to see students thriving. I have not
heard anyone say that they didn't. And they want to increase
efficiency, we want to increase efficiency and make sure that
money is getting to students and getting to staff and getting
to communities.
So everyone is on the same page on that. Now, how do we get
there? That is where the consultation, that is where the
discussions, that is where the developing of a plan, laying out
that plan, and then we can address where are the issues. The
hard part is that without a plan that has been laid out, we
don't even know where to start hypothesizing, where some of
those areas might come up.
But we do know that we have seen, when actions have been
taken without that consultation then unintended consequences
are a result, then services are disrupted, then staff are
accidentally or inappropriately put on leave. Those are real
consequences that have impacts on people, staff, communities
that they serve, and organizations.
So in terms of looking at what does it look like, through
tribal consultation and work with the committees and those
programs, those discussions could be had. It can have, well,
what does make sense, what are the unintended consequences that
we are not seeing, where are the legal ramifications that might
come up. But without that, everyone is left guessing.
So tribal consultation would be the first part, a plan
being laid out. Then we would be able to address, is there room
for growth, is there room for efficiency? Without a doubt. So
let's come together with tribal communities, with those
programs that they serve, institutions that are served, to have
those discussions so that we can work on that together.
The Chairman. Let me shift over to you, Ms. Russell,
because you mentioned that one of the benefits or the
advantages within Impact Aid and the way it is structured, it
again allows for a great deal of flexibility. And it is
significant in terms of budgets. I know that in the Iditarod
Area School District, this is in southwest Alaska, Impact Aid
makes up about 60 percent of the funding there. As Dr. Worl
noted, in Alaska all of our school districts are very, very
worried this fiscal year about their budget.
We also have Secure Rural Schools funding, which impacts
many of our smaller communities in the southeastern part, which
is impacted by this long-term continuing resolution. So there
is a lot of squeeze there.
But you mentioned that flexibility allows you to do
everything from special ed, transportation and housing. Mr.
Dropik said we all want to try to get the money to the kids,
right? Money to the kids. But if you don't have housing for
your teachers, you might not have anybody to help your kids.
So speak to me a little bit about the concerns that you
might have from where you are sitting with oversight of
financially impacted schools.
Ms. Russell. Right, absolutely. Regarding Impact Aid
specifically, we are concerned because school districts are
still waiting on their Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations, their
payments, to help get them through the end of the school year.
We know that they are already trying to prepare for next school
year. Many of the school districts have instituted hiring
freezes, because they just don't know if they are going to have
the money.
Are they going to have to put projects on hold? Some
projects and programs are being delayed. There is so much
uncertainty right now. And not being able to rely on that
Federal responsibility to these school districts is really
concerning.
The move, potential proposal of moving some programs like
Impact Aid, if the Department of Ed were to be dismantled, one
issue that we see would be very tough, and would be to delay
payments for years, is the fact that there are only 19
dedicated public servants who are experts, expert analysts in
the Impact Aid program office who understand this very
complicated program. And that staff would need to stay on top
of this program to make sure that it continues to be handled
and effective in a very efficient manner.
The Chairman. Thank you for that.
I was going to ask Ms. Rose a question, but I know that
Senator Moran probably has an interest in talking about
Haskell.
Senator Moran. I would be educated by hearing your question
and their answer about whatever you would like to ask, Madam
Chair.
The Chairman. I will give you a break while you get
yourself settled and continue my questions.
Let me ask you, Dr. Worl, ANEP, you have sold me on ANEP
years ago. We have seen the benefits in Alaska and in Hawaii.
What do you think ANEP loses if it is housed elsewhere?
Dr. Worl. Senator, Madam Chair, as you have heard from my
testimony, I am a fan of DOE. I am a fan of the way they
operate, the knowledge that they have, the relationships that
they have established with Native entities throughout Alaska
and also with our brothers and sisters in Hawaii.
They are a known entity to us. They understand education
and they have developed processes where they are sharing the
latest scientific data about various aspects of education. They
have meetings where project directors from the different
programs are able to come together and relearn from one
another.
Senator, I am just absolutely sold that they have developed
the process to work with, directly with Native people. They
hear our concerns. They hear our issues. And they are able to
convey that to yourself, to our Congress people. And I think
they help influence the directions of educational programs.
So I would be concerned that if it were shifted somewhere
else, where more than likely that is not their expertise. So
there would be a lag, there would be a period where
relationships would have to be established, where they would
have to gain the knowledge about the complexity and the
importance of education.
So I am a fan of the Department of Education for all that
they have proven that--I mean, we just know from our
evaluations, our studies, that we are making progress right
now. If it went elsewhere, I would be concerned that we would
lose that.
The Chairman. Senator Moran, we have had a good
conversation around the dais today.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Good. Madam Chair, I thank you for being
recognized. I have been a member of this Committee on and off.
Every time there is an opening, I seek to return to the
Committee. And I am glad to be back this year.
The last time I left you were mocking me for being the
lowest member on the Committee. I hope that I am treated with
greater respect than the last time you were Chairwoman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I want you closer to me, Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Good answer.
Thank you all very much for being here. I am going to
address this probably to Mr. Dropik and Ms. Rose. But I want to
talk about Haskell University. We have seen significant needs
over a long period of time. We have worked hard to help Haskell
address those needs. It has been a challenge because of
changing leadership.
In recent times, we have had no capability, seemingly no
capability, of getting any assistance from the Bureau of Indian
Education. I asked the last Secretary of the Department of
Interior for meetings to discuss Haskell numerous times without
any success. The conclusion was that we thought we would take a
different path, or at least test the waters for a different
path.
I think Haskell is such a valuable place, such a unique
place, such support across the Country. Somewhat regardless of
where I am in the Nation traveling, when I am visiting with
tribal leaders, there are always stories about Haskell from
them or their family members, and there is a memory and
understanding and appreciation of an asset that in my view, and
I know in yours, needs greater attention.
It is the only tribal nations college, provides Native
American students with unique opportunities to pursue tuition
free higher education in an environment that honors and
prioritizes Native American heritage and culture.
I mentioned the challenges that we face, they have faced.
We decided to try a different track. We have released a
discussion draft and have been gathering information from the
tribal community.
And this month, I intend to introduce the Haskell Indian
Nations University Improvement Act. This legislation will grant
Haskell a Federal charter, thereby separating the school from
the BIE and entrusting governance to the Haskell board of
regents which will be comprised of tribal members nominated by
BIA regions.
I am grateful for the support of AIHEC and IEA in endorsing
this legislation. It seems to have broad support from across
the Country, and certainly all the tribes in Kansas have
indicated this is a path forward. And we are going to do
everything we can to see that the legislation is passed. But
beyond that, and more importantly than that, see that it makes
a difference at Haskell University.
So I want to outline that, because we look forward to
tribal community support in this legislation. We would ask for
your help. But I also wanted to ask, with the expertise at this
panel, could you speak to the value of passing this
legislation, the Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement
Act, and separating the university from Federal control? Mr.
Dropik?
Mr. Dropik. If the Senator is okay, I would defer to Ms.
Rose to start, being that this is her area of expertise. I am
happy to join in afterwards.
Ms. Rose. Thank you. Actually, I am going to fold in an
answer for Chairman Murkowski as well, because her previous
question was on flexibility. And that is what your legislation
provides, is an opportunity to really think about flexibility.
I want to draw your attention as well to the statement you
made previously about the Department of Interior. Because
simply moving our Indian Education programs from the Department
of Education to the Department of Interior and assuming that
they have any knowledge of education is a rot decision.
I have worked with many Secretaries of Interior who were
surprised to find out that they have Education under their
purview. So maintaining our programs at the Department of Ed
with expertise is something that would be vitally important.
But in specific answer to your question, our board of
directors recently passed a motion in March in support of the
concept of your legislation. We were very excited to do so. Our
board has talked quite a lot about the benefits that your
legislation will provide to Haskell, and frankly, to the entire
TCU community as we work together to support the students and
the faculty, to ensure that things that just happened, like our
staff being frozen or challenges to funding streams because of
changed administration might not happen.
So we stand firmly committed with you and to work with your
staff to ensure that the legislation is as strong as it can be.
You have a TCU community that is in full support. Thank you.
Senator Moran. Thank you for that statement. Perhaps midway
in our efforts as we were trying to find ways to improve
Haskell, the announcement of layoffs of staff occurred. We
think we now have everyone who has not voluntarily left now
returned to Haskell, and we are pleased about that outcome.
And I have had a really good conversation with the
Secretary of Interior when he, as a North Dakota governor, had
experiences with tribes and tribal education. I am hoping that
we can develop a relationship with the Department of Interior
that is helpful in advancing this cause.
Ms. Rose. We would agree. We do not believe, from our
conversations with the Department as well, that letting the
staff go at Haskell and SIPI was not premeditated, right. It
was not part of the plan. And they have been incredibly
responsive in ensuring that they made the course correction and
turned around and got the staff back.
So as soon as we were able to educate them, really let them
know what was happening, I think they course corrected quickly
and are looking forward to continuing to build and have strong
relationships with the institutions.
We have also been working with the Department in thinking
through the legislation. So I think they are really great
partners to stand beside you and ensuring that the legislation
is as strong as possible.
We do have a couple of recommendations and we look forward
to working with you to strengthen it.
Senator Moran. I am not surprised.
[Laughter.]
Senator Moran. Instead of just asking for support, I should
also take a few more suggestions and methods to move forward
before we introduce the legislation.
Now, sir.
Mr. Dropik. I appreciate that opportunity. I just would say
that NIA stands to help. We also support, obviously, any time
that we can get tribal communities to really be living tribal
sovereignty. That fills us up, continues to make our ancestors
proud and really is why we are here.
So being able to support anything that you need in terms of
questions or outreach to tribal communities, and any way that
we can support. NIA is also appreciative of your work and
really wants to help support improving tribal sovereignty.
Then a byproduct of that tribal sovereignty, being able to
improve outcomes for the community.
Senator Moran. Thank you for saying that. I should have
thought about tribal sovereignty. It has been issue that I have
been engaged in and something that is really important to me.
Until you said that, I hadn't thought about, this is another
step forward toward determination by Native Americans about the
future of themselves and their children.
Anyone else? Yes, ma'am? Doctor?
Dr. Worl. I just wanted to say thank you to the faculty of
Haskell and the various educators who volunteered their time to
go back to work, even though they had been relieved of their
duties. I just wanted to acknowledge the great contributions
that they made.
To me, we have read about it in Alaska, we got worried at
first, then we saw the great work of those dedicated educators
that went back. I just wanted to acknowledge them.
Senator Moran. Doctor, thank you for doing that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran. You made some
refence to, at some point in time, everyone has some kind of
connection or knows somebody. In my sit-down with the nominee
to be the head of Social Security, he brought up Haskell and
went on for maybe five or seven minutes about Haskell. So they
are all over the place in terms of fans of Haskell.
Senator Moran. I didn't know that. I did know that he spent
time in Kansas, but didn't know the Haskell connection. I got a
call from him and didn't return his phone call.
The Chairman. You should probably return his call and tell
him you want to talk about Haskell.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I have one more question, and I will direct
it to you, Mr. Dropik, and others may want to chime in as well.
We have heard today and we have seen in some of the written
testimonies that there is opposition to Federal funding going
to the States first, rather than the tribes or the tribal
organizations, and to the local educational agencies. This is
kind of following on what Senator Moran, the point that he made
about sovereignty and tribal sovereignty, that going to States,
first, could be detrimental to tribal sovereignty and the
educational programming.
I know that, for instance, in our State, it has been said
that we lack the capacity to distribute funding in the way that
it is going out now through the Department of Ed, or perhaps
that there might be some unwillingness to distribute the
funding that is marked for say, Alaska Native education, to the
Native organizations or the tribes.
Can you speak further to that point? Then if anybody else
wants to chime in, you are welcome.
Mr. Dropik. Yes, and I am sure others will have stories
around how that can have a very detrimental impact to the ways
in which we support education. Obviously, one of the things
that we would reiterate is the fact that it is a Federal trust
responsibility, it is not a State trust responsibility. And
when people are talking about efficiencies, I am not sure how
you transfer an efficiency to a different efficiency and that
gets you more efficient.
So I would be concerned that that doesn't eliminate
bureaucracy in any way, it actually might increase it, along
with the potential of how that funding actually gets to the
tribal communities. So going to the States and not directly to
tribal communities is definitely not something that we would
support. It doesn't, in any way, we believe, become more
efficient or provide better choices for the communities they
have, schools of their choice and mechanisms by which they can
enact them.
The Chairman. Very good. Any further comment to that?
Thank you. Did you want to jump in, Ms. Yellowfish?
Ms. Yellowfish. Yes, just really quick, Madam Chair. I
would like to go along with that, because right now, our direct
funding to our school districts is there July 1, so our school
year can begin with lack of interruption of funding services
and moving forward for the school year. So having the State be
involved in some way, I don't know how efficient that would be.
So I strongly urge the Committee to consider those
sentiments there, and in just going along with the move. Change
is good when it is provided in the best interests of those who
will be affected. However, if we don't have a plan, it is going
to disrupt the continuity of our services already in place. And
students and parents are going to be affected with this change.
So again, I urge you to hear our stories and our words in
support of our Indian students. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Very good.
Dr. Worl?
Dr. Worl. Madam Chair, I am sure you are aware of the
Native people's relationship with the State of Alaska insofar
as education, that we had to actually bring a suit against the
State because the State of Alaska was failing to provide its
constitutional responsibility to provide education to Alaska
Natives. Many of our communities lacked schools. So as a result
of that case, we actually finally got schools in our rural
communities.
I have mentioned the funding problems that we have in
Alaska in education. But is the Native community, in my mind,
that really suffers the consequence of that fiscal crisis. We
have schools that have been in disrepair, students should not
be in those schools. We have not been a high priority with the
State of Alaska, unfortunately.
Then I guess a case more recently, under the CARES Act,
there were funds put in that Act for Native education,
specifically referencing the Alaska Native education program.
We were pleased to see the money there. But when we approached
our State government to try to secure those funds, we were
unable to do it. The only three Native entities that received
funding under that Act were the three of us, the three regions
that persistently contacted the State.
So as it is, I just don't think Native education is a high
priority there. I would not support it going to the State.
The Chairman. Ms. Rose?
Ms. Rose. I would echo all of my colleagues' statements at
the table and add a few additional things. One, our concern
around reporting requirements, and as States would increase and
think about changes and the multitude increase, probably, of
reporting requirements, as well as a lack of consultation
requirements from States to our tribal nations or to our
institutions.
So would we then be looking at 50 different consultations
as we are thinking about the rollout of programs? Then what
would that do for the continuity of the education services? Our
students are very mobile and tend to move from one location to
another. So having some continued continuity between our
education programs is really vital.
So as we think about the way that these programs would be
rolled out State to State to State across our tribal nations,
and as you know, our nations cross State boundaries. So what
would that do for Navajo Nation, for example, that is in three,
four State?
So I would add that to our list of concerns. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Moran, anything further?
Senator Moran. No, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank each of you. I
appreciate your contributions. I know you represent those
behind you. I thank them for their work as well.'
Obviously there is a lot in play right now, but I think it
was helpful for us as a committee to understand the benefits of
some of these programs, again, whether it is through Title VI,
what we have through ANEP, so many of the programs that have
been directed to and really intended to benefit our Native
students, whether it is at the Baby Raven Reads level or all
the way up to our tribal colleges.
Thank you for your contributions. Know that this will be an
ongoing back and forth, and we look forward to using you as
resources.
With that, this Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Ka`iulani Laeha, CEO, `Aha Punana Leo
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
`Aha Punana Leo in support of Native programs administered at the U.S.
Department of Education.
The `Aha Punana Leo is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization
dedicated to the revitalization of the Hawaiian language and the
longest-standing Native American language medium language nest program
in the United States. Over the last 4 decades, the tireless efforts of
advocates and educators have led to a resurgence of the Native Hawaiian
language. It has also allowed us the opportunity to encounter and
overcome challenges that other native language communities will face
along the long journey of language revitalization. And, with our lived
experiences, we are sharing these with other American Indian and Alaska
Native tribes and communities.
`Aha Punana Leo utilizes federal grant programs administered by the
U.S. Department of Education (ED). One of the most important--and
impactful--programs is ED's Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP),
which funds innovative education activities that address critical gaps
in Native Hawaiian education outcomes. `Aha Punana Leo has utilized
NHEP grant funding to support high-quality early childhood education,
including initiatives to develop early literacy, improve math skills,
and provide unique professional development opportunities for
communities across Hawai`i.
Under the leadership of Senator McCain of Arizona, who introduced
the Native American Languages Act (NALA) in 1990, this landmark piece
of legislation, authored and approved in a bipartisan manner from this
Committee is history that I want to acknowledge in my testimony. The
Native American Languages Act of 1990 provides the framework to ensure
and support the survival of Native American languages. Congress can
assist and support these efforts by allowing statutory flexibility to
align and support best practices. The numerous research and studies on
behavioral science lists several factors in promoting positive social
behavior, academic success, emotional well-being, physical health and
relationships for positive youth development. Native American language
use is a best practice in promoting all of these positive factors for
our children and families. We have witnessed these beneficial outcomes.
Our own languages describe our world and our relationship to our
surroundings and our distinct identity which provides for a healthy
mind, a healthy spirit and a healthy body.
The recommendation of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff
Commission on Native Children is to support Native culture and language
learners in early childhood programs. The `Aha Punana Leo has utilized
Native Hawaiian Education program grants administered at the USDE to
support the recommendation of the commission. Since 1985, our Punana
Leo preschoolers have been reading before entering kindergarten. With
the help of our elders, we developed the Hakalama (early literacy
syllabary). A student who is a good reader in a Native American
language can easily transfer that reading skill to English and other
languages.
Native American language immersion medium benefits exceed language
revitalization goals. Our parents are also learning along with their
children and were recognized by the Board of Education as active
participants in their children's education. Due to the efforts of our
parents, the P-20 HME program exists today.
Without NHEP, communities across Hawaii will lose access to no-cost
early childhood education; high school students will lose mentorship
opportunities; youth will lose pathways for pursuing careers in
science, technology, engineering, and agriculture; public elementary
schools will lose services that improve attendance and student
outcomes; families will lose access to critical resources, including
health screenings; and at-risk students will lose career readiness/
workforce development programs. It is imperative that the NHEP and
similar ED programs continue to provide necessary support for these
important activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee
hearing on Native American education. I look forward to working with
the Committee on this important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Chrystal Martinez-Tom, Principle, Dzilth-Na-O-
Dith-Hle Community School
Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and honorable members of
the Committee:
On behalf of Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School, we thank the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (Committee) for holding an oversight
hearing on Native American Education Programs at the U.S. Department of
Education (Department).
About Dine Grant Schools Association
As a tribally controlled school, we are providing testimony because
the Department administers funding for several critical programs that
support our Native students, including Title I, Title 1-A, Title II-a
Title IV-B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Title XII.
Scope of Testimony
We are submitting this testimony in connection with the oversight
hearing held by the Committee on April 2, 2025, to address Native
education programs at the Department. This testimony is limited in
scope to that hearing. However, we note the broader context that
prompted the hearing, including the Administration's recent Executive
Order on ``Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States,
and Communities'' (Executive Order). \1\ The Executive Order provides
in part that ``[t]he Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum
extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to
facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return
authority over education to the States and local communities while
ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services,
programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.'' \2\ As of the
preparation of this testimony, to our knowledge, no consultation
notices have been issued regarding the Executive Order or any proposal
to restructure or close elements of the Department. As explained below,
Tribal consultation is statutorily required before any plans to
restructure or close the Department proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order No. 14242 of March 20, 2025, Improving Education
Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, 90 Fed. Reg.
13679 (Mar. 25, 2025).
\2\ Id. Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this context in mind, we are providing this testimony to
underscore the following:
1) the federal government's legal obligation to consult Tribal
Nations on actions impacting the education of Native children;
2) the need to maintain full staff and funding for Native
education programs;
3) concerns regarding existing staff capacity, particularly if
the administration of Native education programs is split up;
and
4) that funding for Native education programs must not under
any circumstances be routed through the States.
Underlying this testimony is the fact that those who would be most
affected by changes to Native education programs are our students. We
work to support our students by ensuring that our teachers and staff
have the resources they need to provide the high-quality education our
students deserve and to which they are legally entitled as part of the
United States' trust and treaty obligations.
Tribal Nations Must Be Consulted on Any Structural Changes to the
Department Before Those Changes Occur
Any action regarding Native programs taken without Tribal
consultation would undoubtedly have negative impacts on our students.
We are not aware of any Tribal Nation or school that has requested
structural changes to the Department's administration of Native
education programs. As the tribal panel expertly described to the
Committee, Department-administered Native education programs provide
critical resources proven to improve educational, emotional, and
behavioral outcomes for Native students. These programs carry out an
important aspect of the federal government's trust responsibility to
Tribal Nations by providing quality, culturally-informed education to
Native students. Given the importance of the programs at issue here, if
the Administration plans to make any changes that affect Native
education programs at the Department, the federal government must
consult with Tribal Nations on such proposals before any changes are
made. Moreover, because no Tribal Nation has requested these changes,
sufficient consultation would require proposal that contains enough
specificity for Tribal Nations to understand how the contemplated
changes would impact them and their respective students. We want to be
clear that if changes to Native educational programs are being planned,
they cannot be legally carried out without prior consultation.
Consultation is a necessary component of the United States' trust
and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations that has been codified in
statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and departmental consultation
policies. \3\ While consultation is always important, when it comes to
education, our students cannot afford to spend developmentally critical
years of their education experiencing substantial disruptions to their
schooling. Consultation is required for any proposals that would impact
the Department's Native education programs, including under the
Department's own policies as well as under Interior consultation
statutes. The Department's own tribal consultation policy states that
``[the Department] administers a number of grant programs that serve
Indian students or that have a specific impact on tribes''-including
Title VII, Parts A and C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965. \4\ The Department's policy notes that it will consult with
Tribal Nations regarding any proposed regulation that has tribal
implications in accordance with Executive Order 13175. \5\ Substantial
closure or transfer of Department functions would easily meet this
threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Exec. Order No. 13,175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 9, 2000) (signed
on Nov. 6, 2000).
\4\ Dept. of Ed., Consultation and Coordination with American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments, available at: https://
www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/oese/oie/
tribalpolicyfinal.pdf.
\5\ See Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Jewell, 205 F. Supp. 3d 1052,
1058 (D. S.D. 2016) (``meaningful consultation requires, at a minimum,
that defendants comply with federal statutes and their own policies
defining what constitutes adequate `consultation.''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, several important funding sources of funds, and all funds
that ultimately flow to Tribally controlled schools, such as funds
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, are first
appropriated to the Department and then awarded by the Department to
the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), which in turn distributes them to
BIE-funded schools. \6\ Although the funds are originally appropriated
to the Department, any proposed change to funding that flows through
the BIE before being provided to Tribal Nations requires consultation
pursuant to the statutory consultation provisions Congress established
to ``facilitate Indian control of Indian affairs in all matters
relating to education.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 141l(h)(l)(A) (``The Secretary of
Education shall provide amounts to the Secretary of the Interior to
meet the needs for assistance for the education of children with
disabilities on reservations aged 5 to 21, inclusive, enrolled in
elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded
by the Secretary of the Interior.'').
\7\ Pub. L. No. 95-561 1130, 92 Stat. 2143, 2321 (1978) (codified
as amended at 25 U.S.C. 2011 (a)).
In the Education Amendments of 1978, Congress charged the
Secretary of the Interior with the responsibility to
``facilitate Indian control of Indian affairs in all matters
relating to education.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
In the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Congress
further recognized that ``active consultation'' between the
Department of the Interior and Tribal leaders and school
officials is necessary and integral to achieving Tribal control
of Native education. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Pub. L. No. 103-382 381, 108 Stat. 3518, 4001 (1994)(codified
as amended at 25 U.S.C. 2011(b)).
Finally, in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Congress
cemented the ``active consultation'' requirement by enumerating
clear consultation standards and procedures and by directing
the Department of the Interior to ``work in a government-to-
government relationship to ensure quality education for all
Tribal members,'' \10\ and to afford ``interested parties
(including tribes and school officials)'' the opportunity to
``present issues'' and ``participate and discuss the options
presented.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. No. 107-110 1042, 115 Stat. 1425, 2043 (2002)
(codified at25 U.S.C. 2011(b)).
\11\ Id.
These statutory terms clarify and codify the consultation process
that is a necessary component of fulfilling the United States' trust
and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations. No doubt part of the reason
for these education specific consultation requirements and the goal to
achieving Indian control over Indian education is that Tribally
controlled schools know what is best for our students, and we
understand that schooling interruptions can have long-lasting negative
consequences for educational outcomes.
We also remind the Committee of its ability to request a written
explanation ``of any decision made by the Secretary [of the Interior]
which is not consistent with the views of the interested parties'' \12\
and urge the Committee to continue to exercise its oversight authority
if changes are made or proposed that violate consultation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 25 U.S.C. 2011(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration Must Maintain Full Funding and Staff for Native
Education Programs
We are gravely concerned that the Administration will make
structural changes to the Department that will result in the loss of
funding or of critically important staff. Existing funding and staff
support necessary programs that provide culturally-informed, high-
quality education for our Native children. The loss of even some of
these funds or staff would have a detrimental impact on our ability to
meet the needs of our students and on our students' opportunities to
stay at grade level.
Any education reform efforts must maintain ( and indeed, seek to
increase) existing funding streams for BIE-funded schools. If funds are
diverted, the Administration's goal of ``ensuring every child has the
opportunity to receive a world-class education'' \13\ will not be
realized for Native children, because BIE-funded schools like ours will
have fewer resources to provide the culturally-relevant education that
our communities need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Fact Sheet: President Donald J Trump Expands Educational
Opportunities for American Families, The White House (Jan. 30, 2025),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-
donald-j-trump-expands-educational-opportunities-for-american-
families/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIE-funded school system exists to serve Native students. Like
any vital service, BIE-funded schools are only able to provide
sufficient education programming if they are fully funded. Currently,
BIE-funded schools struggle with chronic underfunding, failing
facilities, transportation challenges, limited options for staff
housing, and competition with local public schools for quality
instructional staff. Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School already
stretches the federal dollars it receives through its grant agreement
with the BIE to provide our Native students with quality, culturally-
informed education. Additionally, our school suffers from chronic
underfunding and a lower per pupil allocation than other schools in the
area.
In addition, any loss of staff would result in the loss of
important institutional knowledge held by those who have developed
expertise in successfully administering Native education programs. Our
school has worked to build positive relationships with the Department
staff that operate these programs. Eliminating any staff, regardless of
the addition of newly-hired staff, would result in the loss of critical
knowledge by those who know how to administer these programs, which
will ultimately negatively impact our students as well. While there are
elements of these Departmental programs that could be improved, a
complete restructuring of their administration without retaining the
existing skills of employees who have established knowledge and
experience in this area would make the operation of the programs more
inefficient and potentially breach the federal government's trust
obligation to provide Native students with quality education.
We Are Concerned About Other Agencies' Capacities to Take on the
Department's Obligations, Particularly If Native Education
Programs Administered by the Department Are Split Up
In any potential restructuring, we are certain that BIE, which
awards grants under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA), does
not have the capacity to administer any additional obligations unless
the full scope of funding and staff are maintained as described above.
While there is no specific proposal currently before Tribal Nations
to review, splitting up Department-administered Native education
programs among multiple agencies raises serious concerns. Namely, we
fear that any restructuring that shifts responsibilities to federal
agencies that do not have experience with Native education or that
splits up existing offices would worsen existing bureaucratic
challenges and create new administrative procedures when red tape
already impedes the BIE's ability to promptly provide funding to
tribally controlled schools.
As currently administered, we receive an annual yearly grant from
BIE under the TCSA that includes funds awarded by the Department to BIE
(for instance, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
Indeed, the TCSA requires that all federal education funding be
combined into one grant. The law provides that a TCSA grant shall
consist of amounts allocated to Tribally controlled schools under
Sections 1127 and 1128 of the Education Amendments of 1978, Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, and ``any other federal education
law.'' \14\ Thus, as it relates to Native education programs,
restructuring the Department would undermine the administrative
efficiencies created to implement Congress's directives in the TCSA. We
urge that Committee oversight ensure that these efficiencies remain in
place so that all funding for tribally controlled schools are made
available through a single agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 25 U.S.C. 2503(a) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given our existing concerns with the BIE's accountability to its
statutory mandates, and management deficiencies documented by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) associated with high staff
vacancy rates, the possibility that BIE would be charged with the
administering additional awards from the breaking-up of existing
programs from another agency is deeply troubling. For this reason, it
is essential that the staff and funding levels of current education
programs be maintained. Already we have seen changes over the past
decade, where the BIE has attempted to restructure and centralize its
administrative offices to improve effectiveness, which have ultimately
served to make the BIE less accessible and less accountable to Tribal
communities. Local, Tribal control of Tribally controlled schools is
the only way to provide Native students with high quality education.
Further restructuring should only be undertaken for the purpose of
``facilitate[ing] Indian control of Indian affairs in all matters
relating to education'' \15\ through consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 25 U.S.C. 2011(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our students should not have their opportunities burdened or
diminished because vital programs and funding are delayed or reduced
because federal officials are being directed to put their energies into
creating new organizational charts and administrative processes.
Additionally, based on our experience, when the federal agencies
restructure or create new bureaucratic processes, those agencies then
impose corresponding procedures and requirements on Tribally controlled
schools, which distract teachers and administrators from their core
responsibilities of providing quality educational opportunities to our
students. Congress anticipated such intrusions into school
administration and prohibited the bureaucracy from requiring Tribally
controlled schools from producing any reports beyond those expressly
identified in the TCSA. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 25 U.S.C. 2503(b)(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are concerned that administrative restructuring could further
increase the concentration of funding stuck in federal bureaucratic
processes and not reaching the students who these programs are intended
to serve. As this Committee is aware, Congress has directed that
``[n]notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal funds
appropriated for the general local operation of Bureau-funded schools
shall be allotted pro rata in accordance with the [Indian School
Equalization Formula].'' \17\ Yet, contrary to this clear directive,
the BIE has over the past few years taken a disproportionate share of
Congressional funding increases to expand its own administrative
bureaucracy at the expense of both BIE-operated schools and Tribally
controlled schools. A federal bureaucratic realignment poses risks of
delays and reductions of the funding delivered to the local level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 25 U.S.C. 2007(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribally controlled schools typically receive the smallest share of
this disproportionate funding allocation, as the BIE has prioritized
certain funding to BIE-operated schools. This proliferation of BIE
bureaucracy has ultimately diverted federal funds away from their
intended purpose: the provision of culturally-informed, high-quality
education to Native students. If Department funding is routed and
awarded through the BIE is restructured to involve new and additional
agencies that lack experience working with Tribal Nations and Native
education programs, these existing funding allocation challenges would
likely worsen. Any decrease or delay in funding would put Native
students--on whom the system should be focused--in the crossfire.
Maintaining a student focus is of paramount importance.
Funding for Native Education Programs Should Under No Circumstances Be
Distributed to State Governments.
Because the Executive Order contemplates ``return[ing] authority
over education to the States,'' we note that the role of State
governments in the area of Native students' education should not
change. Importantly statutory provisions require that funding
allocations, such as for funding authorized pursuant to the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, be provided directly to the Secretary of
the Interior, meaning that the provision of these funds directly to the
States would not be statutorily permissible. \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 6331(a) (requiring Secretary of
Education to reserve a certain percentage of funding to be provided to
the Secretary of the Interior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Department's administration of Native education
programs carries out an important element of the United States' trust
and treaty obligations to provide quality education to Native students,
the delegation of any of those duties to State governments would
constitute a serious breach of this duty.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above, we urge the Committee to exercise
its authority to the fullest extent to ensure that Native students
continue receive a culturally-informed, high-quality education and that
Native students are not harmed by any efforts to dismantle the
Department-whether intentionally or as collateral damage. Our students
must remain the focus of our work. We appreciate your efforts to uphold
the United States' trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations for
the education of their children.
______
Prepared Statement of the Indigenous-Language Immersion and Native
American Student Achievement Study Research Team \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Members: Teresa L. McCarty, Distinguished Professor of
Education and American Indian Studies, University of California;
Tiffany S. Lee, Distinguished Professor of Native American Studies,
University of New Mexico; Sheilah E. Nicholas, Professor of Education,
University of Arizona; Michael Seltzer, Professor of Education
Emeritus, University of California; Kyle Halle-Erby, Postdoctoral
Scholar, University of California; Thomas Jacobson, Research Analyst,
University of California; James McKenzie, Indigenous Language and
Culture Activist and Doctoral Candidate, University of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and Members
of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer written
testimony on Federal programs in Native American education. We provide
this testimony as the principal investigators and coresearchers in the
Indigenous-Language Immersion and Native American Student Achievement
Study, a 7-year (2016-2023) U.S.-wide investigation of Indigenous-
language immersion (ILI) schooling funded by the Spencer Foundation of
Chicago, Illinois. In this Statement we convey findings from the study
and evidence-based recommendations for federal Indian education policy
and programs. The study illuminates promising practices of benefit to
underserved Native American students and to all learners in U.S.
schools. Those benefits, in turn, constitute tremendous assets to U.S.
society, as ILI both strengthens the richness of the fabric of U.S.
heritage and honors languages that were vital in helping the U.S. and
our Allies prevail in World War II.
Indigenous-Language Immersion and the Need for Research
American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students face
enduring academic disparities. More than a third of K-12 Native
American students attend high-poverty schools. The public school
graduation rate for Native students is 75 percent, lower than any group
in the U.S. Since 2010 Native American college enrollment has declined
precipitously, by 38 percent. At the same time, there is growing
concern among Native Americans about the loss of ancestral languages
and knowledge systems, which constitute the bedrock of children's
socialization and the health and wellbeing of their families,
communities, and nations.
In response, many Native communities have developed innovative
Indigenous-language immersion programs in which all or most content is
taught through the Indigenous language--typically children's second
language--within an academically rigorous, culture-based curriculum.
Limited data indicate these programs have been successful in achieving
the dual goals of promoting academic attainment and language and
culture revitalization. However, prior to the present study, there was
no systematic, U.S.-wide database on these programs' distinctive
features or outcomes. This study provides that database.
What Did the Study Do?
From 2016 to 2023, we undertook a multi-method, multi-university
investigation of ILI schooling. The study asked:
What ILI programs exist?
What learning opportunities does ILI afford?
Under what conditions is ILI beneficial?
What are the programs' outcomes?
How do outcomes compare for Native students in ILI with
carefully matched peers in non-immersion programs?
To learn what ILI programs operate in the U.S., we developed and
administered a national survey of Indigenous language programs. To
understand the distinctive features and outcomes of ILI programs, we
undertook in-depth case studies with 8 ILI schools that partnered in
the study--from upstate New York, to the upper Midwest, to the
Southwest, to the Hawaiian Islands. The schools represent a
crosssection of Native American languages and urban and rural, large
and small, public, public charter, Tribal, and family/community-
operated schools. To learn how academic outcomes compare for ILI and
non-ILI students, we analyzed assessment data on English language arts,
mathematics, and Indigenous-language development for matched pairs of
students in ILI and non-ILI programs.
What Did We Learn?
The survey data identified hundreds of Indigenous-language programs
serving infants through adults in and out of school, with funding from
Tribal, federal, and state governments and private donors. The survey
revealed a variety of instructional approaches, reflecting more than
175 living Native American languages and distinctive community-school
goals and needs. While there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach,
several key factors promoted these programs' success:
Strong family and community engagement
Strong leadership and teacher-learner relationships
Perseverance, dedication, and financial and institutional
support
A sense of family and belonging
The use of full (100 percent) Indigenous-language immersion
and an academically challenging, culturally responsive
curriculum
The quasi-experimental, matched-pair analysis found that students
in ILI programs have high attendance, graduation, and college-going
rates. For some schools, the graduation rate is 100 percent, with 80
percent of graduates enrolling in postsecondary education.
We also found that ILI students score as highly or higher on
English standardized assessments than their Native American peers in
Englishmedium programs. Importantly, we found no evidence that
participating in ILI schooling ``holds children back'' from learning
English or academic content. To the contrary, ILI students not only
master English reading and writing but also mathematics, science, and
other academic content in both languages. As we observed at our case
study schools, ILI students often develop remarkable proficiency in
their ancestral language, with many approaching the proficiency of a
first-language speaker by the time they reach seventh or eighth grade.
Their bilingualism and biliteracy confer cognitive advantages as well
as benefits to their community, the local economy, and the larger U.S.
society.
The in-depth case studies identified a common innovative practice:
a relational instructional approach that: (1) connects academic content
to children's community and the lands and waters they call home; (2)
emphasizes responsibility to self, others, and the natural world; and
(3) builds a familial school culture. The overall effect is to promote
holistic academic wellbeing, including academic attainment, language
and culture revitalization, and strong school-community relationships.
Summing Up: Evidence-based Guidance for Federal Policy and Educational
Practice
This study provides the first and only systematic, long-term,
comprehensive database on the distinctive features and outcomes of ILI
schooling. Those data show that:
Native American students acquire English alongside their
Indigenous languages and the cognitive, socioemotional, and
career and life benefits of bilingualism and biliteracy.
ILI programs are major forces in the revitalization of
endangered Indigenous languages and knowledge systems--a
primary aim of federal policy enshrined in the 1990 Native
American Languages Act--which fosters in children selfesteem
and efficacy, academic attainment, and the development of civic
responsibility.
ILI students' academic performance is on par with and often
exceeds that of comparable students in English-medium programs,
even on tests in English, which is not the language of
instruction in ILI programs.
ILI is associated with improved attendance, high school
graduation, and postsecondary enrollment rates--factors that
support graduates in obtaining employment in a variety of
socioeconomic sectors.
A key ingredient in the positive outcomes of ILI schooling
is the use of relational pedagogies that explicitly develop
connections between academic content, students' communities,
and the natural world; build strong school-community ties; and
foster a caring, familial school culture.
Together, these qualities foster holistic academic wellbeing
and the abilities and characteristics to make positive
contributions to their families, communities, U.S. society, and
the world.
In sum, ILI schooling is an effective approach to developing
academic skills and preparing community leaders within a population of
students that schools have historically failed to serve effectively.
This study's findings suggest that ongoing and increased funding and
other resources to support ILI programs will help eliminate academic
disparities faced by Native American students, while concurrently
increasing positive practices of wellbeing among Indigenous youth, from
which all Americans can learn and benefit.
Thus, the research team recommends that policy which facilitates
the growth of ILI programs among Indigenous communities in the U.S. be
adopted. The research team also calls attention to the 1990/1992 Native
American Languages Act, which affirms U.S. policy to: ``promote the
rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop
Native American languages.'' Because federal programs for American
Indian education are crucial to ILI programs and the academic success
of Native American youth in other areas, such federal programs should
continue their vital support for Indigenous communities and schools.
References
Arviso, M., & Holm, W. (2001). Tsehootsood!di Olta'gi Dine Bizaad
Bihoo'aah: A Navajo immersion program at Fort Defiance, Arizona. In L.
Hinton & K. Hale (eds.), The Green Book of Language Revialization in
Pracitce (pp. 203-215). Academic Press.
Hermes, M., & Kawai `ae `a, K. (2014). Revitalizing Indigenous
languages through Indigenous immersion education. Journal of Immersion
and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 303-322.
Holm, A., & Holm, W. (1995). Navajo language education: Retrospect
and prospects. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(1), 141-167.
Infante, E.M. (1999). Living the language: Growing up in immersion
school taught its own lessons. The Honolulu Advertiser, May 30, E1, E3.
Jacobson, T.A. (2024). Indigenous language immersion and Native
American student outcomes. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]
University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Education.
Lee, T.S., McCarty, T.L., Halle-Erby, K., Jacobson, T., Seltzer,
M., McKenzie, J., & Nicholas, S.E. (in press). Indigenous language
immersion schools: The link to sustainable and healthy Indigenous
community futures. Wicaso Sa Review.
Lee, T.S., & McKenzie, J. (2023). Indigenous language
revitalization in the United States and Canada. In R.J. Tierney, F.
Rizvi, & K. Ereikan (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education
(4th ed., pp. 50-60). Elsevier.
McCarty, T.L., Lee, T., Noguera, J., Yepa, W., & Nicholas, S.E.
(2022). `You should know the name of the wind where you live'--
Relationality and relational accountability in Indigenous-language
education. Comparative Education Review, 66(3), 417-441.
McCarty, T.L., Noguera, J., Lee, T.S., & Nicholas, S.E. (2021). `A
viable path for education': Indigenous-language immersion and
sustainable selfdetermination. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 20(5), 340-354.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2024, May). High
school graduation rates. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Postsecondary National Policy Institute. (2023). Native American
students in higher education. https://pnpi.org/factsheets/native-
american-students/
Wilson, W.H., DeCaire, R., Gonzalez, B.N., & McCarty, T.L. (2022).
Progress, challenges, and trajectories for Indigenous language
contentbased instruction in the United States and Canada. Journal of
Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 10(2), 342-373.
______
Prepared Statement of Ka`iu Kimura, Director, Ka Haka `Ula O
Ke`elikolani College
Aloha Chair Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz and distinguished members
of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mahalo nui for this important hearing. My name is Ka`iu Kimura. I
am a Native Hawaiian woman from Waimea, Hawai`i and have administered a
number of Native-specific and Native-run entities on Hawai`i Island.
First, I want to say that I have seen the testimonies that were
delivered in person at the Committee's hearing on April 2, 2025. They
were excellent and I add my voice in support of their contents.
My current position is Director of Ka Haka `Ula O Ke`elikolani
College (KHUOK). I also administer its affiliated entities: the Hale
Kuamo`o Hawaiian language center and associated electronic tape and
document library, the College's Kahuawaiola teacher education program
and associated laboratory school program, and the bilingual Hawaiian-
English `Imiloa Science Center. These all provide crucial resources for
Native Hawaiian education for those living in the Native Hawaiian
homeland and beyond in the diaspora. They are the primary source of
such support for those living in Hawai`i and for those outside Hawai`i.
These entities have grown through funding provided through
Congressionally established programs provided through the U.S.
Department of Education (USDOE), especially in Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
I want to draw special attention to the importance of the USDOE in
providing attention to Native American languages. In the fall of 2023,
the USDOE awarded funds to initiate the new Congressionally established
National Native American Language Resource Center (N-NALRC). As
Director of KHUOK, I am also the Primary Director of the N-NALRC, which
is a partnership between KHUOK, the University of Alaska Southeast in
Juneau, Alaska and Lac Courte Oreille Ojibwe University on the Lac
Courte Oreille Reservation near Hayward, Wisconsin. The NNALRC builds
from a national network of Native language revitalization participants
that first developed in the successful lobbying effort to pass the
Native American Languages Act of 1990 (NALA) and then various other
federal provisions building from NALA. Last month the N-NALRC was a
cosponsor with KHUOK of a two day conference that drew over 100
individuals from a wide range of Native communities to discuss P-12
Native language education and the involvement of diaspora Native
communities in Native language education. Key resources to initiate and
further develop these NALA-based schools have come from Title VI, Part
A of the ESEA under the USDOE.
KHUOK is also providing an Indigenous language revitalization-
focused Ph.D. program and a related master's program for American
Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. The focus of these
two programs are entities and individuals directly involved in Native
language education, especially Native language immersion and medium
schools aligned with the provisions of NALA. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act is a key source of support for such schools and
programs.
I share the concern expressed in other testimonies that important
legislation administered through the USDOE and providing programs for
Native peoples will fall through the cracks should the USDOE be
eliminated through a reorganization. The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) is the most important such legislation under USDOE
jurisdiction. Title VI contains the most programs for Native peoples,
and includes specific provisions related to Native languages for the
three distinct groups of American Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska
Natives. It also includes Sec. 6133 that is focused on NALA policy and
includes all three groups. Sec. 6133 is very important for language
revitalization.
Thanks to the advocacy of Dr. William Demmert (Tlingit) in Congress
in the early 1990s, NALA policy was also included in ESEA protections
for English Learners. Native language revitalization is closely tied to
English Learner status and the development of high levels of English
proficiency, but as an additional language, rather than as replacing
the primary federally protected status of Native languages of our
peoples. NALA provisions are included in Sec. 3124 (3) and Sec. 3127
along with definitions within ESEA. Those provisions have in large part
been ignored by states and are an area where strengthened attention
under the USDOE would be appropriate. There is also a source of direct
funding to NALA oriented programs under Sec. 3112, for which all three
groups of Native people are eligible. Nationally, Native American
language medium/immersion schools schools have received more support
from the USDOE than from the Department of the Interior. Furthermore,
the education work of the Department of the Interior is not aligned
with NALA as it excludes Native groups recognized in NALA, including
Native Hawaiians and Native Alaskans.
Over the past few years with attention from your Committee and
other federal entities the role of the federal government in
suppressing the Native languages of the United States has come to light
in various reports. That suppression extended to all three major Native
groups. NALA represented a turning point in federal policy relative to
Native American languages and their value for the education of Native
students. Our Native language-based schools accross the nation have
demonstrated that it is possible to attend school through a Native
American language while achieving academic excellence and excellence in
English while also maintaining, strengthening and expanding proficiency
in a Native American language. N-NALRC provides funding for us to
further develop support and direction for such existing schools. It
also allows us to provide similar support to tribes and communities
seeking to begin similar initiatives. The USDOE is a key source of the
support for the N-NALRC that addresses these important needs. The N-
NALRC includes all Native peoples of the United States identified in
NALA, not only those specifically supported through the Department of
the Interior. Not only does the USDOE support our three entity N-NALRC
partnership, it also supports three smaller regional Native American
language resource centers.
A crucial factor in funding from the USDOE, especially funding
focused on Native languages, is that it is directed to Native community
members who actually speak the local language and the particular local
dialect of that language, who are themselves operating the programs.
State and other educational entities without such strong community
linguistic and cultural ties would not be able to provide the sort of
programing tied to parental and community interest. Our experience with
federal Title III funding to states has not been positive in spite of
the strong NALA aligned provisions in Sec. 3124(3) and Sec. 3127.
In closing Senators, I thank you for holding this hearing focusing
on the crucial role that the USDOE plays in Native education including
the use of Native languages for delivery of education. Your work on our
behalf is extremely important and generally overlooked by other
government entities. It is my hope that during this period of confusion
that your Committee will provide direction to maintain and further
strengthen the trust responsibility commitment to America's Native
peoples relative to education. It is my further hope and request that
there be a special focus on education that revitalizes, maintains, and
further develops our languages as first expressed in NALA a full
generation and a half ago. Education through Native languages is not
only highly successful academically, it is at the core of who we are as
Native peoples.
Mahalo nui loa for the opportunity to testify for this importartant
hearing.
______
Prepared Statement of Sharei Ricketts, Superintendent, Little Wound
School
Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and Members of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to
submit this written testimony for the record. I appreciate the
Committee's leadership in holding this important hearing to examine
federal education programs that serve Indian students and to confront
the consequences of the President's proposed dismantling of the U.S.
Department of Education (DOE).
My name is Sharei Ricketts, and I am the Superintendent of the
Little Wound School, a K-12 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded,
Tribally Controlled School on the Oglala Sioux Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. I write today to underscore the profound risks such a
proposal poses to Indian Country and to urge Congress to act decisively
to protect the federal government's treaty and trust responsibility by
continuing to fund critical program necessary for the education of our
children.
The Federal Trust Responsibility
One of the pillars of the federal government's trust and treaty
responsibility is to provide education to American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian students. These obligations are enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, and longstanding federal
policy. They are not discretionary programs that can be discarded or
devolved to the states at the whim of any administration. They are
legal and moral promises that must be honored.
The Risks of Eliminating or Reorganizing DOE Programs
The President's proposal to dismantle the Department of Education,
and the executive actions already underway to restructure it, pose
immediate and long-term threats to Indian education. Among the specific
problems:
1. Violation of Treaty and Statutory Obligations: States are
not party to federal treaties with tribal nations and have no
legal duty to uphold the trust responsibility. Shifting
education programs that support Indian education to the states
would effectively abandon those commitments.
The treaty and trust responsibility required education to be
provided for hundreds of tribes, including the 1868 Treaty of
Fort Laramie. These treaties are recognized as the ``supreme
law of the land'' under the U.S. Constitution (Article VI) and
the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832),
which reaffirmed that these obligations must be honored. This
country owes a great deal to tribal people who agreed to cede
billions of acres of land and trillions in valuable natural
resources through such treaties--including gold, coal, timber,
oil, natural gas, steel, and iron. The United States could not
have achieved the great heights of its success or provided
refuge for millions of immigrants seeking freedom of religion
and opportunity without these agreements. In exchange, one of
the core promises of these treaties and trust responsibilities
is the education of Indian children.
Further, the lack of tribal consultation violates federal
law under 25 USC 2011, 25 USC 2501 (b), and Yankton Sioux
Tribe v. Kempthorne in the federal government requirement to
provide ``fair notice of agency intentions.''
Many other federally funded programs for Indian children
also require federal consultation. Johnson- O'Malley requires
Indian Education Committee (IEC) involvement for educational
planning and approval. 25 U.S.C. 5344(c)(1)(B).
Specifically, ``The program shall be developed and approved in
full compliance with the educational plan developed under this
subsection and shall be approved by the Indian Education
Committee.''
Title VI requires an Indian Parent Committee (IPC) and
documented consultation with parents and Tribes. 20 U.S.C.
7424(c). Specifically, the IPC must be involved in the
development, approval, and evaluation of the application and
program: ``The local educational agency shall develop the
program in open consultation with parents and families of
Indian children, representatives of Indian Tribes... and with
the Indian parent committee.''
Applications for Title VI funding must include written
evidence of consultation. 20 U.S.C. 7424(c)(3): ``Such
application shall include a description of the manner in which
the local educational agency will ensure that Indian children
participate in the program on an equal basis with all other
children served by the local educational agency. And finally,
``Each affected LEA shall consult with appropriate officials
from Indian tribes or tribal organizations prior to the LEA's
submission of a plan or application.'' 20 U.S.C. 7918 (ESSA
Section 8538).
The consultation requirements are not menial; they are a
treaty and trust obligation, part of the United States policy,
and statutory requirements that must be fulfilled.
2. Loss of Culturally Relevant Education: Programs like Title
VI--Indian Education (formerly known as Title IV, Title V, and
Title VII), the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), and
Native Hawaiian Education grants fund language revitalization,
tribal history curriculum, and culture-based learning. These
efforts are rooted in the community and cannot be replicated
through generic state programming.
3. Disruption of Direct-to-Tribe Funding: DOE programs provide
direct support to tribes, tribal colleges, and local
educational agencies. Moving these funds through states would
undermine tribal sovereignty, introduce bureaucratic delays,
and increase the risk of misallocation.
4. Loss of Institutional Knowledge and Staffing: DOE currently
employs Indian-serving professionals who have longstanding
relationships with tribal communities. Recent administrative
actions have already led to the removal or reassignment of key
staff. Further restructuring could permanently and
detrimentally hurt this institution's expertise.
5. Threats to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs): TCUs
rely on DOE-administered Title III funding, Pell Grants, and
other supports. Funding delays or redirection through states
could threaten accreditation and force program cuts, damaging
tribal self-determination and economic development.
6. Delayed and underfunding of critical assistance to the
Bureau of Indian Education funded schools: The Administration's
March 14, 2024, Reduction in Force (RIF) has already caused
severe delays of Congressionally appropriated funds meant to be
transferred from DOE to the BIE. The March RIFs included all
the Business Managers/Budget Analyst that transfer Title
funding to Bureau of Indian Education schools and Counties(non-
Indian Schools). Title funding is transferred in two
distributions, one at 30 percent in the Fall and 70 percent, in
early Spring. Currently, all BIE-funded schools in South
Dakota, New Mexico, and Arizona--as we have conferment--have
not received the 70 percent Spring distributions. In South
Dakota alone, this disruption is deeply alarming since more
than 5,000 Indian Students and 30 teachers rely on this
funding.
7. Absence of a Transition Plan: There has been no public or
tribal consultation regarding where these programs would go,
how they would be administered, or how continuity would be
preserved. The lack of transparency and planning not only
heightens the danger to continued education for Indian students
and tribal communities.
Recommendations to Preserve and Strengthen Native Education
Congress must act to protect Indian education from administrative
overreach. I respectfully offer the following recommendations:
1. Codify Key Programs: Permanently authorize and fund Title
VI, Impact Aid, ANEP, Johnson O'Malley, and Title III programs
in federal statute to insulate them from executive action.
2. Mandate Tribal Consultation: Enforce and strengthen tribal
consultation requirements for any agency changes affecting
Indian education.
3. Protect Direct Funding Structures: Ensure that funding
continues to flow directly to tribes, tribal consortia, TCUs,
BIE-Funded Tribally Controlled Schools, and Indian-serving
schools without state intermediaries.
4. Establish a Statutory Office of Indian Education: Create
and fund a permanent office within the Department of Education
to protect Native-serving staff and preserve institutional
knowledge.
5. Support TCU Autonomy: Pass legislation such as the Haskell
Indian Nations University Improvement Act to strengthen the
governance and independence of tribal colleges.
6. Fully Fund Federal Commitments: Fully appropriate
authorized levels for Impact Aid, IDEA tribal set-asides, Title
I, and Title III. Ensure timely disbursement of funds.
Conclusion
The federal commitment to Indian education is not a program to be
cut, but a treaty and trust responsibility to be kept. Congress must
ensure that Indian students do not become collateral damage in a
misguided effort to dismantle federal education infrastructure. Thank
you for your attention to this critical matter and your continued
support of Indian students, families, and educators across Indian
Country.
______
Prepared Statement of Alison Kulanikauha`a Masutani, President/CEO,
Malama `Aina Foundation
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
Malama `Aina Foundation (MAF) in support of programs that support
Native Hawaiian education.
MAF is a non-profit organization formed in 1998 with a mission to
``empower people to be grounded in their identity and heritage,
transform mindsets and foster healthy growth of communities.'' Our
organization provides in-class, afterschool and intersession learning
opportunities that are place-based and culturally grounded to empower
the next generation of `Oiwi leaders and environmental stewards.
Like many organizations in Hawai`i predominantly serving Native
Hawaiian children and youth, MAF utilizes federal grant programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). One of the most
important--and impactful--programs is ED's Native Hawaiian Education
Program (NHEP), which is one of the few sources that funds innovative
education activities that address critical gaps in Native Hawaiian
education outcomes. MAF has utilized NHEP grant funding for years to
provide the following programs:
Mahope O Ke Kula Ke A`o Mau Ana provides in-class support
and out of school time activities to middle school youth at
Hilo Intermediate and Kohala Middle Schools on Hawai`i island
and Kamaile Academy in Wai`anae, O`ahu. Out of school time
activities include huaka`i and hands-on experiences that not
only reinforce STEM learning, but also strengthen cultural
identity and provide vital physical, mental and spiritual
nourishment for our haumana.
Funding has also allowed us to deliver impactful in-class
curriculum that enriches the haumana and builds the capacity of
the school teachers who may not be grounded in culture based
education by deepening their understanding of Native Hawaiian
values and STEM concepts.
Our afterschool programs foster social and emotional well-
being that lays the groundwork for the haumana to develop
strong and healthy relationships and improve their chances for
academic and life success.
Ke Ka`a `Enehana is a STEAM Mobile program that aims to
provide integrated culture-based Science, Technology,
Engineering, Hawaiian Arts, and Math (STEAM) learning
experiences. Our STEAM van travels to rural and remote
communities with limited resources to address educational
service, academic learning loss, and prepare haumana for
academic success. All Native Hawaiian culture-based curriculum
is developed by MAF's curriculum team to align with the Next
Generation Science and Common Core state standards for grades
K-12.
In all programs, MAF`s foundation of culture based education
enables haumana to learn about aloha `aina and Malama `Aina through the
lens of our kupuna via hands-on learning experiences. We instill into
our haumana that they have the kuleana to be environmental stewards
whether it be on a professional level or just in their everyday lives.
Due to the support from the NHEP, the Mahope program has been able
to offer our haumana not just academic support, but personalized
encouragement, cultural connection, and the belief that they can
succeed.
At Kamaile Academy, one student regularly struggled with
understanding and completing her homework. She rarely did it at home
and often doubted her own abilities. But during our dedicated homework
support sessions every Tuesday and Thursday, she began to open up. With
gentle guidance and consistent encouragement, she began to realize she
actually knew more than she thought--she just needed someone to walk
beside her, build her confidence, and remind her to stay positive. Now,
she approaches her assignments with a new sense of determination and
belief in herself.
Another haumana in our program, faced challenges in memorizing the
first two lines of his ho`olauna (personal introduction). He has an IEP
and finds the memorization especially difficult. But through weeks of
patient repetition, slow pronunciation, and our support, he was able to
fully learn and recite his ho`olauna without any prompting. That moment
of accomplishment was more than just learning lines--it was a powerful
affirmation that with time, support, and cultural grounding, he could
overcome obstacles and feel proud of his growth.
Another student was struggling academically and failing multiple
courses last quarter--not due to lack of ability, but because he lacked
motivation. Through Mahope, we provided dedicated time to go over
missing assignments, positive encouragement, and one-on-one tutoring
from our Education Specialist and peer mentors. He not only passed all
of his classes last quarter but has entered the final quarter of the
year with greater focus, motivation, and self-confidence.
These moments may seem small, but for our students and their
families, they're transformative. In the 2023-2024 school year, MAF
served close to 900 haumana and 89 percent of those haumana reported
that they learned math and science through our cultural experiences and
that they wanted more of these learning opportunities. With NHEP's
continued support, Mahope can continue being that steady hand and
reassuring voice our keiki need--to succeed not only academically, but
as proud `Oiwi learners grounded in culture and community.
Since its inception, NHEP has provided essential funding to
organizations like MAF, supporting the educational development and
advancement of Native Hawaiian students. Without NHEP, communities
across Hawai`i will lose access to no-cost early childhood education;
high school students will lose mentorship opportunities; youth will
lose pathways for pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering,
and agriculture; public elementary schools will lose services that
improve attendance and student outcomes; families will lose access to
critical resources, including health screenings; and at-risk students
will lose career readiness/workforce development programs. It is
imperative that the NHEP and similar ED programs continue to provide
necessary support for these important activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee
hearing on Native American education. I look forward to working with
the Committee on this important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Ryan B. Mackey, Ph.D. Student, College of
Hawaiian Language, University of Hawai`i
Warm greetings, Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and
distinguished Members of the Committee,
''I am a Citizen of the Federally recognized Cherokee Nation, based
in the Cherokee capital of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. My tribal government is
and has always been committed to the Government-to-Government
relationship with the United States via the Plenary Act of Congress and
our time immemorial inheritance as an Indigenous nation with
inalienable rights provided by the land of this continent. I am also a
second-language Cherokee language speaker and have a Ph.D. Student in
Ka Haka `Ula Ke`elikolani, the College of Hawaiian Language, in
Hawaiian and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization at the
University of Hawai`i at Hilo, HI. It is in this capacity, as a
Cherokee Indian student furthering my education and a lifelong Cherokee
community member, professional educator, and spiritual leader, that I
stand in support of the continued vitality of the U.S. Department of
Education. Through federally supported monies provided to my tribal
government via the USDOE, I have been funded, in part, in my
educational endeavors to strengthen the Cherokee Nation's (CN)
Department of Cherokee Language with my coursework and experiences from
my Graduate education.
Aside from the knowledge I have gained via federal funding and
through federally supported educational institutions like the
University of Hawaii, I have also gained professional and personal
experience from working for the CN as an employee for the last two
decades. Financial support for Indigenous languages like Cherokee and
Hawaiian has had a profound impact on the educational, social, and
emotional welfare of Indigenous language learners. Cherokee people are
historically supported by federal money to ensure the educational
opportunities of Cherokee people by treaty rights, and continued
relationships between our governments ensure the overall welfare and
advancement of our communities, families, and individuals. Further
monies allocated to support culturally supportive initiatives and
direct language support through grant-funded programming have allowed
our educators to set a firm foundation to revitalize our language,
culture, and overall well-being.
In my long-standing work to support Cherokee and other Indigenous
languages and cultural identities, I have witnessed and personally
benefitted from the exponentially beneficial results of supporting
cultural identity through language and educational programs, which
allow the personal growth of strength, academic skills, and emotional
stability of our learners and teachers. Most certainly, any change in
financial support to educational programming, educational funding, and
educational institutions that would impact Indigenous language and
culture revitalization would eviscerate the burgeoning growth and
maintenance of our language and cultural identities and, with them, the
social, intellectual, and emotional welfare of Indigenous people,
explicitly the most fragile populations, youth, elders, and those
struggling with poverty and substance abuse. Funding and educational
programming are the lifeblood of supportive initiatives that have had
the most significant impacts on our Indigenous populations. They also
further ensure successful integration and movement into and through
mainstream economies, educational institutions, and social systems by
allowing Indigenous people to garner benefits from Indigenous languages
and strong cultural identity, ensuring they engage in needed
integration to work within and throughout all systems to support and
engage all US citizens and global institutions without any loss of
identity or rejection of international and national values necessary
for all citizens.
With more than two decades of experience in Indigenous educational
programming as a professional, alongside lifelong experiences with US
educational systems, I respectfully encourage a deft and nuanced
approach to decisionmaking regarding the impacts and values of US
educational efforts for Indigenous people. The federal responsibility
to maintain and ensure the protection of US educational systems that
support Indigenous language, culture, and social institutions via
education and grant monies is foundational to the welfare of our
people. I request that mindful and ethical decisionmaking and decisive
steps be made to engage the responsibilities to maintain and support
educational efforts that help Indigenous people like me and the
Cherokee people in our communities. I appreciate your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Shawna Allison Becenti, Head of School, Navajo
Preparatory School
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony
regarding the Native education programs at the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) and the federal government's trust and treaty
obligations to Native education.
Background Information
Navajo Preparatory School Inc. (Navajo Prep) is a Tribally
Controlled School funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) as per
the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, P.L. 100-297. Located in
Farmington, New Mexico, Navajo Prep is an example of Indian self-
determination based on the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA), P.L. 93-638. Navajo Prep serves as a school of
choice for students from across all 110 Chapters of the Navajo Nation,
which is the largest Tribal Nation both in land mass and Tribal
enrollment in the United States. In addition to serving students from
across the Navajo Nation, students attend from across the United
States, including Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota, and
represent different Tribal Nations. Sixty-five percent of Navajo Prep
students live on campus in the school's residential facilities.
As an International Baccalaureate World School, Navajo Prep serves
291 students in grades 9-12 and allows students to compete for a
competitive international diploma. College education of our Navajo
youth is an expectation for Navajo parents and our Navajo leaders. \1\
Since 2020, Navajo Prep has sustained a high school graduation rate of
94 percent or higher. 100 percent of our 2024 graduates were accepted
into four-year colleges or universities, and a remarkable 60 percent of
our alumni from the Class of 2018 who pursued college graduated within
six years, significantly surpassing both the national and state levels
for American Indian students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pedro Vallejo and Vincent Werito, Transforming Dine Education:
Innovations in Pedagogy and Practice (University of Arizona Press,
2022); Wendy S. Greyeyes, Disentangling Our Sovereign Body: A History
of Navajo Education (University of Arizona Press, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Navajo Prep's priorities is to address the critical loss of
Dine language and culture within the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Times
estimates that only 51 percent of Navajo people spoke the Dine language
in 2010. By 2040, it is estimated that less than 5 percent of Dine
people will speak our language. \2\ In this way, Navajo Prep addresses
a specific need of the Navajo Nation and of American Indian students.
Navajo Prep roots our students in language and culture and supports the
development of their identity and status as Indigenous peoples and
global citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Denetclaw, P. (2017, November 16). Data shows huge reduction in
Dine Speakers. Navajo Times. https://navajotimes.com/reznews/data-
shows-huge-reduction-in-dine-speakers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite its impact and success, Navajo Prep faces inadequate
funding as Tribally Controlled Schools receive no designated funding
for technology infrastructure, equipment, or management. Tribally
controlled schools cannot draw on the local tax base, cannot issue
bonds, and primarily rely on funding allocations from the federal
government. Navajo Preparatory School Inc. recommends full, mandatory
funding for BIE-funded schools. Reclassifying BIE funding from
discretionary to mandatory will expand educational freedom and
opportunity for American Indian students, protect BIE-funded schools
and uphold the government's trust and treaty responsibility to American
Indian education.
Executive Order 14242 and Navajo Preparatory School
Executive Order 14242 states, ``the Secretary of Education shall,
to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all
necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of
Education and return authority over education to the States and local
communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of
services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.''
There is a unique and significant relationship between the U.S.
federal government and Native-serving schools outlined by the trust and
treaty responsibilities. This means that Native-serving schools,
similarly to Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) schools,
require ongoing federal programming. NIEA Executive Director Jason
Dropik explains, ``Congress has already established a school choice
system for Tribal communities through Tribally Controlled Schools
within the BIE, as a product of meaningful Self-Determination policy.
However, chronic underfunding has prevented its full realization.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dropik, J. (2025, January 30). RE: Executive Order on Expanding
Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families. NIEA. https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5cffbf319973d7000185377f/t/
67a39a5478f2820d85632822/1738775124793/School+Choice+EO+Letter-
FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navajo Prep recommends that the federal government retain its role
in supporting and administering programs for Native-serving schools,
including those funded through the Bureau of Indian Education. This is
important as they provide an established mechanism by which Tribally
Controlled Schools can be created by Tribal Nations. Most states do not
allow Tribal Nations or Tribal Education Agencies (TEAs) to charter
schools, and some--such as South Dakota--prohibit public charter
schools altogether. \4\ Even where charter systems exist, they
typically fall under state-level oversight, which would significantly
erode Tribal sovereignty over curriculum, governance, and cultural
instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Indian Education Association (n.d.). NIEA Talking
Points BIE School Choice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navajo Preparatory School Inc. recommends that Congress not
implement any mechanism that could deplete existing BIE or Tribally
Controlled School funding. Shifting funding from a federal mechanism to
a state mechanism could risk undermining the government-to-government
relationship maintained through Tribal sovereignty. Such a change could
result in the interruption of school services through school closures,
ultimately leaving communities with fewer educational choices.
At Navajo Preparatory School, we rely on core programs and funding
administered by the U.S. Department of Education; these include Title
I, Title VI, Johnson O'Malley, and discretionary grants that are
awarded competitively through the U.S. Department's Office of Indian
Education. Many of these programs require the involvement of an Indian
parent committee, which ensures that Native families have a direct
voice in how funds are used to support their children. Federal
investment in these programs allows schools like Navajo Prep to provide
an excellent and rigorous education that meets the needs of Native
children and their Tribal Nations.
We recommend that Congress reaffirm the trust responsibility of the
federal government in education through mandatory funding mechanisms
for BIE and Tribal schools. We look forward to working with you to
ensure that Native students continue to have access to the
opportunities and services that are critical for their success. Thank
you for your time and your commitment to fulfilling the federal
government's trust and treaty obligations.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kauanoe Kamana, Director, Nawahiokalani`opu`u
Laboratory School
Aloha Honorable Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski, Vice Chairman
Brian Schatz and Committee Members of the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs,
My name is Kauanoe Kamana. I am presenting information on the
school for which I serve as Director/Principal in response to the
invitation by your Committee to present ``testimony for the record''
regarding the school receiving funding and support from the United
States Department of Education (USDOE) and which serve American Indian,
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students.
I am the principal of preschool to grade 12 Nawahiokalani`opu`u
School (Nawahi), a Native Hawaiian controlled demonstration school of
the National Native American Language Resource Center (N-NALRC)
established by legislation introduced in your Committee with bipartisan
sponsorship and support. Nawahi is a P-12 school and is the largest and
most developed Native American language medium school in the United
States. It has played a major role in revitalizing the Native Hawaiian
language . The Hawaiian language was long suppressed over six decades
under federal control during the existence of the Territory of Hawai`i
and then for nearly three more decades under the State of Hawai`i.
Currently, a number of policies and regulations continue to create
barriers to using the Native Hawaiian language within Hawai`i State
Department of Education (HIDOE) schools. Even with the status of being
an official language of the State of Hawai`i, the Hawaiian language is
not yet on equal footing with English within the HIDOE.
In my role as a co-founder of the non-profit `Aha Punana Leo and
Nawahi school, and as volunteer on the non-profit `Aha Punana Leo
board, I have been involved with the establishment of contemporary
Hawaiian medium and immersion education since its beginning. Over the
past forty years our Native Hawaiian people have overcome numerous
barriers in moving this form of education forward. However, we have not
done so without help from others. We at Nawahi, very much remember and
sincerely appreciate the interest, attention and support of Committee
members including personal visits, staff visits, and the welcoming of
delegations we have sent to Washington. This invitation to testify is
yet another indication of your attention to our needs. Mahalo nui loa.
Please consider the following points relative to the importance of
the federal Native Hawaiian serving programs supportive of Nawahi
School within the USDOE.
1. The program at Nawahi is the result of a long history of
initiatives by the Native Hawaiian controlled non-profit `Aha
Punana Leo. Without the `Aha Punana Leo receiving various
grants from the USDOE since 1988, Nawahi would not exist.
Furthermore, subsequent grants from the USDOE to the Nawahi
charter board have proven to be a core factor in the
development of Nawahi as a strong P-12 program. A continuation
of such grants is crucial for the further growth and expansion
of Nawahi in serving more students of diverse backgrounds, the
vast majority of whom are Native Hawaiian.
2. Hawaiian language medium P-12 Nawahi School has had an
average annual high school graduation rate of just under 100
percent for the past twenty-five years and an average college
going rate of over 70 percent. These rates are well above the
state public school average not only for Native Hawaiians, but
for the general public school enrollment.
3. Besides the University of Hawai`i system, Nawahi has had
students graduate from a number of prominent universities
outside our state including Northern Arizona, Stanford,
Colorado State University, Washington State University,
Dartmouth, Loyola Marymount and Oxford among others.
4. Nawahi graduates contribute to Hawai`i in such positions as
nurse, mechanical engineer, police officer, university
professor, general building contractor, school teacher,
optometrist's assistant, medical doctor, electrician,
secretary, notary public, clothing business owner, mayoral
staff member, aerospace engineer, urban and regional planner,
roofer, chef and professional musician among others.
5. Nawahi is an important resource for Alaska Native and
American Indian communities. It is a useful model for those
seeking to establish educational programs aligned with federal
policy on the Indigenous languages of the United States as
expressed in the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (NALA);
6. The success of Nawahi and its strong outcomes play a role
in demonstrating to the HIDOE and private schools best practice
for educating the large Native Hawaiian population of our
state. As shown in a 2017 study in which Nawahi participated as
the ``Hawaiian-medium charter school'', Nawahi was designated
as the strongest model for Native Hawaiian students among the
six models studied. (See: https://www.ksbe.edu/assets/pdfs/
Mohala_i_ka_wai_Cultural_Advantage.pdf)
7. The HIDOE has been pressured through lawsuits, parental
demonstrations and other community initiatives to provide
education through the Native Hawaiian language. Despite such
pressure, education through the Native Hawaiian language is
still treated as a lower priority within the HIDOE.
Furthermore, in standard public schools, Hawaiian language
programs are typically under the control of principals who have
no background in the Hawaiian language. They are therefore
challenged to serve in the best interest of the programs and
their students.
8. Through NALA, the federal government has established a
policy ``. . .to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and
freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop
Native American languages. . .'' and ``. . .to encourage and
support the use of Native American languages as a medium of
instruction.'' These policies are implemented at Nawahi School.
9. In carrying out its unique trust responsibility for Native
Hawaiians, the federal government can best assure that it meets
federal policy as expressed in NALA through direct funding
support to Native Hawaiian language operated
educationalentities. Nawahi is one such entity operated as part
of a consortium of other entities. As principal I report to
Native Hawaiian controlled entities including a Charter School
Board, the Governing Board of the non-profit `Aha Punana Leo,
and the Faculty Senate and Directorship of Ka Haka `Ula O
Ke`elikolani College of Hawaiian Language. Direct federal
funding from the USDOE reaches Nawahi through grants to these
three Native Hawaiian-controlled entities. Funding from the
state through the HIDOE to the charter sector of Nawahi is less
than HIDOE funding to its mainstream public schools. HIDOE
funding to the high school sector of Nawahi under Hilo High
School is considerably less per pupil than for students in Hilo
High Schools majority English medium program.
The origins of Nawahi began with the establishment of the non-
profit `Aha Punana Leo in 1983. This was followed by establishment of
the pioneering Punana Leo O Hilo language nest in Hilo in 1995. That
language nest operated under the uncertainties of state provisions for
private language schools that excluded the Indigenous Native Hawaiian
language. We were thus operating under the possibility of being closed
down. We therefore began lobbying the state legislature to provide
legislation legitimizing our Native run preschool's existence. At the
same time, we also lobbied the state legislature to eliminate a 1896
law closing all public and private K-12 schooling through the Hawaiian
language. That law was aligned with then extant policies of the United
States government forbidding educational use of American Indian and
Alaska Native languages.
In 1986, we finally were able to get two state laws passed that
legalized our `Aha Punana Leo's Native run private language nest
preschool and also use of the Hawaiian language in state K-12 public
schools. However, following passage of the law, the HIDOE did not open
a public kindergarten using the Hawaiian language in accordance with
the new law.
Surprised by the lack of implementation of the law, but not
deterred, the `Aha Punana Leo opened a Hawaiian medium program in a
side room at our private Punana Leo O Hilo language nest. We named that
program Papa Kaiapuni Hawai`i (``Hawaiian Environment Class) and
declared it a ``free public kindergarten'' in compliance with the new
law. The following year 1987, with assistance from a number of state
legislators, who like yourselves stood up for Native students, we were
able to move our children into a combined K-1 public school classroom
conducted through Hawaiian under the HIDOE. The other kindergarten and
first students at the school were in separate kindergarten and first
grade classrooms instructed through English. The site of the program
was Keaukaha Elementary School located on the Keaukaha Hawaiian
Homelands. Punana Leo parents had fought very hard for this opening
into the public school system. They provided the support needed to make
it a success, including classroom renovation, handmade curriculum
materials, volunteer teacher aide support, and transportation support.
Once under the HIDOE, the survival and grade level expansion of
that follow-up program from the Punana Leo O Hilo relied on annual
lobbying of the state Board of Education by the `Aha Punana Leo and
parents of children in the program. The HIDOE did not provide any
resources other than paying a teacher's salary for each class added.
Support for developing curriculum materials, training teachers, and
opening new sites came from USDOE. Initially funds for those efforts
were awarded to the Native run non-profit `Aha Punana Leo in
competitive grants. The `Aha Punana Leo used those grants to support ,
not only the program at Keaukaha Elementary, but also to support
additional programs that were developing as Punana Leo language nests
expanded to new communities and the parents lobbied the state to open
new Hawaiian medium streams in local public schools.
Our movement later expanded to also include charter school powers
and a Native controlled State Hawaiian language college, Ka Haka `Ula O
Ke`elikolani (KH`UOK), those additional entities worked cooperatively
in seeking funding from the USDOE as well as their membership
communities simply donating time and expertise to provide support. It
has been through such cooperative work in obtaining USDOE funds that
the majority of Hawaiian language medium curriculum materials in state
schools have been produced and disseminated.
It is crucial that your Committee convey to the present
administration that without the attention to the trust responsibility
for Native Hawaiians as enacted through initiatives of Congress, the
successes of Native Hawaiian families choosing to enroll their children
in our school would not have happened.
In recalling the history of our Nawahi school, cooperation between
the non-profit `Aha Punana Leo and parents was again a key factor in
growing the program into upper grades. Once Punana Leo children had
entered Keaukaha Elementary and began moving through the elementary
grades, parents sought to have a Hawaiian medium intermediate school
site. In 1994, the `Aha Punana Leo rented the third floor of a vacant
building in Hilo town for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students for a
Hawaiian medium intermediate and high school program for Hawaiian
immersion students from Keaukaha Elementary. That program was named by
the school community after Iosepa Nawahiokalani`opu`u, a Native
Hawaiian community advocate and newspaper publisher of the late 1800s.
Students in the Nawahi program were nominally enrolled in the HIDOE's
Hilo Intermediate School, but taught through Hawaiian by myself and a
team of parents and Hawaiian language learner college students in that
off-campus school site.
The parents of the 36 students enrolled in Nawahi were determined
that their children would have a highly distinctive high school
education through Hawaiian. Once again, supportive politicians--then
elected to the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs--came to the group's
rescue with a grant to the non-profit `Aha Punana Leo to purchase a
small vacated private school campus. The HIDOE provided no funding for
this. Once the `Aha Punana Leo and parents renovated the buildings and
classrooms of that campus, we moved the Nawahi intermediate program to
this property as an off-campus site of Hilo Intermediate School and
later as an off-campus site of Hilo High School. The Nawahi high school
program continues as an off-campus program of Hilo High School today.
Hilo High School pays for some of the high school teachers and some of
the high school support staff. In 2001, the Nawahi K-6 charter school
was established and subsequently grew to include grades 7-8.
The charter program currently helps support the entire K-12 program
with USDOE grant funds. Through careful attention to the use of charter
per pupil funding, and special funds we`ve gradually added classrooms
to serve our growing enrollment. The Punana Leo O Hilo language nest
was also moved to the campus and provides infant-toddler education as
well as a public private-prekindergarten program with the charter.
In 1997, state legislators passed a bill that established Nawahi as
the laboratory school of the new Hawaiian language college, KH`UOK.
Along with graduate and undergraduate education through Hawaiian, the
College was given the responsibility of training Hawaiian-speaking
teachers for the state. The law establishing KH`UOK named Nawahi as the
laboratory school of the state and as the training site for the KH`UOK
Hawaiian language medium/immersion teacher certification program. The
state put an initial freeze on funding for the College and required it
to work with the `Aha Punana Leo and the federal government for
funding. KH`UOK, like Nawahi and the `Aha Punana Leo, and unlike
standard state entities, are Native Hawaiian controlled and
administered and operated through the Hawaiian language. Using federal
grants to Nawahi, the consortium of KH`UOK and Nawahi were able to
establish the first dual college/high school general education credit
courses (e.g., World History, Statistics) taught through the medium of
the Hawaiian language, and likely the first such courses taught through
a Native American language.
Most recently, Congress passed an act, sponsored in your Committee,
that established the National Native American Languages Resource Center
(N-NALRC). The USDOE implemented that Act by establishing the first N-
NALRC as a partnership of three universities, each of which had a
particular strength relative to one of the three Native peoples of the
United States. The USDOE awarded leadership of this partnership to
KH`UOK, with the other two partners being the University of Alaska-
Southeast and Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal University of Wisconsin.
Specified within the N-NALRC are P-12 demonstration education
programs affiliated with the three universities. Nawahi is the largest
such N-NALRC demonstration site and the only one with a full preschool
to grade twelve range at present. The work of our school and the other
P-12 education demonstration schools is to provide support to all
Native American peoples who seek to develop education of choice through
Native American languages. Through the N-NALRC, we at Nawahi and KH`UOK
are able to share how we developed our programs including high school
programs and dual credit programs through a Native American language.
Nawahi's enrollment this school year 2024-2025 totaled 615 students
at three campuses on two islands. Our largest campus is the site owned
by the non-profit `Aha Punana Leo described above. It is located in
Kea`au, Puna on the rural Big Island of Hawai`i and has an enrollment
of 536 preschool to grade 12 students. Ours is the largest single
campus taught primarily through a federally defined Native American
language in the country. Our two satellite campuses are the result of
Native Hawaiian parents requesting our Native Hawaiian Charter School
board for assistance in establishing a Hawaiian language medium option
in their communities and are operated on property rented by the `Aha
Punana Leo.
Nawahi has been a direct and indirect recipient of discretionary
funds from the USDOE under a variety of programs including most
recently a subgrant from the N-NALRC and grants under Title VI, in
particular Native Hawaiian Education Act funds. Due to our student body
and their linguistic background we operate under provisions of Title
III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act relating to Native
Americans and Native American languages. Title III includes distinctive
NALA provisions and protections not found, to my knowledge in any other
legislation.
Our school is a school of choice. Parents enroll their children in
the program because of its focus on the use of the Native Hawaiian
language as the primary medium of education, its focus on total family
involvement, its high standards in English and academics. They also
support our teaching all students Japanese and Latin in recognition of
our community's genealogical connections and mid-Pacific location
between the East and the West. Parents enroll children primarily at the
preschool level and kindergarten.
Our school has no racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Although
the vast majority of the student body and teaching staff are Native
Hawaiian, we have had students, faculty, staff and parents of diverse
backgrounds, including Anglo-American, Asian, Alaska Native, and non-
Native Hawaiian multiracial ancestry.
In closing, Senators, I want to thank you for providing Nawahi an
opportunity to testify regarding the importance of the American Indian,
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs established by Congress
under the United States Department of Education to meet trust
responsibilities for our peoples. I have read the testimonies of those
invited to present in person to your Committee and want to express my
support for them in addition to my testimony provided here. The work of
your Committee is very much appreciated here in our community, and we
are anxious to provide support to your important work when called upon
to do so.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Education Association
Introduction \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note: Throughout this testimony the term ``Native
students'' refers to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native
Hawaiian students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the 3 million members of the National Education
Association (NEA) and the 50 million students they educate and support
enrolled in public schools and public colleges and universities across
the nation, we are proud to submit this testimony for the record in
conjunction with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' April 2, 2025
hearing: ``Native American Education--Examining Federal Programs at the
U.S. Department of Education.''
More than 90 percent of America's students attend public schools;
and notably 93 percent of Native students attend public schools. This
includes students in urban and suburban communities, and in rural
areas--where schools are often the hub of communities, as well as the
largest local employers. Approximately 44 percent of Native students
attend public schools in rural areas. Because public schools are where
the overwhelming majority of America's students learn, it is imperative
that we ensure these schools have the resources to inspire students'
natural curiosity, imagination, and desire to explore new ideas, and
prepare them for the future.
The federal Indian trust responsibility is a cornerstone of U.S.
Indian law. It establishes a legally enforceable duty for the United
States to protect the treaty rights, lands, resources, and self-
governance of federally recognized Tribal Nations. Rooted in the
Constitution and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, this
responsibility stems from the historic government-to-government
relationship between Tribes and the United States.
These treaties also form the basis of the federal trust
responsibility, including commitments to provide health care,
education, housing, and economic support. Because the Constitution
grants the legislative branch plenary authority over Indian Affairs,
the federal government holds primary and exclusive power in this
domain. Federally recognized Tribes operate independently of state
control and engage in government-to-government relationships primarily
with the federal government, although they may also establish such
relationships with state governments as sovereign entities. Likewise,
the trust responsibility for Native Hawaiian education, as outlined in
20 U.S.C. 7511 et seq., further underscores the federal commitment to
supporting Native education.
These treaties remain in effect today and were never meant to
expire. Honoring them is not optional; it is a constitutional and moral
obligation. Tribal sovereignty endures, and the federal government must
uphold its commitments to support and respect the self-determination of
Tribal nations.
Importance of the U.S. Department of Education
While state and local governments are responsible for much of
America's education system, Congress created the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) to bridge longstanding gaps that exist in educational
opportunity--particularly for our nation's most vulnerable students--
and to provide funding and support to all. Students across the country
benefit from programs created and administered by the department, which
fulfills its responsibilities by enforcing civil rights laws,
supporting students with disabilities, promoting equal educational
opportunities, bolstering the educator workforce, and administering the
Federal Student Aid programs that place college within reach of working
families.
The stability of ED is crucial in fulfilling the federal
government's trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations and their
students, 93 percent of whom, as noted above, attend public schools.
Despite its enormous responsibilities, President Trump in March signed
an Executive Order instructing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to
pursue ``all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the
Department of Education and return education authority to the States.''
Yet, ED was created precisely because some states and school districts
were either unwilling or unable to meet their statutory
responsibilities for educating and supporting all students, regardless
of location, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other factors.
Additionally, as has already been said, absent unique circumstances to
the contrary, states generally lack any authority and/or jurisdiction
over Tribes because Tribes engage primarily with the federal
government.
Native-specific programs like Title VI and Impact Aid are central
to how ED fulfills its federal trust obligations. The restructuring
efforts risk shifting Native education under state jurisdiction,
weakening self-governance, and infringing on the government-to-
government relationship between Tribes and the United States.
Impact of the Reduction in Force and Potential Restructuring of the
Department of Education
Often various federal program funding streams are integrated and
scaffolded for public schools, but in particular for those schools
serving Tribal students including in rural areas. Should ED be
dismantled and certain programs be moved to other federal agencies, the
coordination that needs to occur between multiple federal agencies
would be unsustainable in our nation' schools, especially for the
understaffed and under-resourced schools serving our most vulnerable
students and their communities. In addition, it is unclear if the
agencies in which these programs would be placed would have the
knowledge, experience, and expertise necessary to properly implement
the programs and ensure that federal funds are provided and utilized as
Congress intended.
Furthermore, the impact of the loss of staffing for the programs
that support Native education would be detrimental to the
implementation of the following programs that support the education of
Native youth across the nation (Congressional Research Service Report
Indian Elementary-Secondary Education: Programs, Background, and
Issues):
ESEA Title I-A Grants to Local Education Agencies
ESEA Title I-B State Assessment Grants
ESEAT Title II-1 Supporting Effective Instruction Grants
ESEA Title III-A English Language Acquisition
ESEA Title IV-B 21st Century Learning Centers
ESEA Title VI-A Indian Education Programs
ESEA Title VI-C Alaska Native Education Equity
ESEA Title VII Impact Aid
IDEA Part B Special Education Grants to States
IDEA Part C Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers
MVHAA Education for Homeless Children and Youths
Perkins Native American Career and Technical Education
Program
(To be clear, this is not a comprehensive list, but a sampling.
There are several other federal programs that serve the educational and
other needs of Native students.)
Firing Office of Indian Education (OIE) staff or moving the office
to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) (or any other agency) would be
detrimental. The purpose of OIE is clearly stated and framed. From
OIE's website: ``The U.S. Office of Indian Education (OIE) administers
the Indian Education Program of ESEA, as amended by ESSA (Title VI,
Part A), which establishes policies and provides financial and
technical assistance for supporting LEAs, Indian Tribes and
organizations, post-secondary institutions and other entities in
meeting the special educational and cultural related academic needs of
American Indians and Alaska Natives, 20 U.S.C. 3423c and 7401 et. seq.
The OIE is headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary
and who advises the Assistant Secretary on matters related to the
programs administered by OIE.''
The fallout would be similarly harmful if Office of Native Hawaiian
Education (ONHE) staff are fired or if the office is shifted to the
Bureau of Indian Education or another agency. Like OIE, the purpose of
this office is clearly stated and framed. From the ONHE website: ``The
purpose of the Native Hawaiian Education program is to develop
innovative education programs to assist Native Hawaiians and to
supplement and expand programs and authorities in the area of
education. Authorized activities include, among others: early education
and care programs; family-based education centers; beginning reading
and literacy programs; activities to address the needs of gifted and
talented Native Hawaiian students; special education programs;
professional development for educators; and activities to enable Native
Hawaiian students to enter and complete postsecondary education
programs.''
Like OIE and ONHE, the Office of Alaska Native Education (OANE)
serves a distinct purpose that would suffer if staff members are fired
or if the office moves to the Bureau of Indian Education or elsewhere.
The purpose of this office is clearly stated and framed. From OANE
website: ``The overall purpose of the Alaska Native Education program
is to meet the unique education needs of Alaska Natives and to support
supplemental education programs to benefit Alaska Natives. Grantees
under the program use their funds for such activities as the
development of curricula and education programs that address the
education needs of Alaska Native students, and the development and
operation of student enrichment programs in science and mathematics.
Eligible activities also include professional development for
educators, activities carried out through Even Start programs and Head
Start programs, family literacy services, and dropout prevention
programs.''
All three offices are specifically focused on serving the
educational needs of Native students, not only through supporting these
students throughout the United States, but also through interacting and
engaging with their Tribal Nations and communities. The focus here is
on the education and educational support of our Native students, and
the Department of Education serves as a central point of the federal
government, a requirement of the United States commitment to treaties
and other trust agreements with Tribal Nations.
Moving these offices to the Bureau of Indian Education would ignore
the bureau's capacity issues: BIE does not have the staff to administer
Department of Education programs or maintain the offices that the
Department supports and staffs along with its current statutory
requirements. Reports by the Government Accountability Office have
noted that building staff capacity has been a challenge for BIE for
over a decade. The BIE's insufficient staff capacity has limited its
ability to monitor the federal spending and special education programs
of and in other ways assist the schools already under its purview.
Instead of adding additional programs and responsibilities to the
bureau, there should be a focus on increasing its capacity to meet
current obligations and perform the work associated with its mandate.
Impact of Reductions in Funding and Staffing on Federal Programs
Serving Native Students
The federal government holds a trust responsibility to Tribal
Nations, particularly in the provision and delivery of educational
services. The various titles under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) work in tandem--scaffolding and reinforcing one
another--to holistically support the academic success and well-being of
Native students. Coordinating these programs across multiple federal
agencies is untenable and would have negative impacts on Native
students.
Title I of ESEA provides indispensable resources to low-income
school districts, many of which are in rural areas and enroll Native
students. Native students receiving support under IDEA are also at
risk. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics,
Native students represent roughly 2.6 percent of the total population
in the United States, yet they represent the largest proportion of
students served under IDEA of any racial group, at 19 percent.
Together, Title I and IDEA form a layered, interdependent system of
support--each title reinforcing the others--to fulfill the federal
trust responsibility and promote the success and well-being of Native
students across the country.
In addition, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) datasets are
essential to ED's ability to carry out its program responsibilities,
including congressionally mandated grant allocation. IES's work is
invaluable to education policymakers, administrators, educators,
advocates, and researchers. It serves as a hub for data collection for
education--including data collection mandated by law, serving all
schools and many federal programs. The National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) within IES supports programs and assessments that
support Native students or the public schools that serve these
students, including but not limited to the following:
Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP). From the REAP
website: ``Part B of Title V of the reauthorized Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes the Rural Education
Achievement Program (REAP). REAP is designed to help rural
districts that may lack the personnel and resources to compete
effectively for Federal competitive grants and that often
receive grant allocations in amounts that are too small to be
effective in meeting their intended purposes. The formula grant
funds, and the fund use flexibility available under REAP enable
rural local educational agencies (LEAs) to participate more
fully and effectively in many of the ESEA programs and allow
them to provide better educational services to their students.
There are two formula grant programs authorized under REAP: the
Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural
and Low-Income School (RLIS) program.'' However, to determine
if a school is eligible to the REAP program, data from NCES--
specifically the Education, Demographic and Geographic
Estimates (EDGE) team.'' (At the time of this submission, it is
unclear if anyone from this team remains employed.)
The National Indian Education Study (NIES). This study is
conducted under the direction of the NCES through the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on behalf of the
Office of Indian Education and is administered every four
years. NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the
National Center for Education Statistics within the IES. From
the NIES website: ``The National Indian Education Study (NIES)
is designed to describe the condition of education for American
Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in the United States.
The study samples AI/AN students in public, private, Department
of Defense, and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded
schools. NIES has two main components: NAEP cognitive questions
and survey questionnaires. Fourth- and eighth-grade students
complete the NAEP mathematics or reading assessment after which
they answer a survey questionnaire that gathers information
about how Native traditions, languages, and cultures are
integrated in their everyday lives. There is a survey given to
students in this study as well as for their teachers and school
administrators.'' The data from NIES, especially the survey
questions about Native traditions, languages, and cultures, is
extremely valuable to policy makers, Tribal leaders, educators,
parents, and students.
Without these data sets and analyses, there is no way to know how
public schools are serving any of our nation's students, let alone our
Native students. Data and the context of the data drive supports and
innovations to meet the educational needs of Native students. There is
also a challenge should data collection and analysis be left to the
states themselves that there would be no ability to accurately compare
between states--much like comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore,
many federal education grant programs depend on this data for
eligibility and proper implementation.
Impact on the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education
The Department of Education is, at heart, a civil rights agency. It
is charged with ensuring that opportunities for learning and
development are available to students ``across race and space.'' The
department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is key to fulfilling this
obligation, and it does so by enforcing federal civil rights laws in
schools and investigating and helping resolve violations of these
rights. The office's role is particularly essential for students with
disabilities, who represent most of OCR's outstanding cases.
A letter from 242 state legislators to President Trump highlights
the importance of OCR ``to provide technical assistance to families and
educators, prevent discrimination, collect data to help us understand
where educational opportunity continues to be unequal, and respond
promptly and thoroughly to complaints of discrimination.''
Among OCR's most important functions is its collection of data from
all public schools on leading civil rights indicators related to access
and barriers to education, from early education through grade 12. This
is one of the ways OCR has been able to call attention to inequities
and track progress over time.
According to the National Indian Education Association, Native
students are significantly more likely than any other racial group to
report being afraid of attack or harm while at school at a rate is over
twice that of any other racial or ethnic group and about three times
the national average. In addition, Native students have some of the
highest rates of suspension of any racial or ethnic group and in years
past, nearly a quarter of Native students have reported being bullied.
It is vital, with 93 percent of Native students in public schools, and
with an over representation of Native students served under IDEA, that
OCR remain strong and maintain the protections for Native students, and
all students. This goal has become harder to achieve given the closure
of seven OCR offices across the country.
Impact of Vouchers on Native Students
Vouchers take scarce funding from students in public schools--the
schools that the overwhelming majority of Native students attend--and
give those resources to unaccountable private schools. These schools
are not held to the same standards as public schools, as they are not
required to adhere to laws protecting students from discrimination;
furthermore, they are largely unavailable in Indian Country and many
rural communities. All too often rural schools are already under-
resourced, and the redirection of funds from students in these schools
to students with the access and ability to attend private schools
further exacerbates the challenges facing rural students, including
Native students, their schools, and their communities.
No matter whether they are called vouchers, education savings
accounts, tuition tax credits, or refundable tuition tax credits, all
of these programs shift public funds into private schools that have
almost complete autonomy regarding how they operate: who they teach,
what they teach, how they teach, how (if at all) they measure student
achievement, how they manage their finances, and what information they
are required to disclose to parents and the public. Unlike public
schools, private schools can and sometimes do limit their admission
based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion and any
other number of factors.
Moreover, the absence of public accountability for voucher funds
has contributed to rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in current voucher
programs. This lack of transparency often deprives students of the
necessary support, resources, and knowledgeable, experienced educators
they need.
It is worth noting that the Chair of the Committee on Indian
Affairs, Senator Murkowski, stated in a public hearing: ``public
funding for public schools.''
The Bureau of Indian Education entered into consultation with
Tribal Nations about creating options for school choice within the BIE
system. However, like our nation's public schools, moving funds out of
the BIE system toward private options would not support those Native
students in BIE schools. In fact, such a move violates Tribal
sovereignty, weakens BIE-funded schools, introduces unnecessary
complexity, and, due to a loss of funding, would decrease the quality
of educational programming that schools are able to offer. The National
Indian Education Association has highlighted some of these challenges,
as choice options bypass Tribal governance by weakening oversight,
self-determination, and accountability; create instability in the
funding for BIE schools due to the loss of clarity on funding which
ultimately impacts staffing and educational opportunities; and raise
the possibility of closing BIE schools. The NIEA also shared,
``Congress has already enacted a rigorous system of funding for Native
education through Public Law 95-561 and Public Law 100-297. A lump-sum
voucher system would blatantly violate multiple provisions of these
statutes and undermine the framework of Tribal-driven Native education
established by Congress.'' Additionally, 87 percent of BIE schools are
in rural or reservation areas, making it unlikely that these students
will have access or ability to attend a private school.
Tribal Colleges and Universities
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) play a critical role in
supporting Indigenous students, a historically underrepresented group
in higher education. Native Americans represent less than 1 percent of
college students, and only 16 percent earn bachelor's degrees or
higher. TCUs help address this gap by offering accessible, culturally
relevant education. TCUs are notably affordable, with annual tuition
under $3,000, and many offer scholarships, reducing financial barriers
and providing accessibility. As the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium noted, 97 percent of TCU graduates finish their education
without student debt. Additionally, many of these students are the
first in their families to attend college and come from low-income
backgrounds--with about 78 percent receiving Pell Grants, a rate far
above the national average. This funding is crucial for TCU students,
helping them complete their studies in fields that will directly
benefit and strengthen Tribal communities.
TCUs also play a transformative role in their communities, serving
as hubs of education, cultural preservation, and public service. TCUs
provide a uniquely holistic, Indigenous-centered learning environment
that extends beyond academics to include alternative credentialing like
GED programs, financial literacy education, and cultural activities.
They promote wellness through prevention programs and fitness
initiatives while also bridging the digital divide in rural Tribal
areas by offering public access to computers and the Internet. TCUs
also serve as essential stewards of Tribal knowledge and histories.
Currently, TCUs operate more than 90 campuses and sites in 16
states. These institutions serve students from over 250 federally
recognized Tribal Nations and embody a vital component of Tribal higher
education. Indeed, over 80 percent of Indian Country is served by TCUs.
All TCUs offer certificates and associate degrees; 22 offer bachelor's
degrees; nine offer master's degrees; and one offers a doctoral degree.
Programs range from liberal arts to technical and career programs.
Because TCUs are chartered by Tribal nations or the federal
government, they depend heavily on federal funding to deliver quality
education. Federal grants and programs account for over 75 percent of
their annual operating budgets. Unlike most public colleges, TCUs
rarely receive financial support from state governments, making federal
investment critical to fulfilling their missions and upholding
longstanding trust and treaty obligations.
The goal of Executive Order 14242 is to close the Department of
Education and return education authority to states and local
communities. TCUs were created and are firmly established in community
and Tribal control. Their founding was a clear expression of
sovereignty with a goal to preserve culture, sustain languages, and
protect Native lands. Executive branch or congressional efforts to
close ED and return authority to states and local communities could be
disastrous for TCUs and their students.
Key Department of Education Programs and Funding for TCUs
The Department of Education administers three programs that are
vital to the success and support of TCUs, their students, faculty,
staff, and the communities in which they exist and serve.
Title III of the Higher Education Act: Strengthening
Institutions Program ESEA Title I-B State Assessment Grants.
The purpose of the Title III, Strengthening Institutions
program is ``to improve the academic quality, institutional
management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions, to
increase their self-sufficiency and strengthen their capacity
to make a substantial contribution to the higher education
resources of the Nation.'' Imbedded within this program is a
formula-based set-aside for TCUs designed to address the
critical unmet needs of these institutions, their students and
their communities. Through this program, TCUs provide student
support services, Native language preservation, basic upkeep of
campus buildings and infrastructure, critical campus expansion,
enterprise management systems, faculty for core courses, and
other necessary elements for a quality educational experience.
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act Section
117: Tribal Post Secondary Career & Technical Institutions. The
Tribal Post Secondary Career and Technical Institution program
provides funding for institutional operations for two Tribally
chartered career and technical institutions authorized by
federal law: United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) in
Bismarck, North Dakota and Navajo Technical University (NTU) in
Crownpoint, New Mexico. For the members of Tribal Nations and
communities facing some of the highest unemployment rates in
the nation, these institutions provide vital workforce
development and job creation, education, and training programs,
ultimately transforming the lives of the families and
communities in which they live and work.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title VI, Part A:
Indian Education Professional Development. The Indian Education
Professional Development Program provides grants to
Institutions of Higher Education, including TCUs, to prepare
and train American Indians and Alaska Natives to serve as
teachers and school administrators at elementary and secondary
schools. There is a serious and growing shortage of educators
across the country, especially in rural communities including
those rural communities with Native populations, where teacher
recruitment and retention pose unique challenges. This is
compounded by a shortage of Native educators regardless of
geographic location. Students seeing and learning from teachers
and school administrators who reflect their own identity and
background can create a more inclusive and supportive learning
environment for Native students, leading to improved academic
outcomes, increased self-esteem, and a greater sense of
belonging.
Closing
The Department of Education plays a critical role for our nation's
public schools and features prominently in ensuring that the
established trust responsibility between the United States and Tribal
Nations is enacted and well implemented. Native students benefit from
many of the federal programs administered by ED, as well as from
specific programs created for and geared toward their enrichment and
development. In addition, the Department of Education offers civil
rights protections and provides data that drives innovation and
development in our nation's schools. Cutting staff, moving programs to
other federal agencies, and failing to meet statutory requirements will
not serve Native students, uphold trust responsibility, or support our
nation's public schools. The National Education Association stands
ready to work with the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and
other Congressional Committees to ensure our nation's public schools
and their students, families, and communities thrive and our nation
prospers.
______
Prepared Statement of Brent D. Gish, Executive Director, National
Indian Impacted Schools Association
Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice-Chairman Schatz and distinguished
Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony. My name
is Brent Gish, Executive Director of the National Indian Impacted
Schools Association (NIISA). NIISA represents 523 federally impacted
Indian land public school districts serving children from the Arctic
Circle to the Desert Southwest, across the Midwest to the East Coast.
Indian land districts serve over 114,000 children that reside on Indian
treaty, federal trust or Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act lands. Every
state represented on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA)
receives substantial amounts of Impact Aid. In 2024 it is estimated
that Basic Support and Children with Disabilities payments exceeded
$650 Million. It is noteworthy that Impact Aid is not categorical;
therefore, the revenue that is generated by students meeting
eligibility criteria, goes into the district's general fund and
benefits ALL students, nearly 1,000,000 in total. This is one example
of efficient and effective utilization of federal program dollars!
Established by Congress in 1950 and administered by the Department
of Education, Impact Aid provides federal funds for public school
operation that would have otherwise been generated by local tax
revenues but for the presence of federal property. In addition to
serving children residing on federal property, the Impact Aid Program
also provides funding for districts enrolling children whose parents
serve in the armed forces reside either on or off military
installations, HUD low rent housing and civilians that live or work on
federal property. The Impact Aid Program is but one example of the
United States government fulfilling its treaty responsibility to
American Indian and Alaska Native people.
As you are no doubt very keenly aware, approximately 93 percent of
American Indian and Alaskan Native elementary and secondary students
attend public schools with the remaining 7 percent students attending
Bureau of Indian Education/Bureau of Indian Affairs or privately funded
schools.
Do Not Dismantle the U.S. De partme nt of Education
The National Indian Impacted Schools Association (NIISA) joins our
Nation's education community in opposition to the elimination of the
U.S. Department of Education as proposed by the Department of
Government Efficiency (DOGE), authorized by an Executive Order. It is
understood that it would take Congressional approval requiring 60 votes
in the Senate; however, to date, DOGE has dismantled many programs
administered by the Department including the termination of thousands
of staff and disrupting program functions and services to schools
across the country. This is very concerning to school districts and
should be concerning to all citizens of the Nation.
With respect to the proposed elimination of the DoE or its
restructuring that is based on ``turning education back to state and
local education agencies'' (LEA), the Impact Aid Program should be the
model program. Impact Aid has very little bureaucracy--payments are
driven by a formula adopted by Congress and paid directly to the school
district where the duly elected school board and administrators adopt
priorities and allocates the funds accordingly. Interrupting the day to
day function of the IAP would negatively impact the entire Impact Aid
community and the services districts provide to students. There is an
old saying--``If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it!'' The Impact Aid
Program is functioning very efficiently and effectively to the benefit
of hundreds of thousands students. Let's work together to keep it that
way.
Need for Infrastructure Funding Long Overdue
Between 1950 and 1994, in excess of $1 billion was appropriated for
the construction and renovation of school facilities impacted by
federal presence--schools primarily serving students residing on Indian
lands and military installations. But, as budget constraints set in and
priorities changed, the funding level for Impact Aid construction (81-
815) declined significantly. Then with the passage of the Improving
America's Schools Act (ESEA) Impact Aid construction and basic support
(81-815 & 81-874) were repealed and moved into ESEA Title VII; school
facilities funding is now under Section 7007.
For the past 12 years, Section VII Impact Aid Construction has
received an annual appropriation of under $20 million. The distribution
of these grant awards alternates in two year cycles--competitive
construction grants in one year and formula grants the next. Given the
relatively small amount of the annual appropriation and the steadily
increasing cost of school construction, the DoE has chosen to make
grant awards to smaller projects many times addressing health and
safety issues.
The vast majority of public schools in America rely on voter
approved bonding to address school facility needs. Unfortunately,
schools with federal presence have limited and in extreme situations,
NO bonding capacity to build or renovate school buildings. Indian land
district have very limited option to address large budget
infrastructure needs.
The need for construction in impacted school districts is not
limited to facilities occupied by students; teacher housing is an
significant issue in districts located in remote areas and located long
distances from towns and cities with affordable housing. In order to
recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and administrators,
isolated districts provide district owned family housing. In a recent
survey of 80 districts that provide teacher housing, 80 percent
reported the condition of teacher housing to be poor/fair. If Indian
land districts are going to reach their ultimate goal of closing the
achievement gap and higher graduation rates, recruiting and retaining
highly qualified teachers is a key factor.
It is very important to remember that the impetus for Impact Aid
funding is written in treaties with tribal nations: ``All debts
contracted and Engagements entered into, before the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be valid against the U.S. under this Constitution
as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof: and all
Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. . .'' Between 1775 and
1871, the United States signed no less than 370 Treaties with tribal
nations that guaranteed benefits including eduation. We urge Congress
to honor the terms and conditions of treaties.
To this point, members in both the House and Senate have introduced
a bill that would begin to address the backlog of school construction
and teacher housing needs in impacted school districts--the `Impact Aid
Infrastructure Partnership Act'. The bill proposes to appropriate $250
million per year in each of four years that would provide competitive
grants and formula funding for school facilities construction,
construction that would begin to provide the necessary resources for
the aging infrastructure and new construction in Indian land school
districts.
Impact Aid Funding
The federal government has recognized the need to provide funding
for the operation of school districts where is federal presence has
resulted in lost taxing authority. Regretfully, since 1969, Impact Aid
has not been fully funded forcing prorated payments to eligible
districts. Legislation, ``Advancing Toward Impact Aid Full Funding
Act,'' has been introduced to fully fund this vital program. If
enacted, this bipartisan program would phase in full funding over a
five year implementation period. In addition to Basic Support, federal
properties, Children with Disabilities, and Construction would also see
increases.
Congress's legal and moral obligations to tribal nations dates back
to the signing of treaties which in almost all instances included
education provisions. I believe we can all agree that Congress has not
adhered to the terms and conditions of treaties. But what we can agree
on is that Impact Aid is the ``life-blood'' Indian land school
districts. Impact Aid funding comes to the school district as a non-
categorical revenue where the locally elected school board and
administration allocate the funds to meet the needs of their students.
. .all students!
I urge the distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs and the full Senate to continue to support the Impact Aid
Program and support bills to address school construction and full
funding of the Program.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and for your
unwavering commitment to the children of our Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Lucyann Harjo, Coordinator of Indian Education,
Norman Public Schools
Greetings,
My name is Lucyann Harjo, and I am a citizen of the Navajo Nation.
I am the Coordinator of Indian Education for Norman Public Schools in
Norman, Oklahoma. Norman Public Schools (NPS) is a suburb of the
Oklahoma City Metropolitan and is home to the University of Oklahoma.
Our school district is not located in any tribal jurisdiction. We have
26 schools, a 16,048-student population, and 2,400 students
representing 78 tribal nations enrolled in the Title VI Program. I've
been the Coordinator for 20 years.
``Education is critical to your success in this world.'' As a child
growing up on the Navajo Reservation, my parents shared this message to
me over and over again, though not in those exact words. ``Go to
school. Work hard. Do your best. Represent your people well. Education
is important.'' Through their continued encouragement, help, and
emphasis on going to school to make a better life for me and my family,
I was able to make those dreams come true. I have been a recipient of
federal programs; programs that were created to meet the educational
needs of Indian students, such as the Title VI and Johnson-O'Malley
Programs, through the federal trust relationship between the United
States and our tribal nations. I graduated from the BIE-funded Haskell
Indian Junior College. Haskell prepared me for the University of
Oklahoma, where I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Education
degree through a teacher grant from the Office of Indian Education and
the financial assistance from the Navajo Nation and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. I have been molded to serve my people, my community and
to do the best I possibly can.
Norman Public Schools Title VI Program
Parents, students, and teachers have two goals for the Title VI
Program. One, provide academic support and college and career
preparation to students. Through partnerships with the university
faculty and staff, the community, and tribal education departments, we
created the College Links Program. We begin preparing students for
college beginning in second grade. In fourth grade, we continue to
promote the importance of reading through a reading competition we call
the Battle of the Books. We challenge them to read all the Sequoyah
books throughout the school year, then we bring them together to
compete against their peers at the end of the school year. In Middle
School, we recognize our students for earning As and Bs and perfect
attendance. In 7th grade, students visit the OU campus again, but the
focus changes to preparing for college by earning As and Bs, getting to
school on time, studying and taking higher-level courses. In high
school, students visit college campuses, attend college and career
fairs, are encouraged to take advantage of student opportunities, and
receive academic support. Advanced Placement classes are encouraged.
Classes at the Moore Norman Technology Center or the Oklahoma Aviation
Academy are options we re-emphasize with students and parents.
Parent Comments:
``I am pleased to inform you that Talia was accepted into the
College Horizons. I want to say thank you very much for all the
information sessions held during the school year.''
``My daughters have participated in tutoring programs and the
`Battle of the Books', as well as picking up materials at the beginning
of the year. It is very nice to know that there is a Native American
resource available if tutoring is needed. I also appreciate the
coordination work that you do. My oldest daughter is now attending
Colorado State University, largely thanks to a Native American
scholarship. I appreciate all the support tremendously! Eddie''
Second, parents, students and teachers want their students to learn
about their people, about their tribe's history, government, leaders,
and cultural information. Cultural identity improves academic
achievement. To help teachers with easy to access lesson plans and
resources, staff assisted the Oklahoma State Department of Education in
creating the Oklahoma Indian Education Resource website, working with
tribes and educators to create a website of lesson plans and resources
for Oklahoma's teachers. Staff continue to research, share lesson plans
and teacher resources about Oklahoma's Tribes on the district's
website. With the partnership of The Chickasaw Nation, the Cheyenne and
Arapaho Tribes and The Muscogee Nation, traveling trunks were created
that staff and teachers can check out to teach about those tribes.
Teachers in the district request classroom presentations and cultural
activities and staff assist with presenters. For example, teachers can
request a stickball demonstration or Archery Tag, and we work with The
Chickasaw Nation team in setting it up. Tribes and community
organizations host professional development or field trips for schools
and staff promote the program with all administrators and teachers. For
example, teachers can apply for the Inchokkaalaali (I'm Visiting)
Assistance Request Program from the Chickasaw Nation Foundation. The
Foundation provides the teacher with a class field trip to the
Chickasaw Cultural Center in Sulphur, Oklahoma, and receive free
admission, lunch sacks, and transportation reimbursement.
Our NPS Indian Education website also provides students, parents,
and district personnel with tribal and community resources to help
families with counseling, tribal services such as the clothing program,
ACT Prep classes and test vouchers. Through program newsletters, we
promote and encourage students and families to take advantage of tribal
services such as the ACT Prep virtual class offered by the Citizen
Potawatomi Nation.
Building relationships with Tribal Nations and community resources
is imperative. Since 2014, the Title VI grant requires school districts
to host tribal consultation annually and to work with tribes as we
serve students. Relationships like this led to the partnership with the
Southern Plains Tribal Health Board and the Native Roots grant. This
grant helped implement prevention and cultural programs with middle and
high school students, infusing activities that promote wellness, and
living a drug and alcohol free life.
We continue to experience the effects of federal policy, such as
the Indian Boarding School era or the Indian Relocation Act in 1956,
removing Native children and families from their tribal communities
with the goal of assimilating Native people into mainstream America.
Students and families in our schools today are the children and
grandchildren of family members who experienced trauma from the Indian
boarding schools era their family members attended. Chronic
absenteeism, mental health, access to health care and counseling are
top concerns we see in our schools and we do our best to help our
district understand and address these issues.
I share this information to help you understand the impact and
importance of the Title VI grant and other grant funds that serve
Native students and families. We see the difference these funds make.
Last parent comment about our Title VI Program.
``As a mother of 3 Tribally enrolled Native American children, I am
extremely grateful for the services my children have received while
attending Norman Public Schools. My oldest son received tutoring
services for math and other subjects. The tutor worked with him
consistently at school while I worked with him at home. Mr. Hinkle's
tutoring services helped my son progress through school and graduate
High School. Throughout the years my two older sons received school
supplies which was helpful so that I could pay bills. I was a single
mother with a master's degree holding a Director position in a
nonprofit agency and still below income guidelines. The help was
needed. My youngest son attended the OU college day when he was a 2nd
grader which set a foundation and emphasis on career development and
the possibilities of the future. The annual family dinners bring Native
families together and opportunities to learn about the program and
services available. All my children have played hand games outside of
school and were excited to participate in the hand games put on by
Indian Education. This was an opportunity to participate in culture
activities at the school with other Native American students especially
when they didn't feel comfortable sharing this with non-Native
individuals. My daughter enjoys wearing ribbons skirts when we attend
hand games, powwow or other culture events but is still not comfortable
wearing them at a school recital. I'm glad to see that the cultural
activities allow space for her to feel comfortable wearing a ribbon
skirt if she wants to. My daughter has developed multiple friendships
with other Native girls her age because of attending the family
dinners. At my daughter's parent/teacher conference I found out my
daughter excels at math but is behind in reading. She would benefit
from tutoring along with me continuing to read to her at home. It
helped my son, and I know it would help her if she doesn't progress in
the upcoming months. Overall, my family have received support and
resources over the years. My daughter is in 1st grade and now I have a
grandchild who will be going to NPS in 1 1/2 years.'' Shannon
Norman Public Schools Indian Education Program in pictures.
Here's a video we created for tribal leaders visiting our district
in January for Tribal Consultation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwLIgAZbj28
Thank you for listening to our story.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Buu Nygren, President, the Navajo Nation
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Vice Chairman Schatz:
On behalf of the Navajo Nation (``Nation''), thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony for the hearing entitled
``Native American Education--Examining Federal Programs at the U.S.
Department of Education.
The Nation is the largest American Indian tribe in the United
States encompassing over 27,000 square miles and spanning across
portions of three states--Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Currently, the
Nation has over 400,000 enrolled members, half of whom reside on the
Nation. In 1868, the United States entered a treaty with the Navajo
Nation promising health care, education, agricultural assistance, and
to improve the well-being of the Navajo people in perpetuity.
As such, the United States is legally and morally bound with a
treaty responsibility to support the Nation in securing and improving
the quality of life for our citizens. It is with these treaty
obligations in mind that we provide written testimony to the committee
and provide feedback to strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship.
Below you will find our response to several topics regarding the
role the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has in providing quality
education to our Navajo youth.
The Nation believes that high quality education is one of the most
valuable services that should be provided to our Dine youth. Both our
ancestors and the federal government recognized this and explicated
stated in the Treaty of 1868 that education is a ``necessity.''
A quality education can enable future generations to positively
contribute to the world while supporting personal and vocational
development. We encourage our students to perform well in secondary
school, complete higher or vocational education, and return home to
contribute to their communities. For the Nation, an education grants
our youth upward mobility and supports the development of our local
economy.
The education system within the Nation encompasses a variety of
school types, including private schools, Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE)-operated schools, tribally controlled schools, and boarding
schools. These options provide families with the opportunity to choose
the educational environment that best meets their children needs.
However, public schools educate more Native American students than any
other school type. According to the National Indian Education
Association, approximately 90 percent of Native American students
nationwide attend public schools. Within the Navajo Nation, these
institutions operate under state-mandated curricula and are distributed
across 18 distinct school districts within the reservation.
Public schools on the Navajo Nation face challenges unlike anywhere
else in the United States. Revenue sources are extremely limited due to
the unique trust status of our land. Congress has recognized this
reality and passed several laws that provide supplemental funding,
which is largely administered by the ED. Our schools rely on this
supplemental funding to maintain operations and support our students
and faculty.
Title I funding is particularly important because it supports low-
income students. The Nation suffers from a disproportionately high
poverty rate with roughly 38 percent of our on-Nation population
earning below the poverty line. Title I funding was initially
established in 1965 and predates the ED by 14 years.
Another critical program administered by the ED that our schools
rely on is Impact Aid. This is due to our school districts being
located almost entirely on reservation land, which cannot collect
property tax. San Juan County in New Mexico for example, is 63.4
percent reservation land. The Central Consolidated School District,
based in Shiprock, only contains 2 percent of taxable property. Impact
Aid assists our schools in providing basic services such as food
programs, bus transportation, building maintenance, and teacher
salaries. In its current form, Impact Aid has not been fully funded
since 1969. Without this support, the Nation would face further
disadvantages in providing a quality education for our students.
Additionally, the Navajo Nation is committed to supporting our two
tribally controlled universities (TCU)-Dine College and Navajo
Technical University. These institutions provide an affordable, quality
higher education to our young adults. Our TCUs develop the Navajo
economy and workforce and expand opportunities on the reservation for
our people. It also catalyzes innovation and nurtures our future tribal
leaders and advocates.
The ED administers Title III Part A of the Higher Education Act,
which provides grants to improve quality of education, management and
infrastructure at our TCUs. In fiscal year 2024, congress appropriated
nearly $52 million to this program. Without this funding, TCUs will
need another way to address educational and infrastructure needs. A
2021 survey by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC)
revealed that infrastructure needs are sorely unmet; the report found
TCUs have inadequate student and facility housing, outdated labs, and
learning spaces. Despite these challenges, TCUs offer the most
affordable education in the nation with an average annual tuition of
$3,059.
It is critical that prior to any future changes at the ED that the
continuation of these programs be carefully considered. Our students,
parents, teachers, and administrators rely on them, and any delay in
access to these funds would negatively impact our Navajo youth. I
respectfully ask congress to exercise its oversight authority over the
ED to ensure that programs they administer are not interrupted.
Conclusion
In closing, the Navajo Nation looks forward to working with the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. We hope the testimony is seriously
considered to ensure our students are provided with the best quality
education possible. We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to
supporting strong collaboration between our congressional partners.
Ahehee' (thank you).
______
Prepared Statement of Cecilia Firethunder, President, Oglala Lakota
Nation Education Coalition
Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and Members of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to
submit this written testimony for the record. I appreciate the
Committee's leadership in holding this important hearing to examine
federal education programs that serve Indian students and to confront
the consequences of the President's proposed dismantling of the U.S.
Department of Education (DOE).
My name is Cecilia Firethunder, and I am the President of the
Oglala Lakota Nation Education Coalition (OLNEC) and member of the
Board of Directors for the Oglala Lakota College (OLC). OLNEC
represents the Oglala Sioux Tribe's six tribally controlled grant
schools, thus expressing a unique voice within the Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) system of schools.
I write today to underscore the profound risks such a proposal
poses to Indian Country and to urge Congress to act decisively to
protect the federal government's treaty and trust responsibility by
continuing to fund critical program necessary for the education of our
children.
The Federal Trust Responsibility
One of the pillars of the federal government's trust and treaty
responsibility is to provide education to American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian students. These obligations are enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, and longstanding federal
policy. They are not discretionary programs that can be discarded or
devolved to the states at the whim of any administration. They are
legal and moral promises that must be honored.
The Risks of Eliminating or Reorganizing DOE Programs
The President's proposal to dismantle the Department of Education,
and the executive actions already underway to restructure it, pose
immediate and long-term threats to Indian education. Among the specific
problems:
1. Violation of Treaty and Statutory Obligations: States are
not party to federal treaties with tribal nations and have no
legal duty to uphold the trust responsibility. Shifting
education programs that support Indian education to the states
would effectively abandon those commitments.
The treaty and trust responsibility required education to be
provided for hundreds of tribes, including the 1868 Treaty of
Fort Laramie. These treaties are recognized as the ``supreme
law of the land'' under the U.S. Constitution (Article VI) and
the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832),
which reaffirmed that these obligations must be honored. This
country owes a great deal to tribal people who agreed to cede
billions of acres of land and trillions in valuable natural
resources through such treaties--including gold, coal, timber,
oil, natural gas, steel, and iron. The United States could not
have achieved the great heights of its success or provided
refuge for millions of immigrants seeking freedom of religion
and opportunity without these agreements. In exchange, one of
the core promises of these treaties and trust responsibilities
is the education of Indian children.
Further, the lack of tribal consultation violates federal
law under 25 USC 2011, 25 USC 2501 (b), and Yankton Sioux
Tribe v. Kempthorne in the federal government requirement to
provide ``fair notice of agency intentions.''
Many other federally funded programs for Indian children
also require federal consultation. Johnson- O'Malley requires
Indian Education Committee (IEC) involvement for educational
planning and approval. 25 U.S.C. 5344(c)(1)(B).
Specifically, ``The program shall be developed and approved in
full compliance with the educational plan developed under this
subsection and shall be approved by the Indian Education
Committee.''
Title VI requires an Indian Parent Committee (IPC) and
documented consultation with parents and Tribes. 20 U.S.C.
7424(c). Specifically, the IPC must be involved in the
development, approval, and evaluation of the application and
program: ``The local educational agency shall develop the
program in open consultation with parents and families of
Indian children, representatives of Indian Tribes. . . and with
the Indian parent committee.''
Applications for Title VI funding must include written
evidence of consultation. 20 U.S.C. 7424(c)(3): ``Such
application shall include a description of the manner in which
the local educational agency will ensure that Indian children
participate in the program on an equal basis with all other
children served by the local educational agency. And finally,
``Each affected LEA shall consult with appropriate officials
from Indian tribes or tribal organizations prior to the LEA's
submission of a plan or application.'' 20 U.S.C. 7918 (ESSA
Section 8538).
The consultation requirements are not menial; they are a
treaty and trust obligation, part of the United States policy,
and statutory requirements that must be fulfilled.
2. Loss of Culturally Relevant Education: Programs like Title
VI--Indian Education (formerly known as Title IV, Title V, and
Title VII), the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), and
Native Hawaiian Education grants fund language revitalization,
tribal history curriculum, and culture-based learning. These
efforts are rooted in the community and cannot be replicated
through generic state programming.
3. Disruption of Direct-to-Tribe Funding: DOE programs provide
direct support to tribes, tribal colleges, and local
educational agencies. Moving these funds through states would
undermine tribal sovereignty, introduce bureaucratic delays,
and increase the risk of misallocation.
4. Loss of Institutional Knowledge and Staffing: DOE currently
employs Indian-serving professionals who have longstanding
relationships with tribal communities. Recent administrative
actions have already led to the removal or reassignment of key
staff. Further restructuring could permanently and
detrimentally hurt this institution's expertise.
5. Threats to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs): TCUs
rely on DOE-administered Title III funding, Pell Grants, and
other supports. Funding delays or redirection through states
could threaten accreditation and force program cuts, damaging
tribal self-determination and economic development.
6. Delayed and underfunding of critical assistance to the
Bureau of Indian Education funded schools: The Administration's
March 14, 2024, Reduction in Force (RIF) has already caused
severe delays of Congressionally appropriated funds meant to be
transferred from DOE to the BIE. The March RIFs included all
the Business Managers/Budget Analyst that transfer Title
funding to Bureau of Indian Education schools and Counties(non-
Indian Schools). Title funding is transferred in two
distributions, one at 30 percent in the Fall and 70 percent, in
early Spring. Currently, all BIE-funded schools in South
Dakota, New Mexico, and Arizona--as we have conferment--have
not received the 70 percent Spring distributions. In South
Dakota alone, this disruption is deeply alarming since more
than 5,000 Indian Students and 30 teachers rely on this
funding.
7. Absence of a Transition Plan: There has been no public or
tribal consultation regarding where these programs would go,
how they would be administered, or how continuity would be
preserved. The lack of transparency and planning not only
heightens the danger to continued education for Indian students
and tribal communities.
Recommendations to Preserve and Strengthen Native Education
Congress must act to protect Indian education from administrative
overreach. I respectfully offer the following recommendations:
1. Codify Key Programs: Permanently authorize and fund Title
VI, Impact Aid, ANEP, Johnson O'Malley, and Title III programs
in federal statute to insulate them from executive action.
2. Mandate Tribal Consultation: Enforce and strengthen tribal
consultation requirements for any agency changes affecting
Indian education.
3. Protect Direct Funding Structures: Ensure that funding
continues to flow directly to tribes, tribal consortia, TCUs,
BIE-Funded Tribally Controlled Schools, and Indian-serving
schools without state intermediaries.
4. Establish a Statutory Office of Indian Education: Create
and fund a permanent office within the Department of Education
to protect Native-serving staff and preserve institutional
knowledge.
5. Support TCU Autonomy: Pass legislation such as the Haskell
Indian Nations University Improvement Act to strengthen the
governance and independence of tribal colleges.
6. Fully Fund Federal Commitments: Fully appropriate
authorized levels for Impact Aid, IDEA tribal set-asides, Title
I, and Title III. Ensure timely disbursement of funds.
Conclusion
The federal commitment to Indian education is not a program to be
cut, but a treaty and trust responsibility to be kept. Congress must
ensure that Indian students do not become collateral damage in a
misguided effort to dismantle federal education infrastructure. Thank
you for your attention to this critical matter and your continued
support of Indian students, families, and educators across Indian
Country.
______
Prepared Statement of Amanda Ishigo, Project Director, Tutu and Me
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
Partners in Development Foundation (PIDF) in support of programs that
support Native Hawaiian education.
Tutu and Me Traveling Preschool started in October 2001 with a
grant from the USDOE Native Hawaiian Education Program. PIDF's founder
read the sobering statistic that many children were entering
kindergarten in Hawai`i not being able to count to 5 in any language
and we knew that most of these children were from rural Native Hawaiian
communities across the state with little to no access to early learning
programs. PIDF borrowed the idea for a traveling preschool from
Kamehameha Schools when they decided to shut down their program and we
sought to serve the communities which most needed this support.
Tutu and Me serves birth to five year old children and their
caregivers twice a week in communities across Hawai?i. The program is
completely mobile and brings a high quality, early learning environment
to community centers, schools and local churches. A team of early
childhood educators unpack a van full of learning materials and set up
12 stimulating learning centers comprised of low-child sized tables,
mats, painting easels, toddler climbers, manipulatives, freshly made
playdough in the color of the month, journals, a reading library
corner, and many other centers. The lead teacher welcomes families at
Circle Time along with two teaching assistants and an assessment
specialist. Families learn signature songs like ``Aloha Kakahiaka''
(``Good Morning'') and ``Who has Come to School Today.'' They are
introduced to stories and movement songs that promote overall
development and social skills. The children learn to take turns, raise
their hands, sit and listen, count to 10 in Hawaiian and English, and
many other skills that set them up for success when they start
kindergarten and beyond. Caregivers are provided parent education and
learning resources to support their child's development at home.
Traveling nurses visit monthly to educate caregivers and keiki on
family health and safety topics.
Since 2001, Tutu and Me has served over 34,000 caregivers and has
prepared more than 23,000 children for school and lifetime success in
24 underserved, rural communities on five islands as well as two
virtual communities in the state. The addition of home visiting to six
districts on Hawai`i Island has extended the program's reach to
families facing barriers attending preschool.
Tutu and Me conducts developmental screenings and assessments to
ensure that its program provides a high quality effective curriculum
for all families served. For example, in the 2023-2024 school year,
most (91 percent or 61 of 67) children matriculating to kindergarten
were scored on the Hawai`i School Readiness Assessment (HSRA). At least
83 percent of the 24 Native Hawaiians and 79 percent of all five-year-
olds combined, achieved the target score of ``4'' on each of the
required items on the HSRA. These assessments are also highly valuable
in educating caregivers on their child's development and determining
any need for support services like early intervention or speech
therapy.
Tutu and Me is based on two major rationales: Native Hawaiian
children and their families learn best through culture-based education,
and family engagement is critical to family well-being and the
children's success in school and beyond. Tutu and Me nurtures community
connections and cultural identity which has been recognized as a best
practice; Na Honua Mauli Ola, Hawai`i Guidelines for Culturally Healthy
and Responsive Learning Environments, the 2019 Guiding Principles and
Program Standards from the `Eleu Native Hawaiian Early Childhood
Consortium for Family and Child Interaction Learning (FCIL) Programs,
PIDF cultural specialists, and shared cultural learning from kupuna
(elders) have contributed to the foundation of the program's curriculum
and delivery. Research indicates that creating an educational
environment that is relevant to and reflective of student's cultural
and ethnic identity will ``mitigate negative experiences, increasing
self-confidence, self-esteem, and resiliency among both children and
adults.''
In 2008, Tutu and Me launched a longitudinal study with Toni Porter
of Early Care and Education Consulting to evaluate the project's long-
term impact on program participants. The findings reported that Tutu
and Me has the potential to enhance children's readiness for school and
their later school achievement, including the fact that a family child
interaction approach that focuses on engaging caregivers in supporting
their children's development can produce positive results that are
equivalent to those of formal center-based early childhood education
programs. The important policy and program implications show that there
needs to be continued support for high quality family child interaction
learning programs like Tutu and Me which serve families who cannot
afford traditional preschool and often rely on tutu (grandparents) to
help care for their young children.
Your support is critically needed to ensure that the Native
Hawaiian Education Program continues to provide irreplaceable support
for programs such as Tutu and Me which uplift young children to reach
their highest potential and inspire their families who are their first
and foremost educators.
Attachment Letter from a Tutu and Me Parent
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the Tutu and Me
Traveling Preschool Program. This program has made a profound impact on
not only my children but our entire family.
When we first joined Tutu and Me, my oldest son was quite active
and would run around instead of participating in circle time. However,
over time, he transitioned into one of the first to respond, eager to
answer questions and participate. Although he hasn't moved on to
kindergarten yet, he started part-time preschool this year. His
transition has gone well, and his teacher has praised him for being a
leader in the class--socially and academically. I truly believe that
Tutu and Me played a major role in his development, providing him with
a foundation that has helped him thrive.
I have also grown through my involvement in both the Tutu and Me
Traveling Preschool and Parent Hui programs. As a new parent, I often
felt overwhelmed by my lack of knowledge. Tutu and Me offered a much-
needed structure, along with resources and support that have made all
the difference in our family's journey. I now feel much more confident
and equipped to raise my two (soon to be three) children.
The community that Tutu and Me has created has also been
invaluable. My sons have learned to interact with others and develop
social skills. Personally, I have formed connections with other
caregivers and have felt supported, especially through challenging
postpartum times.
It is hard to fully express how much gratitude I have for the
positive influence of Tutu and Me on our family. Our keiki are our
future, and it is essential that we invest in their early development.
This program equips both parents and children with the tools and
resources needed to succeed, fostering a strong foundation for lifelong
learning. That is why I strongly believe Tutu and Me is an
irreplaceable resource and should continue to thrive in our community.
Tutu and Me Assessment Results (2023-24)
83 percent of Native Hawaiian keiki demonstrated school
readiness upon kindergarten entry, achieving the target score
of ``4'' on each of the required items on the Hawai`i School
Readiness Assessment (HSRA).
Overall, 3 to 5 year-olds tested improved by an average of
20 points on raw PPVT scores, and they moved from an average
stanine of 5.9 at pre-test to 6.3 at post-test.
Among 3-4 year old keiki, there were significant (p<.001)
increases of at least 40 percent on all six Work Sampling
System (WSS) assessment domains (personal-social, language-
literacy, gross physical development, fine physical
development, health and safety and math).
At least one Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) screening
was completed on 76 percent of keiki, and multiple ASQs on 42
percent. All appropriate resulting referrals were completed.
87 percent of keiki borrowed books and read them an average
of 4.4 times.
Caregivers showed significant pre/post test improvement in
parenting skills, including affection, responsiveness,
encouragement, and teaching.
Completed 4,150 consultations with 2,125 caregivers,
generating at least 32 formal referrals.
43 percent of caregivers borrowed educational resources over
13,000 times collectively.
80 percent of Native Hawaiian families received personalized
care through educational home visits.
Pre- to post-test comparisons of 177 caregivers using the
PICCOLO parenting assessment verified significant (p<.001)
improvement by caregivers on all four domains (Affection,
Responsiveness, Encouragement and Teaching).
97 percent of caregivers agreed the program equipped or
prepared them to better support their child's growth and
development and that the program strengthened their bond with
their child.
______
Prepared Statement of Sara Pierrard, Project Director, Ki`apu Career
and Technical Education for Justice-Involved Youth Program
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the
Ki`apu Career and Technical Education for Justice-Involved Youth
Program (Ki`apu), operated by Partners in Development Foundation (PIDF)
and in support of programs that improve Native Hawaiian educational
outcomes.
Since its inception, NHEP has been vital in supporting the
educational growth and cultural empowerment of Native Hawaiian
students. It has allowed organizations like PIDF to develop and
implement innovative, community-based programs that serve our keiki and
`ohana across the state. Without this critical funding, many Native
Hawaiian families and communities would lose access to the foundational
services that have made a measurable difference in their lives--
including early childhood education, STEM career pathways, school-based
wraparound support, health services, and workforce development
opportunities.
One such program is Ki`apu, a youth development initiative that
reflects the core values of Native Hawaiian education. The name Ki`apu,
which means ``to catch with cupped hands,'' refl ects the program's
commitment to nurturing and supporting youth ages 14 to 24 in Windward
and Leeward O`ahu and Moloka`i. Ki`apu offers a comprehensive,
culturally grounded framework that combines individualized support,
educational and career pathway guidance, workforce development and
training, community engagement, and trauma-informed healing practices.
During the 2023-2024 school year, Ki`apu supported 108 at-risk
youth--bringing the total served to 228--through individualized
guidance in educational and career pathways. As a result, six youth
graduated from high school, 19 enrolled in GED programs, 35 completed
education or training pathways, and 37 submitted job applications.
These outcomes demonstrate the power of culturally grounded, community-
driven support in transforming the lives of Native Hawaiian youth.
What makes Ki`apu truly distinctive is its integration of cultural
mentorship with practical skills training. In partnership with
organizations such as Kinai `Eha, Ki`apu equips youth not only with job
readiness but also a strong sense of identity and kuleana
(responsibility) to their communities. Participants are mentored by
community members who embody the values of aloha, resilience, and
intergenerational knowledge-sharing--ensuring that learning is rooted
in both cultural practice and real-world application.
In today's landscape, where many young people--particularly Native
Hawaiian youth--face systemic barriers to education, employment, and
personal growth, programs like Ki`apu are more than educational support
systems. They are lifelines. They offer hope, healing, and a pathway
toward a thriving future.
Story of Resilience: How Ki`apu Helped Chasity Reclaim Safety,
Stability, and Strength
When Chasity first reached out to the Ki`apu program , she wasn't
sure what kind of support was possible--only that she needed help. A
young mother raising two children under the age of two, Chasity was
facing a perfect storm of challenges: navigating the justice system,
struggling with housing instability, and trying to stay enrolled in
college--all while trapped in a dangerous domestic violence situation
and without any family or support network on O`ahu.
Referred by the Kupu A Pu`u program at Leeward Community College,
her initial goal was simple: pass her classes in Spring 2025. But
before she could think about school or a job, she needed one thing
first--safety.
One evening, after a crisis left her scared and alone with nowhere
to turn, Chasity confi ded in her Ki`apu support specialist. The
response was immediate. Within an hour , the Ki`apu team booked a fl
ight for Chasity and her children to Maui , where she had `ohana and
could begin to stabilize. ``I can't be a good mother when I'm not ok
myself,'' she shared. The team quickly rallied to provide diapers,
food, clothing, and even a mailing address for her essential
documents--including her EBT card, which she had left behind in the
urgency of her departure.
Once safely on Maui, Chasity and her support specialist continued
to meet regularly, building a Personal Development Plan (PDP) that
mapped out both immediate needs and long-term goals. She asked for help
securing a laptop so she could continue her college classes remotely
and explored options for therapy and counseling. Her determination to
continue her education, even in the midst of crisis, was a powerful
refl ection of her strength.
Through every step of her journey, Ki`apu staff responded with
aloha, urgency, and unwavering wraparound care. Today, Chasity is safe,
her children are thriving, and she is actively rebuilding the
foundation she needs to move forward--in school, in work, and in life.
She plans to return to O`ahu when she's ready, knowing now that she'll
never have to face those challenges alone.
Chasity's story is just one of many. With the continued support of
NHEP-funded programs like Ki`apu , we can ensure that more young
mothers like her are met with compassion, stability, and real tools to
break through cycles of trauma and step into a future full of promise--
for themselves and for their keiki.
We must not risk losing the momentum built over decades to create
culturally affi rming, impact-driven programs that meet the unique
needs of our communities. These life-changing programs have been made
possible through the support of the U.S. Department of Education's
Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP). Thanks to the Native Hawaiian
Education Act, NHEP resources help fund Ki`apu and other programs
dedicated to improving the educational outcomes of Native Hawaiian
students. Similar to the effectiveness of the Alaska Native Education
Program (ANEP), which has improved student success and academic
achievement for Alaska Natives, NHEP funding has produced demonstrably
positive outcomes for Native Hawaiians. Historically, state and private
funding alone have been insufficient to fully address the educational
gaps and systemic challenges faced by these communities.
A 2021 profile analysis of NHEP grantees from 2010 through 2018
reported that in 2017 and 2018 alone, NHEP grants served 98,996
participants, including 77,808 students, 18,429 parents, and 2,759
teachers. All grantee programs targeted Native Hawaiians, with 42
percent focusing on low-income populations. Despite receiving little to
no supplemental funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act via the State, NHEP-funded programs have remained agile
and innovative, providing a continuum of services for students and
their families.
On behalf of Partners in Development Foundation and the youth and
families we serve, I urge the Committee to sustain and strengthen
funding for Native Hawaiian education programs. Together, we can ensure
that the next generation of Native Hawaiian leaders is prepared,
empowered, and deeply rooted in their culture.
Mahalo for your time and consideration. I look forward to working
with the Committee to advance this important work.
Attachment Letter--A Community's Support for Ki`apu's Lasting
Impact in Wai`anae
To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to express our strong
support for Ki`apu, a program of Partners in Development Foundation. As
residents of the Wai`anae community, we witness fi rsthand the
challenges that our youth--both in our program and throughout the wider
community--face every day.
Ki`apu and its dedicated team bring hope, encouragement, and
inspiration to a population that often feels overlooked and limited in
their opportunities. They talk openly with our students about
perseverance and the importance of making pono (righteous) choices.
These conversations acknowledge that doing what's right isn't always
easy, but that it can open doors to a future fi lled with meaningful
opportunities and support.
The sessions that Ki`apu facilitates in our classroom go beyond
instruction--they connect with our students on a personal level. This
relationship-building provides valuable insight and allows us to guide
our students toward healthy alternatives to the risky behaviors they
may otherwise engage in.
Currently, Ki`apu is working closely with our students, offering
work readiness experiences, soft skills and communication training,
community service opportunities, fi nancial wellness education, and
professional development. These are all areas our students expressed a
desire to explore even before Ki`apu arrived. Now, with Ki`apu's help,
those aspirations are becoming a reality.
Ki`apu is a truly genuine, boots-on-the-ground effort to uplift and
empower the youth of Wai`anae. Their presence has made a noticeable and
positive impact on our classroom and our students. We sincerely hope
that Ki`apu and the Partners in Development Foundation will continue to
receive the support they need to carry on this vital work.
Jamiel Saez, Teacher; Joseph Sanchez, Teacher, Wai`anae
High School's Alternative Learning Opportunities (ALO)
Program
______
Prepared Statement of Kasey Galariada Popken, Project Director, Ka
Pa`alana Homeless Family Education Program
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee, for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
the Ka Pa`alana Homeless Family Education Program operated by Partners
in Development Foundation (PIDF) and in support of programs that uplift
Native Hawaiian education.
Since its inception in January 2007, the Ka Pa`alana Homeless
Family Education Program has served as a beacon of hope for homeless
and at-risk families across Hawai`i. Ka Pa`alana began its mission on
the Leeward Coast of O`ahu, reaching out to families with young
children living on beaches. Over the past 18 years, the program has
expanded its reach, consistently serving the Wai`anae community and,
since 2016, the South Hilo community, including Mountain View, which
houses a significant number of homeless and hidden homeless families.
Ka Pa`alana's impact is profound and measurable. Since 2014, the
program has assisted 105 individuals in transitioning from beach
encampments to shelters and 188 individuals from shelters to permanent
housing, including 29 transitions in the 2023-24 school year. In the
same school year, Ka Pa`alana served 612 children aged 0-5 (58 percent
Native Hawaiian) and 600 caregivers (51 percent Native Hawaiian). The
program has also distributed over 248,000 pounds of food and 570
hygiene product bags since its inception.
The program's success is further evidenced by its educational
outcomes. Over 80 percent of participating children meet or exceed
expectations in math and literacy, as measured by Teaching Strategies
GOLD. Caregiver involvement in children's education has increased by 75
percent, and there have been consistent improvements in child-rearing
practices and cultural knowledge. Assessments such as the Ages & Stages
Questionnaire and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test indicate that
children are developmentally on track and, in some cases, ahead of
their peers. Graduates of Ka Pa`alana demonstrate proficiency in
literacy, as shown by the Hawai`i State School Readiness Assessment.
In 2013, Ka Pa`alana became the first preschool of its kind--a
Family Education Program serving homeless families--to receive full
accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC). This accreditation signifies that Ka Pa`alana's early
learning curriculum, staff qualifications, and programming meet the
highest national standards. The program has successfully achieved
reaccreditation every five years since, staying current with best
practices and incorporating trauma-informed care into its curriculum.
The C. Family's Journey with Ka Pa`alana
When Amy and Brian C. were looking for preschool options after the
COVID-19 pandemic, they felt overwhelmed. Affordable early childhood
education seemed out of reach, and their oldest son, just three years
old at the time, had very little interaction with other children.
That's when a cousin who worked at another Ka Pa`alana site encouraged
them to check out the program.
They decided to give it a try.
From the start, something felt different. Their children weren't
just learning, they were thriving. Their oldest son began making
friends, and their other son, who was only one when they started, is
now talking more than ever. Along the way, Amy and Brian found support,
connection, and a sense of belonging not just for their kids, but for
themselves as parents.
``We've grown as a family,'' Amy shared. ``Our son even got
selected to speak at his graduation. He used to be all over the place,
but he stood there with confidence. It was such a proud moment.''
For the C. `ohana, Ka Pa`alana has been more than a preschool
program. It has been a lifeline. A place where they could learn
alongside their children, supported by a caring team that has remained
with them from their first child to their fourth.
These life-changing impacts have been made possible through the
support of the U.S. Department of Education's Native Hawaiian Education
Program (NHEP). NHEP has been instrumental in addressing funding gaps
that state and private sources have historically been unable to meet
adequately. A 2021 profile analysis of NHEP grantees from 2010 through
2018 reported that in 2017 and 2018 alone, NHEP grants served 98,996
participants, including 77,808 students, 18,429 parents, and 2,759
teachers. All grantee programs targeted Native Hawaiians, with 42
percent focusing on low-income populations. Despite receiving little to
no supplemental funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act via the State, NHEP-funded programs have remained agile
and innovative, providing a continuum of services for students and
their families.
At PIDF, we believe that high-quality services and programming are
entitlements every family deserves, regardless of their economic status
or situation. Through programs like Ka Pa`alana, we strive to fulfill
our mission: to inspire and equip families and communities for success
and service, grounded in timeless Native Hawaiian values and
traditions.
We respectfully urge the continued federal funding of the Native
Hawaiian Education Program, which has provided life-giving hope to so
many and remains critically needed today.
Mahalo nui loa for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Alana Power, Project Director, Piha Me Ka Pono
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
Piha Me Ka Pono Program, operated by the Partners in Development
Foundation (PIDF) and in support of programs that improve Native
Hawaiian educational outcomes.
Partners in Development Foundation (PIDF) has long recognized the
power of intergenerational mentoring as a foundation for youth
development. Since 2005, this value has been woven into programming
along the Kohala coast of Hawai`i island-the remote, northernmost rural
community on Hawai`i Island. In 2014, PIDF expanded its impact by
adding teacher professional development services to the Kohala school
complex and later to other communities across the island. By 2022, PIDF
incorporated the community school model, a growing best practice in
education, and in 2023, the Piha me ka Pono (Piha) project expanded to
eight public schools: elementary, middle and high schools on Hawai`i
Island and an elementary school on Moloka`i, supported by new state and
federal funding.
In the 2023-2024 school year alone, Piha's Native Hawaiian
Education Program (NHEP) grant made a measurable impact that supported
student learning outcomes, including:
Delivering Defender of Bullying training to 160 fifth-grade
students
Making 37 substance abuse referrals to support student well-
being
Providing 150 in-class coaching sessions to 99 teachers
Offering 23 professional development sessions to 120 school
staff
Hosting multiple family workshops for 61 parent participants
Since 2005, the U.S. Department of Education's Native Hawaiian
Education Program (NHEP) has provided essential funding to support Piha
to meet urgent needs of students facing some of the most difficult
challenges--chronic absenteeism, suicide attempts, emotional
disengagement, and the isolation of being latchkey kids while their
parents juggle multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
Through school-based and community-centered support, Piha works to
increase academic achievement, strengthen mental health and well-being,
and build strong support networks for Native Hawaiian students and
their families.
These life-changing outcomes have only been possible because of
NHEP's critical funding. The Native Hawaiian Education Act has enabled
the U.S. DOE to invest in impactful programs like Ka Pa`alana, Tutu and
Me, and Piha me ka Pono, all of which are designed to improve the
educational outcomes of Native Hawaiian learners across the state. Much
like the proven success of the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP),
NHEP has delivered demonstrable results for Native Hawaiians.
Unfortunately, state and private funding have never been enough to
close the systemic gaps Native Hawaiian communities face.
A 2021 analysis of NHEP grantees from 2010 to 2018 revealed that,
in just two years (2017-2018), NHEP-funded programs reached nearly
99,000 participants--including 77,808 students, 18,429 parents, and
2,759 teachers. All of these programs were designed specifically to
serve Native Hawaiians, with 42 percent focusing on low-income
populations. Even without additional relief funds during the pandemic
(such as those provided by the CARES Act through the State), NHEP-
funded programs remained agile and innovative, continuing to deliver a
continuum of essential services to Hawai`i's keiki and `ohana.
Without the critical support of the U.S. Department of Education's
Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP), programs like Piha me ka Pono
would not be possible. For many students and families, NHEP-funded
services are among the only culturally grounded resources available to
address the growing mental health, academic, and economic challenges
they face.
We respectfully urge your strongest consideration for the continued
investment of $50 million in support of the Native Hawaiian Education
Program. Your investment helps ensure that Native Hawaiian keiki,
families, and communities are not only supported but empowered to
thrive and contribute.
Impact Story: Walking School Bus in Kealakehe Helps Reduce Chronic
Absenteeism and Increase Student Safety
In the Kealakehe community of Hawai`i Island, many students live
within a mile of their school, yet attendance continues to be a daily
challenge. Without access to public or school transportation, children
often walk to class alone, and too often, they do not make it all the
way.
``Eight out of ten times, kids don't get to school because they
stop at a friend's house or get sidetracked along the way,'' shared
Shonnalee Ontiveros, Lead Community School Coordinator with Partners in
Development Foundation's Piha Me Ka Pono program. ``And many parents
don't realize they didn't make it.''
With safety concerns rising and chronic absenteeism impacting
learning, Ontiveros and the Kealakehe school community decided to try
something new. Inspired by a visit to a community school in New Mexico,
she introduced the idea of a Walking School Bus, a simple and
volunteer-powered way to help students arrive safely and on time.
Working with Hawai`i County's Safe Routes to School program, the
Hawai`i Police Department, and the Department of Health, Ontiveros
helped bring the concept to life. Volunteers mapped out safe, walkable
routes through the neighborhood. Each morning, they would walk from
door to door, picking up students along the way just like a school bus,
but on foot.
The Walking School Bus launched on December 16, 2024. Fourteen
volunteers showed up early that morning, ready to walk with students.
By the time they reached Kealakehe Elementary, nearly 50 students had
joined the group. Waiting to greet them was a cheerful inflatable heart
mascot, celebrating their accomplishment. Students also received
walking tokens, which they could redeem for small prizes or healthy
snacks at the end of the week.
``The energy that day was incredible,'' said Ontiveros. ``There was
this sense of celebration, of community, and it was clear the kids felt
seen and supported.''
The program currently operates on Monday mornings, which is one of
the most common days for absenteeism. Early results show promise.
Students are more likely to attend school when they have a safe,
consistent routine and trusted adults cheering them on. The initial
momentum has sparked interest from more families and volunteers, with
plans to expand the program this spring.
This effort is part of a larger initiative. Piha Me Ka Pono
supports eight schools across Hawai`i using the 7 Pillars of the
Community School Model. These pillars include strategies such as family
engagement, integrated supports, and expanded learning time.
At its core, the Walking School Bus is more than a way to get kids
to school. It is a symbol of what is possible when communities come
together to care for their keiki. It shows that when families,
educators, volunteers, and local agencies walk side by side, students
are more likely to show up, feel safe, and be ready to learn.
Piha Me Ka Pono NHEP-funded Results (2023-24)
Student Academic support:
-- Enrichment activities for 25 Elementary students
-- 48 tutoring sessions provided to 11 middle school students
-- Annual Career Pathway Career Night provided for 45 8th grade
students and 55 family members
Teacher support:
-- 345 in-class coaching sessions for 178 teachers (2023-24 SY:
150 coaching sessions for 99 teachers)
-- 39 Professional Development Training Sessions for 693
Teachers (2023-24 SY: 23 trainings for 120 teachers)
-- TIC training for 38 teachers/staff
Referrals/Trainings:
-- 56 partnering agencies for referrals
-- 37 substance abuse referrals (11 in 2023-24 SY)
-- 2 mental health referrals
-- 8 Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment trainings
provided to 547 elementary, middle, and high school students
-- 4 Youth Suicide & Bullying Prevention trainings provided for
191 people
-- 160 5th graders trained as defenders of bullying
*-- 2023-24 SY: Significant increase in self-reported knowledge
from the training on every item assessed
Family engagement:
-- 691 adults participated in 17 workshops (financial literacy,
homeownership basics, adult literacy night-read aloud to keiki,
among others)
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Shawn Kanai`aupuni, President/CEO, Partners
in Development Foundation
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
Partners in Development Foundation (PIDF) in support of programs that
support Native Hawaiian education.
Partners in Development Foundation (PIDF) strongly supports the
continued funding and expansion of the Native Hawaiian Education
Program (NHEP). NHEP is currently funded at $45,897,000, federal
support that has been crucial for delivering culturally grounded
educational programs that improve educational outcomes, strengthen
families, and address systemic inequities faced by Native Hawaiian
children and communities. PIDF's impactful programs serve over 4,500
keiki and their caregivers annually, significantly enhancing early
childhood education, family stability, workforce readiness, and overall
community resilience.
Background About PIDF
At PIDF, every program we offer is more than an educational
service--it is an act of aloha, deeply rooted in Hawaiian cultural
values such as malama `aina (caring for the land), kuleana
(responsibility), and `ike kupuna (ancestral wisdom). Our journey over
the last 28 years, touching more than 175,000 lives, has shown us that
meaningful, culturally responsive education can break the cycle of
poverty, trauma, and marginalization.
Guided by values and practices that honor our kuleana to people and
place, PIDF's mission and diverse programs address critical issues in
education, positive youth development, and environmental
sustainability, empowering youth, families, and caregivers across the
islands. Our notable programs include:
Tutu and Me: Young children (birth-5 yrs) in remote
communities gain foundational early learning through this
statewide traveling preschool that also empowers family
caregivers as confident first teachers.
Ka Pa`alana: Young infants and toddlers experiencing
homelessness gain stability and school readiness through Ka
Pa`alana's accredited early learning program, delivered
directly in shelters/transitional housing alongside vital
caregiver education and support.
Ki`apu: Helps at-risk youth and young adults build education
and workforce readiness, with wraparound services, mentoring,
and career internships and experiences.
Piha Me Ka Pono: Students and their `ohana receive holistic
support through this collaborative community schools model that
partners with school staff and local organizations to
strengthen learning by addressing physical, emotional, and
mental health needs in eight schools across Hawai`i.
KA`A: Improves children's educational success by providing
families with financial coaching and seed funds to build
economic self-sufficiency and support long-term educational
goals.
Through partnerships with local organizations and national
supporters, PIDF continues to expand its impact across Hawai`i, with
the belief that, e malama i ka `ohana, ola ke kaiaulu, caring for and
strengthening families leads to thriving, healthy communities.
Native Hawaiian Education Program
Like many organizations in Hawaii predominantly serving Native
Hawaiian children and youth, PIDF utilizes federal grant programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). One of the most
important--and impactful--programs is ED's NHEP, which funds innovative
education activities that address critical gaps in Native Hawaiian
education outcomes. PIDF has utilized NHEP grant funding for years to
provide early education, afterschool youth mentorship, community
schools support, workforce development for high school students, and
farming and agricultural education for communities across Hawai`i.
Lives Transformed: Stories of Impact from NHEP-Funded Programs
At the heart of every PIDF program is a story--a keiki whose eyes
light up with discovery, a caregiver who finds confidence, a family
that begins to heal. These are not just anecdotes; they are powerful
testaments to how NHEP-funded programs like Ka Pa`alana and Tutu and Me
are changing lives across Hawai`i.
Kala and Marvin: A Journey of Growth, Healing, and Belonging
Kala, a single mother of a bright and curious four-year-old boy
named Marvin, carries a heavy load. She's not only raising her son, but
also caring for her mother who lives with a disability. Together, they
navigate life in transitional shelter housing on O`ahu. For Kala, every
day has been about survival--until she was introduced to the Ka
Pa`alana Family Education Program by her case manager.
On her first day, Kala walked into the preschool space unsure of
what to expect. She was nervous and guarded, carrying the weight of
stress and uncertainty. But she quickly found herself wrapped in the
warmth of a space built on aloha. ``I fell in love--not only with the
staff, but with the parents and the kids,'' she says. In one word, Kala
calls Ka Pa`alana ``family.''
At home, Marvin had a hard time sitting still and staying focused
when Kala tried to read to him. But through the consistent, literacy-
rich, and play-based environment at Ka Pa`alana, things began to
change. Marvin slowly started choosing books, asking questions, and
pretending to read aloud. One day, Kala watched in awe as Marvin
gathered a few friends and ``read'' to them: ``Okay, your turn!'' he
said. When they hesitated, he cheered them on: ``You can read! See,
just look at this and say, `Curious George jumped on the bed!' '' His
joy was infectious, and soon, the children were storytelling together--
imagining, laughing, learning.
Now, Kala feels empowered in her role as Marvin's first and most
important teacher. She credits Ka Pa`alana not only with supporting
Marvin's development, but also with helping her find her voice and
confidence as a mother navigating overwhelming odds. Thanks to the
support, education, and cultural grounding offered through Ka Pa`alana,
Kala says, ``I see a future I never thought was possible--for both of
us.''
Catherine and Lily: Building a Strong Foundation Through Tutu and Me
Catherine's daughter, Lily, is a joyful, energetic preschooler who
lights up every room she enters. But in the rural community where they
live, early learning options are few and far between. When Catherine
enrolled Lily in Tutu and Me Traveling Preschool, she hoped it would
help her daughter prepare for kindergarten. What she found was so much
more.
Since joining the program, Lily has shown remarkable growth in her
social, emotional, and cognitive development. Through carefully
designed lessons rooted in Hawaiian values and responsive to each
child's needs, Lily's love for learning has blossomed. ``She eagerly
looks forward to every session,'' Catherine shares. ``She's more
confident, tries new things, and engages more deeply with the world
around her.''
For Catherine, Tutu and Me has been equally transformative. She's
gained tools to support Lily's development at home, and most
importantly, she's found a trusted network of caregivers and educators.
The program has become a place of belonging, shared learning, and deep
connection. ``It's not just about the academics--it's about the
relationships. The aloha that surrounds us here is what makes the
difference.''
Though Lily hasn't yet transitioned to kindergarten, Catherine is
confident she'll be ready when the time comes. The routines, skill-
building, and nurturing support Lily receives through Tutu and Me are
laying a strong foundation for a successful school journey--and a
lifelong love of learning.
These stories reflect thousands of others across our islands,
demonstrating the profound impact that NHEP-funded programs have on
Native Hawaiian communities. Each dollar invested yields exponential
benefits--children ready for school, empowered caregivers, resilient
families, and thriving communities. We respectfully ask the Committee
to ensure continued and increased support for the NHEP. The data and
evidence show that investing in our keiki today ensures that Native
Hawaiian communities flourish tomorrow.
Data: Demonstrating Effectiveness of NHEP-funded Programs
With 85 percent of brain development occurring by age three, high-
quality early childhood education is crucial to preparing children for
lifelong learning success. Despite this, recent Kindergarten Entry
Assessment data from the Hawai`i Department of Education reveals that
only one-third of Hawai`i's keiki enter school kindergarten-ready, with
significantly lower rates in rural and remote areas. For instance, in
Wai`anae, a community with a high concentration of Native Hawaiian
families, readiness rates are as low as 11 percent. Factors such as the
high cost of childcare, limited preschool access, and family financial
instability compound this challenge, causing educational gaps that
persist throughout a child's academic career.
Through NHEP funding, PIDF directly addresses these systemic
barriers by delivering culturally-grounded early childhood education
programs at no cost to families, serving over 4,500 at-risk and
homeless keiki and caregivers each year in 37 communities across
Hawai`i. Approximately 72 percent of these keiki are within the
critical developmental window from birth to age three.
The attached Appendix outlines the measurable impacts of PIDF's
programs include significant developmental and educational gains,
including these highlights:
Tutu and Me (2023-24 SY): Children aged 3-4 demonstrated
statistically significant improvements of at least 40 percent
across all six key early learning domains measured by the Work
Sampling System (WSS), including language-literacy, personal-
social, and math. Additionally, 83 percent of Native Hawaiian
children achieved kindergarten readiness.
Ka Pa`alana (2023-24 SY): Over 80 percent of enrolled
children met or exceeded math and literacy expectations.
Caregivers showed substantial increases (75 percent) in
involvement with their child's education, improved child-
rearing practices, and enhanced cultural knowledge.
Long-term evaluations underscore the lasting benefits and economic
efficiency of investing in early childhood programs. National research
consistently identifies a return on investment of up to 13 percent for
high-quality birth-to-age-five educational initiatives, with even
higher returns realized from programs targeting birth to age three.
PIDF's longitudinal studies confirm sustained cognitive, social-
emotional, and educational gains among participating children well into
their primary school years.
Continued investment in PIDF's culturally responsive early
education programs through NHEP funding is essential not only for
immediate child and family outcomes but also for building a strong,
resilient, and thriving Native Hawaiian community.
Conclusion
The Native Hawaiian Education Act has been monumental in providing
resources to PIDF and similar organizations dedicated to improving the
educational outcomes of Native Hawaiian students. Similar to the
effectiveness of the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), which has
improved student success and academic achievement for Alaska Natives,
NHEP funding has produced demonstrably positive outcomes for Native
Hawaiians. Historically, state and private funding alone have been
insufficient to fully address the educational gaps and systemic
challenges faced by these communities.
However, according to a 2021 profile analysis of NHEP grantees from
cohorts spanning 2010 to 2018, NHEP grants supported 98,996
participants, including 77,808 students, 18,429 parents, and 2,759
teachers, demonstrating an expansive impact across multiple levels of
the education system. All programs funded by NHEP have targeted Native
Hawaiian populations, with 42 percent specifically serving low-income
families. Moreover, these programs have consistently demonstrated
agility and innovation, offering a continuum of services for students
and families, despite receiving minimal additional resources from
relief measures like the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act.
Continued robust support and funding of at least $45,897,000 for
the NHEP is critical. Without it, communities across Hawai`i risk
losing essential educational services, mentorship, career education
opportunities, and critical resources that are foundational to the
health, stability, and advancement of Native Hawaiian students and
their families.
Mahalo nui loa for your consideration of this testimony. Let us
collectively ensure sustained support and investment, empowering Native
Hawaiian communities to thrive and succeed.
Appendix: Program Outcomes and Data
Tutu and Me (2023-24)--served 1223 children birth-5 yrs, 2,207
caregivers
Statistically significant improvements (40%+) across six
Work Sampling System (WSS) early learning domains.
83 percent Native Hawaiian keiki demonstrated school
readiness upon kindergarten entry.
Caregivers showed significant improvement in parenting
skills, including affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and
teaching.
Ka Pa`alana (2023-24)--served 612 children birth-5yrs, 600
caregivers
80%+ children meeting or exceeding math and literacy
expectations (Teaching Strategies Gold).
75 percent increase in caregiver involvement in children's
education.
Consistent improvements in child-rearing practices and
increased cultural knowledge.
Since 2007, supported 188 transitions from shelters to
permanent housing and distributed over 248,000 pounds of food.
Ki`apu (2023-2024)
Supported 108 at-risk youth; 19 engaged in GED classes; 37
secured job applications.
Delivered extensive wraparound services, cultural education,
and mentorship training.
Established 15 partnerships to facilitate systemic change.
Piha Me Ka Pono (2023-24)
Provided holistic support in eight community schools,
including academic tutoring, mental health services, and family
engagement.
Delivered professional development to nearly 700 educators
and facilitated over 25,000 family and student engagement
events.
KA`A (2023-24)--800+ child savings accounts for children attending
early learning programs
Established 800+ child savings accounts for children
attending early learning programs
Children achieved significantly higher attendance rates
among participants.
Supported caregivers to actively engage in financial
literacy education and goal setting.
Investments in PIDF's culturally grounded educational programs are
demonstrably effective, yielding significant long-term social and
economic returns. Continued federal funding through NHEP is essential
to maintaining and expanding these critical services.
______
Prepared Statement of Edwina Butler-Wolfe, Education Director, Sac and
Fox Nation
Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and honorable members of
the Committee:
On behalf of the Education Department of the Sac and Fox Nation, I
write to thank the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (``Committee'')
for holding an oversight hearing on Native American Education Programs
at the U.S. Department of Education (``Department'').
About the Education Department of the Sac and Fox Nation
The Sac and Fox Nation, as a federally-recognized tribal
government, provides funding assistance for educational needs, through
its Education Department, participates in the U.S. Department of
Interior's (``Interior'') Johnson O'Malley (JOM) Program, and
represents twelve (12) public school districts, serving twenty-eight
(28) schools within those districts. I am providing testimony because
the Department administers funding for several critical programs that
support our Native students, including the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) Titles I, II, III, Part A of VI, V, and VII and
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Historical Context of the Education of Sac and Fox Nation's Students
Historically, the Federal Government has provided support to the
Sac and Fox Nation for the education of its students. Importantly,
pursuant to the 1830 Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, \1\ the 1861
Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, \2\ and the 1867 Treaty with the Sauk
and Foxes \3\ with the Federal Government, the Sac and Fox Nation gave
up successive claims to its ancestral homelands in exchange for the
protection and provision of education of its children by the United
States in their new lands. However, the Sac and Fox Nation, like many
others, suffered immensely in their new lands from the Federal
Government's boarding school policy. Specifically, many Sac and Fox
students attended and suffered at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School
which touted a mission to ``kill the Indian'' and ``save the man.'' \4\
Thus, in 1991, the Federal Government returned authority and funding
back to the Sac and Fox Nation in the ratified Self-Governance Compact.
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, Etc. art. 5, July 15, 1830
(``And the United States further agree to set apart three thousand
dollars annually for ten successive years. . .to the education of the
children of the said Tribes and Bands, parties hereto.'').
\2\ Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, Etc. art. 5, Mar. 6 186 I (``In
order to encourage education among the aforesaid tribes of Indians, it
is hereby agreed that the United States shall expend the sum of one
thousand dollars for the erection of a suitable school-house, and
dwelling-house for the school teacher, for the benefit of the Sacs and
Foxes, and also the additional sum of two hundred dollars per annum for
school purposes. . .'').
\3\ Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes art. 9, Feb. 18, 1867 (``. .
.one section of land, convenient to the residence of the agent, shall
be selected by said agent, with the approval of the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, and set apart for a manual-labor school; and there
shall also be set apart from the money to be paid to the tribe under
this treaty, the sum often thousand dollars for the erection of the
necessary school-buildings and dwelling for teacher, and the annual
amount of five thousand dollars shall be set apart from the income of
their funds after the erection of such school buildings, for the
support of the school; and after settlement of the tribe upon their new
reservation, the sum of five thousand dollars of the income of their
funds may be annually used, under the direction of the chiefs, in the
support of their national government. . .'').
\4\ Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center, ``Kill the
Indian in him, and save the man'': R.H. Pratt on the Education of
Native Americans, https://carlisleindian.dickinson.edu/teach/ki11-
indian-him-and-save-man-r-h-pratteducation-native-americans.
\5\ Self-Governance Compact between the Sac and Fox Nation and the
United States art. 3, sec. 3 and art. 4, sec. 2, June 26, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Testimony
I am submitting this testimony in connection with the oversight
hearing held by the Committee on April 2, 2025, to address Native
education programs at the Department. This testimony is limited in
scope to that hearing. However, we note the broader context that
prompted the hearing, including the Administration's recent Executive
Order on ``Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States,
and Communities'' (``Executive Order''). \6\ The Executive Order
provides in part that ``[t]he Secretary of Education shall, to the
maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary
steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and
return authority over education to the States and local communities
while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services,
programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.'' \7\ As of the
preparation of this testimony, to our knowledge, no consultation
notices have been issued regarding the Executive Order or any proposal
to restructure or close elements of the Department. As explained below,
Tribal consultation is statutorily required before any plans to
restructure or close the Department proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Exec. Order No. 14242 of March 20, 2025, Improving Education
Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, 90 Fed. Reg. I
3679 (Mar. 25, 2025).
\7\ Id. Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this context in mind, I am providing this testimony to
underscore the following:
1) the federal government's legal obligation to consult Tribal
Nations on actions impacting the education of Native children;
2) the need to maintain full staff and funding for Native
education programs;
3) concerns regarding existing staff capacity, particularly if
the administration of Native education programs is split up;
and
4) that funding for Native education programs must not under
any circumstances be routed through the States.
Underlying this testimony is the fact that those who would be most
affected by changes to Native education programs are our students. I
work zealously to support our students by ensuring that the teachers
and staff of the twelve (12) public schools we represent have the
resources they need to provide the high-quality education our students
deserve and to which they are legally entitled as part of the United
States' trust and treaty obligations to the Sac and Fox Nation and its
members.
Tribal Nations Must Be Consulted on Any Structural Changes to the
Department Before Those Changes Occur
Any action regarding Native programs taken without Tribal
consultation would undoubtedly have negative impacts on our students.
We are not aware of any Tribal Nation or school that has requested
structural changes to the Department's administration of Native
education programs. As the tribal panel expertly described to the
Committee, Department-administered Native education programs provide
critical resources proven to improve educational. emotional. and
behavioral outcomes for Native students. These programs carry out an
important aspect of the federal government's trust responsibility to
Tribal Nations by providing quality, culturallyinformed education to
Native students. Given the importance of the programs at issue here, if
the Administration plans to make any changes that affect Native
education programs at the Department, the federal government must
consult with Tribal Nations on such proposals before any changes are
made. Moreover, because no Tribal Nation has requested these changes,
sufficient consultation would require a proposal that contains enough
specificity for Tribal Nations to understand how the contemplated
changes would impact them and their respective students. I want to be
clear that if changes to Native educational programs are being planned,
they cannot be legally carried out without prior consultation with the
Sac and Fox Nation.
Consultation is a necessary component of the United States' trust
and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations that has been codified in
statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and departmental consultation
policies. \8\ While consultation is always important, when it comes to
education, our students cannot afford to spend developmentally critical
years of their education experiencing substantial disruptions to their
schooling. Consultation is required for any proposals that would impact
the Department's Native education programs, including under the
Department's own policies as well as under Interior consultation
statutes. The Department's own tribal consultation policy states that
``[the Department] administers a number of grant programs that serve
Indian students or that have a specific impact on tribes''--including
Title VII, Parts A, B, and C of the ESEA of 1965. \9\ The Department's
policy notes that it will consult with Tribal Nations regarding any
proposed regulation that has tribal implications in accordance with
Executive Order 13175. \10\ Substantial closure or transfer of
Department functions would easily meet this threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Exec. Order No. 13,175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 9, 2000) (signed
on Nov. 6, 2000).
\9\ Dept. of Ed., Consultation and Coordination with American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments, available at: https://
www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/oese/
oie.1tribalpolicyfinal.pdf.
\10\ See Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Jewell, 205 F. Supp. 3d
1052, 1058 (D. S.D.2016) (``meaningful consultation requires, at a
minimum, that defendants comply with federal statutes and their own
policies defining what constitutes adequate `consultation.' '').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, several important funding sources of funds, and all funds
that ultimately flow to Tribally controlled schools, such as funds
under the IDEA, are first appropriated to the Department and then
awarded by the Department to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE),
which in turn distributes them to BIE-funded schools. \11\ Although the
funds are originally appropriated to the Department, any proposed
change to funding that flows through the BIE before being provided to
Tribal Nations requires consultation pursuant to the statutory
consultation provisions Congress established to ``facilitate Indian
control of Indian affairs in all matters relating to education.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 1411 (h)( I )(A) (``The Secretary of
Education shall provide amounts to the Secretary of the Interior to
meet the needs for assistance for the education of children with
disabilities on reservations aged 5 to 21, inclusive, enrolled in
elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded
by the Secretary of the Interior.'').
\12\ Pub. L. No. 95-561 1130, 92 Stat. 2143, 2321 (1978)(codified
as amended at 25 U.S.C. 2011 (a)).
In the Education Amendments of 1978, Congress charged the
Secretary of the Interior with the responsibility to
``facilitate Indian control of Indian affairs in all matters
relating to education.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
In the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Congress
further recognized that ``active consultation'' between the
Interior, Tribal leaders, and school officials is necessary and
integral to achieving Tribal control of Native education. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Pub. L. No. 103-382 381, 108 Stat. 3518, 4001
(1994)(codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. 201 l(b)).
Finally, in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Congress
cemented the ``active consultation'' requirement by enumerating
clear consultation standards and procedures and by directing
the Interior to ``work in a government-to-government
relationship to ensure quality education for all Tribal
members,'' \15\ and to afford ``interested parties (including
tribes and school officials)'' the opportunity to ``present
issues'' and ``participate and discuss the options presented.''
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Pub. L. No. 107-110 1042, 115 Stat. 1425, 2043 (2002)
(codified at 25 U.S.C. 201 l(b)).
\16\ Id.
These statutory terms clarify and codify the consultation process
that is a necessary component of fulfilling the United States' trust
and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations. No doubt part of the reason
for these education specific consultation requirements and the goal to
achieving Indian control over Indian education is that Tribally-
controlled schools know what is best for our students, and we
understand that schooling interruptions can have long-lasting negative
consequences for educational outcomes.
I also remind the Committee of its ability to request a written
explanation ``of any decision made by the Secretary [ of the Interior]
which is not consistent with the views of the interested parties'' \17\
and urge the Committee to continue to exercise its oversight authority
if changes are made or proposed that violate consultation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 25 U.S.C. 2011(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration Must Maintain Full Funding and Staff for Native
Education Programs
We are gravely concerned that the Administration will make
structural changes to the Department that will result in the loss of
funding or of critically important staff. Existing funding and staff
support necessary programs that provide culturally-informed, high-
quality education for our Native children. The loss of even some of
these funds or staff would have a detrimental impact on our ability to
meet the needs of our students and on our students' opportunities to
stay at grade level and on-track for graduation.
Any education reform efforts must maintain (and indeed, seek to
increase) existing funding streams for BIB-funded schools. If funds are
diverted, the Administration's goal of ``ensuring every child has the
opportunity to receive a world-class education'' \18\ will not be
realized for Native children, because BIB-funded schools will have
fewer resources to provide the culturally-relevant education that our
communities need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Expands Educational
Opportunities for American Famities, The White House (Jan. 30, 2025),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets2025/01/fact-sheet-president-
donald-i-trumpexpands-educational-opportunities-for-american-families/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIB-funded school system exists to serve Native students. Like
any vital service, BIEfunded schools are only able to provide
sufficient education programming if they are fully funded. Currently,
BIE-funded schools struggle with chronic underfunding, failing
facilities, transportation challenges, limited options for staff
housing, and competition with local public schools for quality
instructional staff. BIE-funded schools already stretch the federal
dollars it receives through its grant agreement with the BIE to provide
Native students with quality, culturally-informed education.
In addition, any loss of staff would result in the loss of
important institutional knowledge held by those who have developed
expertise in successfully administering Native education programs. I
have worked to build positive relationships with the Department staff
that operate these programs. Eliminating any staff, regardless of the
addition of newly-hired staff, would result in the loss of critical
knowledge by those who know how to administer these programs, which
will ultimately negatively impact our students as well. While there are
elements of these Departmental programs that could be improved, a
complete restructuring of their administration without retaining the
existing skills of employees who have established knowledge and
experience in this area would make the operation of the programs more
inefficient and potentially breach the federal government's trust
obligation to provide Native students with quality education.
We Are Concerned About Other Agencies' Capacities to Take on the
Department's Obligations, Particularly If Native Education
Programs
Administered by the Department Are Split Up
In any potential restructuring, we are certain that the BIE, which
awards grants under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA), does
not have the capacity to administer any additional obligations unless
the full scope of funding and staff are maintained as described above.
While there is no specific proposal currently before Tribal Nations
to review, splitting up Department-administered Native education
programs among multiple agencies raises serious concerns. Namely, I
fear that any restructuring that shifts responsibilities to federal
agencies that do not have experience with Native education or that
splits up existing offices would worsen existing bureaucratic
challenges and create new administrative procedures when red tape
already impedes the BIE's ability to promptly provide funding to
tribally-controlled schools.
As currently administered, tribally-controlled schools receive an
annual yearly grant from the BIE under the TCSA that includes funds
awarded by the Department to the BIE (for instance, under the IDEA).
Indeed, the TCSA requires that all federal education funding be
combined into one grant. The law provides that a TCSA grant shall
consist of amounts allocated to triballycontrolled schools under
Sections 1127 and 1128 of the Education Amendments of 1978, Title I of
the ESEA of 1965, the IDEA, and ``any other federal education law.''
\19\ Thus, as it relates to Native education programs, restructuring
the Department would undermine the administrative efficiencies created
to implement Congress's directives in the TCSA. I urge that Committee
oversight ensure that these efficiencies remain in place so that all
funding for tribally-controlled schools is made available through a
single agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 25 U.S.C. 2503(a) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given my existing concerns with the BIE's accountability to its
statutory mandates, and management deficiencies documented by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) associated with high staff
vacancy rates, the possibility that the BIE would be charged with
administering additional awards from the breaking-up of existing
programs from another agency is deeply troubling. For this reason, it
is essential that the staff and funding levels of current education
programs be maintained. Already I have seen changes over the past
decade, where the BIE has attempted to restructure and centralize its
administrative offices to improve effectiveness, which has ultimately
served to make the BIE less accessible and less accountable to Tribal
communities. Local, Tribal control of tribally-controlled schools is
the only way to provide Native students with high-quality education.
Further, restructuring should only be undertaken for the purpose of
``facilitate[ing] Indian control of Indian affairs in all matters
relating to education'' \20\ through consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 25 U.S.C. 20ll(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our students should not have their opportunities burdened or
diminished because vital programs and funding are delayed or reduced
because federal officials are being directed to put their energies into
creating new organizational charts and administrative processes.
Additionally, based on my experience, when the federal agencies
restructure or create new bureaucratic processes, those agencies then
impose corresponding procedures and requirements on tribally-controlled
schools, which distract teachers and administrators from their core
responsibilities of providing quality educational opportunities to our
students. Congress anticipated such intrusions into school
administration and prohibited the bureaucracy from requiring tribally-
controlled schools from producing any reports beyond those expressly
identified in the TCSA. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 25 U.S.C. 2503(b)(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am concerned that administrative restructuring could further
increase the concentration of funding stuck in federal bureaucratic
processes and not reach the students who these programs are intended to
serve. As this Committee is aware, Congress has directed that
``[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal funds
appropriated for the general local operation of Bureaufunded schools
shall be allotted pro rata in accordance with the [Indian School
Equalization Formula].'' \22\ Yet, contrary to this clear directive,
over the past few years, the BIE has taken a disproportionate share of
Congressional funding increases to expand its own administrative
bureaucracy at the expense of both BIE-operated schools and tribally-
controlled schools. A federal bureaucratic realignment poses tangible
risks of delays and reductions to the funding delivered to the local
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 25 U.S.C. 2007(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribally-controlled schools typically receive the smallest share of
this disproportionate funding allocation, as the BIE has prioritized
certain funding to BIE-operated schools. This proliferation of the
BIE's bureaucracy has ultimately diverted federal funds away from their
intended purpose: the provision of culturally-informed, high-quality
education to Native students.
If Department funding, which is currently routed and awarded
through the BIE, is restructured to involve new and additional agencies
that lack experience working with Tribal Nations and Native education
programs, these existing funding allocation challenges would likely
only worsen. Any decrease or delay in funding would put Native
students--on whom the system should be focused on helping--in the
crossfire. Maintaining a student-oriented focus is of paramount
importance.
Funding for Native Education Programs Should Under No Circumstances Be
Distributed to State Governments
Because the Executive Order contemplates ``return[ing] authority
over education to the States,'' I note that the role of State
governments in the area of Native students' education should not
change. Importantly statutory provisions require that funding
allocations, such as for funding authorized pursuant to the ESEA, be
provided directly to the Secretary of the Interior, meaning that the
provision of these funds directly to the States would not be
statutorily permissible. \23\ Because the Department's administration
of Native education programs carries out an important element of the
United States' trust and treaty obligations to provide quality
education to Native students, the delegation of any of those duties to
State governments would constitute a serious breach of this duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 6331 (a)(requiring Secretary of
Education to reserve a certain percentage of funding to be provided to
the Secretary of the Interior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above, I urge the Committee to exercise
its authority to the fullest extent to ensure that Native students
continue to receive a culturally-informed, high-quality education and
that Native students are not harmed by any efforts to dismantle the
Department--whether intentionally or as collateral damage. Our students
must remain the focus of our work. I appreciate your efforts to uphold
the United States' trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations,
including the Sac and Fox Nation, and for the education of their
children.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Austin Lowes, Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians
As Chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, I
submit for the record our testimony for the Committee's hearing on the
impacts of Executive Order 14242 to dismantle the Department of
Education, agency RIF or reorganization actions, school choice, or
other executive actions to K-12 and higher education schools and
programs that receive funding and support from the Department of
Education and serve American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian
students. My people have lived in our territory in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan since time immemorial. We were federally recognized in
1972. We have a total enrollment of 51,943 citizens making us the
largest federally recognized tribe east of the Mississippi. Roughly 1/3
of our people live in a Tribal Service area, 1/3 across the State of
Michigan and 1/3 outside of Michigan.
Like many tribal communities Nationwide, Sault Tribe children are a
product of forced assimilation throughout the Federal Indian Mission
and Boarding school era. Our children suffered public-school racial
segregation including bussing tribal children from across the district
to be concentrated in the Finlayson public school often referred to as
the ``Indian School'' due to maintaining about 70 percent Native
American student enrollment with the remaining 30 percent of the pupils
from the adjacent low-income housing neighborhood. Ironically, the year
the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA,
1975), the public schools imposed a one year long failed Open Concept
experiment on our students at the ``Indian school''. Hurriedly
constructed to segregated Indian students, the Finlayson school was the
first to close at the tail end of the Baby Boom at which time the Sault
Tribe acquired the building for governmental purposes. In 1992, the
Tribe made the decision apply for Bureau of Indian Affairs funding to
operate a tribal grant school on the Reservation in the former
Finlayson School. No federal funds were afforded the Tribe to build or
renovate the school which remains true to this day given the estimated
two-hundred-year backlog of new school construction. The Joseph K.
Lumsden Bahweting, Public School Academy (JKL) is both a Tribally
Controlled Tribal Grant School funded by the Bureau of Indian Education
as well as a Michigan Public Charter school. Our school does not have
the ability to levy school millages to otherwise fund district level
services. JKL has an enrollment of 642 students, which is 52 percent of
our K-8 population within Chippewa County. During each successive
school facility and grade expansion, we have a waiting list of up to
250 applicants. The Tribe opened the school to provide a learning
environment that supports our students and give them a path to success.
At that time, our students had low test scores in both reading and
mathematics and over half of our students were not graduating from the
local public high school.
I am happy to report we have achieved a measure of success, but it
is important to note that this success is available for only one of
nine reservation-based communities sprawled across the Tribe's seven
county service area. Today 31 percent of our JLK students score at or
above the proficient level for math, and 42 percent score at or above
that level for reading. Our students face difficult life situations
with 6 percent of them experiencing homelessness, and some living in
foster or other out-of-home placements. Not atypically, our communities
suffer from many of the same outcomes as other Tribal Nations with
respect to historical and intergenerational trauma as documented by the
2018 US Civil Rights Commission Broken Promises Report. Thus, our need
for school and district services is greater and our teachers must be
more than educators, they must be counselors, nurses and social workers
to our students. It is testament to our school team and their diligence
that our students are experiencing the success that they do. However,
this would not be possible without the federal Indian Education
Programs that support our schools and Tribal education program.
Today, the JKL School represents the very best intent of school
choice. Our parents (including myself) choose JKL for the education our
children, because it is a place that recognizes and respects our
history, our culture, and the importantly the past harm of federal
Indian policy--from, genocide, assimilation, boarding school to
termination. As we enter the 50th anniversary of enactment of ISDEAA,
we insist that any change, in federal Indian education policy must be
done with a goal of strengthening Tribal Self-Determination and
sovereignty over the education of our children. To do otherwise, would
mean rolling backwards and would undermine the success we have achieved
in the last thirty years. Thus, any effort to allow ``school choice''
to route BIE funds away from Tribal Grant Schools, must be rejected.
The Administration and Congress must work to find ways to strengthen
and expand Tribal self-determination in the operation of Tribal and BIE
operated schools.
While our school is award-winning at both the state and National
levels, only 6 percent of our total school aged population are able to
attend the school given a scarcity of federal funding for this purpose.
This means that the vast majority of our school aged population attend
public schools within our territory and in fact throughout the country.
Our statistics at 6 percent mirror National data among tribes with an
estimated 9 percent of American Indian Alaska Native students attending
BIE school and the remaining 91 percent left to attend public schools.
Again, the Broken Promises Report has a documented high school dropout
rate disparity no better today than it was in 1969 when the seminal
Kennedy Report was published. Think of it, the only population of U.S.
citizens with a direct Constitution right to an education persist in
suffering the worst high school graduation rate. This is why the
programs with the Department of Education are so critical, including
Title VI, Part A and Part B (Indian Education Programs), Impact Aid
(Assistance to school districts with federal and tribal lands), and
Title I programs (support for low income school districts), and the
Johnson O'Malley Program (educational support Indian students in public
schools) within the Bureau of Indian Education.
Tribes pre-paid in full for this unique education right pursuant to
treaties which ceded nearly two billion acres of Indian ceded
territory, which made this county great and guaranteed our American
Indian and Alaska Native the right to health, education and social
welfare into perpetuity. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and four other
Michigan Tribes ceded 14 million acres of Indian land in the 1836
Treaty of Washington which qualified MI to become a state one year
later and which promised that the United States would provide and
support the health, education and welfare of our citizens. Recently, I
visited the National Archives to see the actual treaty our ancestors
signed and was inspired to remind the federal government that a Nation
is only as good as it's word. This historical record is critical to
understanding that any modern reforms to public education must retain
the full recognition and honoring of the treaty and trust obligation to
education. The statutory mechanisms found in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and its subsequent reauthorizations, are
how the federal government has determined it can best fulfill its
treaty and trust responsibility to Tribes. Thus, any change in these
statutorily created programs requires consultation and full engagement
with Tribal governments.
It is well documented that federal policies of war, assimilation
and termination, resulted in historical and intergenerational trauma
and a systemic lack of opportunity, that only in the last fifty years
have Tribes begun to heal and overcome--again through the policy of
self-determination and the support of federal law. Significantly, in
the last fifty years, Tribes have established Tribal Education
Agencies, that State and Local Education Agencies now engage with to
ensure that the need of Indian students are being met. Beyond this, the
U.S. Department of Education, to date, has played the key role in
ensuring State and Local Education Agencies comply with federal law and
work with Tribes to ensure that the needs of Indian students in public
schools are being met consistent with federal law. This requires
professional competency from those in federal service and with recent
layoffs and federal buyouts we are concerned that this competency will
be lost. We are concerned that the direction to dismantle the
Department Education is being done without the appropriate level of
consideration and formal Tribal consultation about how best to ensure
the federal-tribal relationship with regard Indian Education is
maintained. Intentional or collateral damage, reducing the federal
bureaucracy for implementation of the treaty and trust obligation is
nonetheless an abrogation of the treaty and trust obligation. The risk
is too high to make mistakes and then to try and go back and correct
them. Instead, we call on the Administration to engage in formal
government-to-government consultation consistent with Executive Order
13175 signed in 2000 and subsequent Presidential Memorandum extending
Consultation for the last quarter of a century. The Administration is
urged to work with the Congress to determine the best way to ensure
that Indian Education programs are maintained and expanded to prosper
in the future. Relatedly, we are concerned with proposals that students
could take federal dollars and use them as a voucher for private or
parochial school tuition. While American Indian Alaska Natives have a
diverse set of spiritual and cultural values and practices, continuing
the legacy for religious education to assimilate Native students is
culturally inappropriate and violates both the First Amendment of the
US Constitution and the Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Making
decisions without out consultation and consent, is contrary to the
government-to-government relationship that exists between Tribes and
the federal government. Under no circumstances should this be allowed
no matter how benevolent the intent. Making such decisions without our
consultation or consent is not choice but rather a legacy of
paternalism which harkens back to when American Indians were considered
wards of the state and incapable of self-determined decisionmaking of
true sovereigns.
Any effort to reform public education must not adversely impact
Indian education and the efforts to undue the more than 200 years of
policy that was intended to ``kill the Indian and save the man''.
Certainly, reforms in Indian education can and should be looked at by
all stakeholders--Tribal government, Tribal parents, and our tribal
students, as well as our partner federal government agencies. But,
again, the responsibility for ensuring that Tribes have the resources
that we need to ensure the education success of our Tribal members
rests with the United States government. For Tribal Nations, harkening
back to state dominion or local district control threatens to
subordinate of sovereignty. The treaty and trust obligation for an
education must not be a discretionary decision of the states or school
districts that are already failing to successfully educate our
students. Thus, we join the chorus of Tribal Nations who during the BIE
Consultation session on March 14, 2025 strongly opposed a voucher
system that would erode the BIE obligation to educate our children. We
support the National Indian Education Association in calling on
Congress and the Administration to ensure that federal programs and
funding for Native education are maintained and expanded at every
level.
One area that is frequently left out when we talk about Indian
education, is early childhood education--which is largely funded and
administered through the Department of Health and Human Services with
some disability services budgeted under the Department of Interior.
Research demonstrates that early childhood education like Tribal Head
Start significantly improves school readiness and contribute to
academic long-term outcomes. AIAN children enrolled in early childhood
programs experience sustained positive outcomes through high school and
postsecondary education. Unfortunately, due to underfunding only 44,000
AIAN students were served by Tribal Head Start in 2020-2021 out of the
756,000 age-eligible children. With recent studies showing remarkable
benefits to AIAN students attending early childhood education
programs--which shows to be more impactful long-term for AIAN students
than for non-AIAN students--it is imperative that Tribal Head Start and
Tribally controlled early childhood programs be expanded and means-
tests eliminated as benefits of land cessation to states and the
federal government are not means-tested. Equity in AIAN education
starts before kindergarten; ensuring equity in early childhood
education for AIAN students benefits them for the entirety of their
educational careers. We are particularly concerned about the
terminations that have occurred within the HHS in both the Head Start
Offices, in particular we are concerned with the possible elimination
of the Tribally designated Head Start Region, as well as the other
agencies within HHS that provide support for Tribes and Tribal
families, including the Administration for Community Living and the
Administration for Native Americans, which funds most tribal language
programs. These programs ensure children and families have some support
as they work to improve their lives. We urge Congress to examine these
staff and programmatic changes and ensure that Tribal Head Start and
Early Child Education programs are protected and are able to continue
to serve the children and families who need these programs.
Finally, the maintenance and administration of the treaty and trust
obligation has long been non-partisan and must remain so.
Notwithstanding stated attempts to confront big government bureaucracy
and the looming federal deficit crisis, the less than .4 of one
percentage currently budgeted to honor the treaty and trust
obligation--while the proportion of American Indian Alaska Natives is
over 2.6 percent of the population--is not the cause and therefore
should not be the solution to balancing the federal budget. Tribal
Nations expect the federal government to honor the treaties which means
an expansion of funding not an abrogation of this obligation through
draconian bureaucratic cuts that--intentional or not--adversely impact
Tribal Nations and serve as an abrogation of the trust obligation.
In conclusion, thank you for giving my Tribe the opportunity to
comment.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Sherry Johnson, Tribal Education Director,
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate
I am Dr. Sherry Johnson, one of the Great Plains Tribal Education
Directors and Appointed Tribal Consultation representatives for all
matters in Education and Research for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, a
treaty tribe, of the Lake Traverse Reservation.
We, the undersigned Tribal Education Directors--appointed by the
nine federally recognized Tribal Nations located within South Dakota--
serve as the designated education authorities for our sovereign
governments. Together, we unequivocally oppose Executive Order 14242,
Eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, which was issued on March
20, 2025, without Tribal consultation. This action represents not only
a betrayal of trust but a direct violation of the United States
government's legal and moral obligations to our Nations and youth.
More than 90 percent of Native students in South Dakota, including
those from the Oceti Sakowin Nations, attend public schools that depend
on U.S. Department of Education funding. These funds are critical to
the delivery of Title programs, Native language preservation, Impact
Aid, early childhood and special education, and access to higher
education. Eliminating the Department would sever an essential federal
mechanism for oversight, fairness, and accountability--leaving our
students vulnerable to systems that have historically excluded,
ignored, or harmed them.
The trust and treaty obligations of the federal government in
Indian education are not aspirational. They are the law. They are
codified in statutes including the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) and the Tribally Controlled
Schools Act (P.L. 100-297)--laws that mandate direct support to Tribal
governments. These responsibilities cannot be delegated to the states.
The federal government must maintain a direct, government-to-government
relationship with Tribes. Block grants, restructuring, or agency
transfers do not--and cannot--absolve the United States of its binding
legal duties.
This Executive Order was issued without any Tribal consultation, in
direct violation of federal policies and executive directives that
require meaningful engagement with Tribal governments on matters that
affect our citizens. The failure to consult is not a bureaucratic
oversight--it is a fundamental breach of sovereignty.
At a time when Native students already endure some of the most
persistent opportunity gaps in the nation, this proposal would
dismantle one of the few federal structures capable of addressing those
disparities. It would fragment services, weaken protections, and create
confusion in the delivery of essential educational supports.
This is not reform. This is erasure.
We call on every member of Congress to act swiftly and decisively:
Block implementation of Executive Order 14242.
Protect the U.S. Department of Education from dissolution.
Affirm the federal government's ongoing responsibility to
Native students and sovereign Tribal Nations.
Anything less is not only unjust--it is unlawful. We will not stand
by as promises made to our Nations are broken. Our students deserve
more than symbolic inclusion--they deserve the full force of the
federal commitments made to them through law, treaty, and trust.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my written comments.
______
Prepared Statement of Danielle Walking Eagle, Superintendent, St.
Francis Indian School
Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and Members of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to
submit this written testimony for the record. I appreciate the
Committee's leadership in holding this important hearing to examine
federal education programs that serve Indian students and to confront
the consequences of the President proposed dismantling of the U.S.
Department of Education (DOE).
My name is Danielle Walking Eagle, St. Francis Indian School
Superintendent, St. Francis, SD, and I write to underscore the profound
risks such a proposal poses to Indian Country and to urge Congress to
act decisively to protect the federal government's treaty and trust
responsibility by continuing to fund critical program necessary for the
education of our children.
The Federal Trust Responsibility
One of the pillars of the federal government's trust and treaty
responsibility is to provide education to American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian students. These obligations are enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, and longstanding federal
policy. They are not discretionary programs that can be discarded or
devolved to the states at the whim of any administration. They are
legal and moral promises that must be honored.
The Risks of Eliminating or Reorganizing DOE Programs
The President's proposal to dismantle the Department of Education,
and the executive actions already underway to restructure it, pose
immediate and long-term threats to Indian education.
Among the specific problems:
1. Violation ofTreaty and Statutory Obligations: States are not
party to federal treaties with tribal nations and have no legal
duty to uphold the trust responsibility. Shifting education
programs that support Indian education to the states would
effectively abandon those commitments. The treaty and trust
responsibility required education to be provided for hundreds
of tribes, including the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. These
treaties are recognized as the supreme law of the land & quote;
under the U.S. Constitution (Article VI) and the Supreme Court
decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which reaffirmed that
these obligations must be honored. This country owes a great
deal to tribal people who agreed to cede billions of acres of
land and trillions in valuable natural resources through such
treaties--including gold, coal, timber, oil, natural gas,
steel, and iron--the United States could not have achieved the
great heights of its success or provided refuge for millions of
immigrants seeking freedom of religion and opportunity. In
exchange, one of the core promises of these treaties and trust
responsibilities is the education of Indian children. Further,
the lack of tribal consultation violates federal law under 25
USC 2011, 25 USC 2501 (b), and Yankton Sioux Tribe v.
Kempthorne in the federal government requirement to provide
``fair notice of agency intentions.'' Further, many other
federally funded programs for Indian children also require
federal consultation. Johnson-O'Malley requires Indian
Education Committee (IEC) for educational planning and
approval. 25 U.S.C. 5344(c)(l)(B). Specifically, ``The
program shall be developed and approved in full compliance with
the educational plan developed under this subsection and shall
be approved by the Indian Education Committee.'' Title VI
requires an Indian Parent Committee (IPC) and documented
consultation with parents and Tribes. 20 U.S.C. 7424(c).
Specifically, the IPC must be involved in the development,
approval, and evaluation of the application and program. ``The
local educational agency shall develop the program in open
consultation with parents and families of Indian children,
representatives of Indian Tribes . . . and with the Indian
parent committee.'' Applications for Title VI funding must
include written evidence of consultation. 20 U.S.C.
7424(c)(3). Such application shall include a description of the
manner in which the local educational agency will ensure that
Indian children participate in the program on an equal basis
with all other children served by the local educational agency.
And finally, ``Each affected LEA shall consult with appropriate
officials from Indian tribes or tribal organizations prior to
the LEA's submission of a plan or application. . .'' 20 U.S.C.
7918 (ESSA Section 8538). The consultation requirements are
not menial; they are a treaty and trust obligation, part of the
United States policy, and statutory requirements that must be
fulfilled.
2. Loss of Culturally Relevant Education: Programs like Title
VI--Indian Education (formerly known as Title IV, Title V, and
Title VII), the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), and
Native Hawaiian Education grants fund language revitalization,
tribal history curriculum, and culture-based learning. These
efforts are rooted in the community and cannot be replicated
through generic state programming.
3. Disruption of Direct-to-Tribe Funding: DOE programs provide
direct support to tribes, tribal colleges, and local
educational agencies. Moving these funds through states would
undermine tribal sovereignty, introduce bureaucratic delays,
and increase the risk of misallocation.
4. Loss of Institutional Knowledge and Staffing: DOE currently
employs Indian-serving professionals who have longstanding
relationships with tribal communities. Recent administrative
actions have already led to the removal or reassignment of key
staff. Further restructuring could permanently and
detrimentally hurt this institutions' expertise.
5. Threats to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs): TCUs
rely on DOE-administered Title Ill funding, Pell Grants, and
other supports. Funding delays or redirection through states
could threaten accreditation and force program cuts, damaging
tribal self-determination and economic development.
6. Delayed and underfunding of critical assistance to the
Bureau of Indian Education funded schools: The Administration's
March 14, 2024, Reduction in Force (RIF) has already caused
severe delays of Congressionally appropriated funds meant to be
transferred from DOE to the BIE. The March RIFs included all
the Business Managers/Budget Analyst that transfer Title
funding to Bureau of Indian Education schools and Counties(non-
lndian Schools). Title funding is transferred in two
distributions, one at 30 percent in the Fall and another at 70
percent, in early Spring. Currently, all BIE-funded schools in
South Dakota, New Mexico, and Arizona that we have confirmed
have not received the 70 percent outstanding distributions, in
South Dakota alone.
7. Absence of a Transition Plan: There has been no public or
tribal consultation regarding where these programs would go,
how they would be administered, or how continuity would be
preserved. The lack of transparency and planning not only
heightens the danger to continued education for Indian students
and tribal communities.
Recommendations to Preserve and Strengthen Native Education
Congress must act to protect Indian education from administrative
overreach. I respectfully offer the following recommendations:
1. Codify Key Programs: Permanently authorize and fund Title
VI, Impact Aid, ANEP, Johnson O'Malley, and Title Ill programs
in federal statute to insulate them from executive action.
2. Mandate Tribal Consultation: Enforce and strengthen tribal
consultation requirements for any agency changes affecting
Indian education.
3. Protect Direct Funding Structures: Ensure that funding
continues to flow directly to tribes, tribal consortia, TCUs,
BIEFunded Tribally Controlled Schools, and Indian-serving
schools without state intermediaries.
4. Establish a Statutory Office of Indian Education: Create and
fund a permanent office within the Department of Education to
protect Native-serving staff and preserve institutional
knowledge.
5. Support TCU Autonomy: Pass legislation such as the Haskell
Indian Nations University Improvement Act to strengthen the
governance and independence of tribal colleges. 6. Fully Fund
Federal Commitments: Fully appropriate authorized levels for
Impact Aid, IDEA t ribal set-asides, Title I, and Title Ill.
Ensure timely disbursement of funds.
Conclusion
The federal commitment to Indian education is not a program to be
cut, but a treaty and trust responsibility to be kept. Congress must
ensure that Indian students do not become collateral damage in a
misguided effort to dismantle federal education infrastructure. Thank
you for your attention to this critical matter and your continued
support of Indian students, families, and educators across Indian
Country.
______
Prepared Statement of Vanamberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita, Gomez &
Wilkinson, LLP
This testimony is submitted on behalf of our clients, the Pueblo of
Taos, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana and the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians, pursuant to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee's
invitation for Tribal Testimony on various Executive Orders and related
actions which may impact existing Indian education programs and
funding.
Specifically, the Committee has invited Testimony regarding ``the
impacts of Executive Order 14242 to dismantle the Department of
Education, agency RIF or reorganization actions, school choice, or
other executive actions to K-12 and higher education schools and
programs that receive funding and support from the Department of
Education and serve American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian
students.''
Our clients appreciate this opportunity to submit Testimony on
these issues.
In regard to the Executive Order 14242 aimed at dismantling the
U.S. Department of Education, our clients' main concern is that no
actions be taken per that Order that would disrupt the existing flow of
Federal Education funding to Tribally Controlled schools operating per
25 U.S.C. 5301 or 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq. or to BIE operated
schools, all required by the controlling statutes. We have previously
submitted Comments to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Education, on behalf of these clients focused on a different
Executive Order: ``Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for
Families.'' See, Exhibit 1. Those Comments identify the existing
federal educational funding now distributed to Tribally operated and
BIE operated Indian schools and the controlling federal statutes that
mandate those funding awards.
We submit that nothing done to administratively implement the new
Executive Order 14242 targeted the U.S. Department of Education can
lawfully be permitted to disrupt this Congressionally mandated flow of
those funds to those Indian schools, and request that the Committee
work with the Trump Administration to ensure that in moving forward
with Executive Order 14242, that a mechanism be put in place to ensure
that the existing flow of those federal education funds continue to be
awarded directly to those Indian schools without being channeled
through the states. We suggest that the Bureau of Indian Education is
best positioned to oversee the continuance of those direct funding
awards to those Indian schools, if the U.S. Department of Education is
dismantled or otherwise reorganized.
Our clients recognize that most Indian students attend public
schools rather than BIE or Tribally operated schools, and share the
concerns of the Tribal representatives who raise concerns about the
adverse impact Executive Order 14242 might have on Indian education in
the public schools. But, our clients' primary concern is to avoid
potential adverse funding impacts on reservation based Indian schools,
such as those that now exist on their reservation lands.
In this regard, we also here incorporate by reference the prior
Comments attached as Exhibit 1 addressing the harms allowing any kind
of parental voucher option would cause to those schools if the voucher
concept in that parental choice Executive Order were carried out. We
reiterate that, for the reasons set out in those Comments, imposing any
kind of parental choice voucher plan on either the Indian School
Equalization Formula funds awarded to those schools per 25 U.S.C.
2001 et seq. or the Department of Education funds now received by those
schools would devastate many of those schools and would, in any event,
be unlawful for all the reasons set out in those Exhibit 1 comments.
Further, as shown in the Exhibit 1 comments, per 25 U.S.C. 2011 ,
real Tribal consultation is statutorily required before any changes
sought per any of these Executive Orders affecting Indian education may
lawfully be implemented.
Finally, our clients wish to express their appreciation of the
Committee's reaffirmation that the unique legal status of Indian tribes
under Federal law is in no way derivative of or a part of separate
diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives repudiated by the present
Administration, but is instead rooted in the Tribes' status as the
aboriginal inhabitants of the territory now encompassed by the United
States and the trust relationship between the Tribes and the Federal
government. Some detail on this issue is also set out in the Exhibit 1
comments.
Attachment
Exhibit 1--COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE TAOS PUEBLO, THE
CHITIMACHA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA AND THE MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW
INDIANS REGARDING 7 OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JANUARY
29, 2025
Introduction
Our clients, the Taos Pueblo, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana,
and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, have authorized and
directed our firm to submit the following comments on their behalf in
regard to Section 7 of President Trump's Executive Order of January 29,
2025: Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families. As
set out in the Dear Tribal Leader Letter (DTLL) of February 28, 2025,
these Comments are submitted by e-mail to [email protected].
We note that the DTLL noticing tribal consultation on that Executive
Order states that this Executive Order was issued January 23, 2025, but
the actual date on that Executive Order is January 29, 2025.
Section 7 of that Executive Order provides:
Section 7. Helping Children Eligible for Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE) Schools. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Responsibility for the Bureau of Indian Affairs School
functions were transferred to the Bureau of Indian Education in 2006.
Some of the key statutory provisions which control the funding of
Indian schools predate that transfer and still reference the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, instead of the Bureau of Indian Education. See, the
several statutes addressed in these Comments.
Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the
Interior shall review any available mechanisms under which families of
students. eligible to attend BIE schools may use their Federal funding
for educational options of their choice, including private, faith-
based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President
describing such mechanisms and the steps that would be necessary to
implement them for the 2025-26 school year. The Secretary shall report
on the current performance of BIE schools and identify educational
options in nearby areas. (emphasis added).
As described in the Bureau of Indian Education Director's
Consultation Notice of February 28, 2025:
The EO Section 7 directs the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) within 90 days to review any available mechanisms
under which families of students eligible to attend Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE) schools may use their Federal funding
for educational options of their choice, including private,
faith-based, or public charter schools. EO Section 7 also
directs the Secretary to submit a plan to the President
describing such mechanisms and the steps necessary to implement
them for the 2025-26 school year. (emphasis added)
I. The Taos Pueblo
The Taos Pueblo is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe located
within the State of New Mexico. Taos is a small Tribe with a
traditional form of government and a steadfast adherence to its
traditional customs, traditions and ways of life. Taos retains its
ancestral language, its ancestral religion and its culture at a
location it has used and occupied for over a thousand years. See Pub.
L. 91-550, Act of December 15, 1970, 84 State. 1970, the bill by which
Taos' Sacred Blue Lake and surrounding land was returned to them.
The Bureau of Indian Education operates a federally-funded Day
School for grades K-8 on the Pueblo's grant land. That school was a
Catholic mission school established in 1893. In 1910, the school came
under the administration of the U.S. government and the mission school
transitioned into what is now known as the Taos Day School operated on
the pueblo by the BIE.
That school has approximately 97 Indian students, all of whom are
Taos Pueblo members.
The Taos Day School plays an important role in helping the Tribe to
retain and maintain its traditional language and culture.
II. The Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
The Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana is a federally-recognized Indian
Tribe located within what is now Louisiana. It is the only tribe in
Louisiana to still occupy its ancestral lands. Following twelve years
of war against them, the enslavement and deportation of many of the
Tribe's members, and land disputes, the last fragment of Chitimacha
lands were put into trust. The process started in 1916 and was
completed in 1919. Since 1970, the Tribe has operated under a
constitutional form of government as required by the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934, but cultural traditions, history and
language have continued and thanks to revitalization efforts, all
students at the Chitimacha Tribal School are taught these important
parts of their cultural identity. The Chitimacha Tribal School is a
tribally-controlled school, presently serving 114 students for Grades
K-8.
This school was first established in 1934. In 1978, the Tribe
opened a new school constructed with federal funding, and that school
became a Tribally-controlled school in 1991.
The Chitimacha Tribal School does an excellent job educating their
students. The school was recently recognized as a National ESEA
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act) Distinguished School which
confirms the high level of its ``current performance as a BIE school.''
``Nearby options'' are inferior due to lack of certified teachers and
school performance scores. They also do not offer any cultural
education or activities that are integral to student success. The
Chitimacha Tribal School plays a critical role in helping the Tribe
retain and maintain its traditional language and culture.
III. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI) is a federally
recognized Indian Tribe organized under a tribal Constitution first
adopted in 1945. U.S. v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978).
The MBCI directly operates the largest tribally-controlled school
system in the United States. The Choctaw Tribal School System is fully
accredited by the Mississippi Department of Education and by AdvancED,
with six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school
with a dorm to house residential students. Those schools now serve
approximately 2,080 students. Choctaw Central High School was built in
1964 and the Tribe assumed control of that high school and the other
schools for the lower grades in 1989 per the Tribally-Controlled
Schools Act, 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.
These Choctaw schools play an important role in helping the Tribe
retain and maintain its traditional language and culture. The schools
offer cultural enrichment and language courses beginning in pre-
kindergarten through twelfth grade. The school district's vision is in
pursuing excellence and believing that Alla momat ikkana chih, (all
children will learn), Choctaw Tribal Schools strive to provide a
healthy, safe, community-based, culturally relevant and inspiring
learning environment for students.
IV.
These schools' operational funding is provided by annual
Congressional appropriations made to find the Indian School
Equalization Formula (ISEF) established by the Congress at 25 U.S.C.
2007, by other federal educational program funding passed through to
the BIE for its direct expenditure, or to tribally-controlled schools
for their direct expenditure, to support the educational programs those
schools provide, or by other direct federal grants to those schools.
See, 25 U.S.C. 2503(a)(3), \2\ referencing other federal funds the
Congress has directed to be made accessible to BIE funded schools, to
wit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ President Trump issued an Executive Order on March 20, 2025
which calls for the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education,
and the transfer of Title 20 funding appropriated to the Department to
``States and local communities while ensuring the effective and
uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which
Americans rely'' all ``subject to rigorous compliance with federal
law'' and consistent with ``administrative policy terminating ``any
program or activity receiving federal assistance implementing
``diversity, equity and inclusion'' policies. The Executive Order does
not mention how Indian school funds now awarded to tribally-controlled
schools and BIE operated schools will be continued. Whatever the fate
of that Executive Order, the statutory requirement at 25 U.S.C. 2503
that Title 20 funding appropriated to that department and which must be
passed through to BIE-funded schools will remain in force. Thus, some
means or mechanism to ensure that the same categories and l12vel of
funding now received by those schools continue to flow through to them
must be put in place before any changes are made that would affect that
flow of funds per that Executive Order. Simply transferring those Title
20 funds to the States will not satisfy that statutory requirement.
Separate tribal consultation on that means or mechanism will also be
required per 25 U.S.C. 2011.
(i) title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965 [20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.];
(ii) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq.]; or
(iii) any other Federal education law that are allocated to
such schools for such fiscal year.
25 U.S.C. 2007 allocates funding to BIE-funded schools, such as
the Taos Day School, the Chitimacha School, and the Mississippi Choctaw
Schools, based on the formula set out at 2007(a)(1) and the
regulations promulgated at 25 C.F.R. Part 39, Subpart B, and
transportation and O&M funding authorized per 25 U.S.C. 2503(a)(1) &
(2). 2503(b)(3) makes clear that these same Title 20 funds must be
made available to support BIE operated schools to the same extent as
BIE funded tribally-controlled schools, and are to be distributed
``through the Bureau''.
BIE-funded schools include both BIE operated schools (such as the
Taos Day School) and tribally-controlled schools (such as the
Chitimacha and Mississippi Choctaw Schools) directly operated by Indian
tribes (or by tribal organizations authorized by tribes) pursuant to 25
U.S.C. 2501 et seq. See, 25 U.S.C. 2021--Definitions.
(2) Bureau
The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the
Department of the Interior.
(3) Bureau-funded school
The term ``Bureau-funded school'' means( A) a Bureau school;
(B) a contract or grant school; or
(C) a school for which assistance is provided under
TriballyControlled Schools Act of 1988 [25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.]
(4) Bureau school
The term ``Bureau-funded school'' means a Bureau-operated
elementary or secondary day or boarding school or a Bureau-operated
dormitory for students attending a school other than a Bureau school.
* * * *
(6) Contract or grant school
The term ``contract or grant school'' means an elementary school,
secondary school, or dormitory that receives financial assistance for
its operation under a contract, grant, or agreement with the Bureau
under section 450f, 450h(a), or 458d of this title, or under the
Tribally-Controlled Schools Act of 1988 [25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.]
The ISEF formula allocates the core federal funds appropriated by
the Congress to support the operation of these Indian schools and is
intended to determine ``the minimum annual amount of funds necessary to
sustain each Bureau-funded school''. (emphasis added) Per
2007(a)(l)(A), the primary component in that formula is ``the number of
eligible Indian students served and total student population of the
school,'' but the formula may generate greater ISEF funding for a BIE-
funded school based on various special cost factors set out at
2007(a)(l)(B)-(E).
Section 2007(b) provides that:
(b) Pro rata allotment Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
Federal funds appropriated for the general local operation of Bureau-
funded schools shall be allotted pro rata in accordance with the
formula established under subsection (a) of this section. (emphasis
added)
Also, 25 U.S.C. 2010(a) provides:
The Secretary shall establish, by regulation adopted in accordance
with section 2016 of this title, a system for the direct funding and
support of all Bureau-funded schools. Such system shall allot funds in
accordance with section 2007 of this title. All amounts appropriated
for distribution in accordance with this section shall be made
available in accordance with paragraph (2). (emphasis added)
Finally, 25 U.S.C. 2007(f)--Eligible Indian student defined,
provides:
(f) Eligible Indian student defined
In this section, the term ``eligible Indian student'' means a
student who--
(1) is a member of, or is at least one-fourth degree Indian blook
descendant of a member of, a tribe that is eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States through the Bureau
to Indians because of their status as Indians;
(2) resides on or near a reservation or meets the criteria for
attendance at a Bureau off-reservation home-living school; and
(3) is enrolled in a Bureau-funded school. (emphasis added)
25 U.S.C. 2007(d)(l) requires that the Secretary of the Interior
reserve one (1) percent of the ISEF fund appropriations as follows:
(d) Reservation of amount for emergencies
(1) In general
The Secretary shall reserve from the funds available for
distribution for each fiscal year under this section an amount that, in
the aggregate, equals 1 percent of the funds available for such purpose
for that fiscal year, to be used, at the discretion of the Director of
the Office of Indian Education Programs, to meet emergencies and
unforeseen contingencies affecting the education programs funded ,under
this section.
But per 2007(d)(2), those reserved funds ``may be expended only
for education services or programs, including emergency repairs of
educational facilities, at a school site (as defined by Section
2503(c)(2) of this title).'' (emphasis added)
Section 2503(c)(2) was at some point recodified as 2502(c)(2)--
Definition of school site. That definition provides:
(2) Definition of school site
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``school site'' means the
physical location and the facilities of an elementary of secondary
educational or residential program operated by, or under contract or
grant with, the Bureau for which a discreet student count is identified
under the funding formula established under Section 2007 of this title.
( emphasis added)
These statutes do not permit the reallocation of any of these ISEF
monies to fund the education of any ``Indian student'' who attends a
school which is not a BIE-funded school (whether a BIE operated school
or BIEfunded tribally-controlled school). Indeed, per the statute (25
U.S.C. 2007(f)), no Indian student who is not attending a BIE
operated or BIEfunded tribally-controlled school (e.g. who is attending
or intends to attend a ``private, faith-based or public charter''
school as contemplated by Section 7 of the Executive Order) would
constitute an ``eligible Indian student'' whose status would trigger
the allocation of additional ISEF funds for that school for that
student.
V.
None of the other federal education funding (Title 20 funding)
referenced in 25 U.S.C. 2503(a)(1) or (b) can lawfully be diverted to
any private or faith-based \3\ or public charter schools. Instead, 25
U.S.C. 2503 mandates that all such Title 20 federal education funds
must be made available to serve Indian students who are attending BIE
funded schools. Even absent the funding requirement set out in 2503,
these kind of federal education funds can only be awarded to states,
tribes or local educational agencies; and local educational agencies
must be public or governmental entities which administer public
schools. This is made clear by 20 U.S.C. 1400, 1401, 1413--
Definitions--(19) Local Education Agency, (for Individuals with
Disabilities Act funds, see FN. 3), by 20 U.S.C. 6301, 6301(a) (for
Title I funds). The BIE currently awards these and other federal
education funds to BIE funded schools pursuant to a December 3, 2012
Agreement between the U.S. Department of Interior-Bureau of Education
and the U.S. Department Indian Education executed under Executive Order
13592 and Section 9204 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (Copy attached as
Exhibit A).*This attachment has been retained in the Committee files*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 20 U.S.C. 1401(19) provides: (19) Local educational agency
(A) In general The term ``local educational agency'' means a public
board of education or other public authority legally constituted within
a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to
perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary
schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other
political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school
districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative
agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools. (B)
Educational service agencies and other public institutions or agencies
The term includes- (i) an educational service agency; and (ii) any
other public institution or agency having administrative control and
direction of a public elementary school or secondary school. (C) BIA
funded schools The term includes an elementary school or secondary
school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only to the extent
that such inclusion makes the school eligible for programs for which
specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision
of law and the school does not have a student population that is
smaller than the student population of the local educational agency
receiving assistance under this chapter with the smallest student
population, except that the school shall not be subject to the
jurisdiction of any State educational agency other than the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of transfer mechanism--by which these Title 20 federal
education funds are made available to BIE funded schools is mandated by
20 U.S.C. 7423(d) and that agreement make clear that it is intended
to carry out the Congressional mandate set out at 25 U.S.C. 2503 that
requires the transfer of the Title 20 funds listed in Section IV.A.
thereof from the Department of Education to the BIE and then awarded to
the BIE-funded schools:
IV. ESEA and McKinney-Vento Act Program Funding
A. Purpose of Agreement and Programs Covered
This Agreement presents terms and conditions that set the framework
for future transfers of funds that Congress appropriates to ED and that
ED transfers to DOI for use by BIE and BIE funded schools under the
following programs that Congress has authorized in the ESEA and the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act:
1. ESEA Programs
Section 1003(g). School Improvement Grants
Title I. part A (improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies)
Title II, part A (Teacher Quality Improvement Formula
Grants)
Title IV, part B (Rural Education)
Title VII, part A, subpart I (Indian Education)
2. McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Programs
Title VII, part B (Education for Homeless Children and
Youths)
These funding categories are further addressed in the Appendix to
the Agreement which expressed provides that the listed Title 20 federal
education funds must be used to support ``the administration and
operation of BIE and BIE funded schools under all programs identified
in Section IV. A of the Agreement''. (emphasis added) Per that
Agreement, the BIE is treated as a State Educational Agency (SEA)
conduit for all the BIE funded schools, which are recognized as LEAs.
See, 20 U.S.C. 1401(19)(C)(quoted at FN. 1). And see, 20 U.S.C.
7423(d), which provides that allocation of the Indian education funds
authorized by that statute must be allocated on the basis of Indian
students enrolled in those schools:
(d) Schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Education
(1) In general
Subject to subsection (e), in addition to the grants awarded under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall allocate to the Secretary of the
Interior an amount equal to the product of--
(A) the total number of Indian children enrolled in schools that
are operated by--
(i) the Bureau of Indian Education; or
(ii) an Indian tribe, or an organization controlled or sanctioned
by an Indian tribal government, for the children of that tribe under a
contract with, or grant from, the Department of the Interior under the
Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of
1988; and
(B) the greater of--
(i) the average per pupil expenditure of the State in which the
school is located; or
(ii) 80 percent of the average per pupil expenditure of all the
States.
The bottom line is that the Title 20 statues authorizing and
appropriating federal education funds for BIE funded schools do not
permit the diversion of those funds for ``private or faith-based''
school, since those non-governmental entities are not LEAs \4\ or
Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and, more fundamentally, the
pass-thru Title 20 education funds now awarded to support BIE funded
schools can only be expended to support the education of eligible
Indian students attending BIE funded schools. Those funds also cannot
lawfully be diverted from--BIE funded schools to support the education
of Indian students attending public charter schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ability of States and the Congress to confer public
benefits on public schools that are not made available to ``private or
faith-based schools'' is settled law. Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide
Virtual Charter School, 558 P.3d 1 (OK. 2024) (State law allowing
private religious school to attain status of public charger school
violates the establishment clauses of the State and Federal
Constitutions). But, that ruling is now being challenged in the U.S.
Supreme Court. St. Isadore of Seville Sch. V. Drummond, 2025 WL 288308,
No. 24-396 (January 24, 2025). Oral argument in this case set for April
30, 2025. See, Exhibit B. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to reverse the
Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling in the St. Isadore case, States with
laws like Oklahoma would not be able to bar the granting of public
charter school status to otherwise eligible Christian or to non-
Christian schools, e.g., Muslim schools teaching sharia law, tribal
schools founded to provide institution in traditional tribal religions
or other schools involving instruction in other traditional religions.
See, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S.
520 (1993) (holding that city ordinance banning animal sacrifice
violated free exercise rights of adherents of Santeria, a traditional
African religion.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Taos Day School and the Chitimacha and Choctaw Schools
barely receive sufficient funding to support their basic school
operations. Allowing any material portion of their ISEF funding or
their other federal educational funding to be diverted to fund any
``private, faith-based or public charter school'' would fundamentally
undermine their schools' operations and could lead to their closure.
That kind of backdoor destruction of the School's ability to continue
operations would cause severe harm to these and other similarly
situated Indian schools, and would also contravene the core purpose of
25 U.S.C. 2001 et seq. and 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.: to maximize
local tribal control of their children's elementary and secondary
education.
Requiring this kind of funding diversion--reducing the federal
funds available to pay for the operation of these schools--would risk
the same kind of harms caused by prior Bureau of Indian Education
efforts which would have reduced the availability of some federal funds
intended to support educational and administrative functions in those
schools, thereby leading to the return of those schools to federal
control, a policy and outcome rejected by the court in Shiprock
Associated Schools, Inc. v. United States, 934 F.Supp.2d 1311 (D.N.M.
2011):
The School argues that the Court should interpret Section
2008(b)(l) not to prohibit the use of ``direct program funds''
for administrative costs, but rather to reflect Congress'
aspiration that providing a grant specifically targeted to
defray administrative costs, in addition to a grant of direct
program funds, would enable tribes and tribal organizations to
operate their schools ``without reducing direct program
services,'' and ``from resources other than direct program
funds.'' The Court finds this interpretation reasonable. If the
Court instead were to interpret Section 2008(b)(1) to prohibit
the use of ISEP funds for administrative costs, in the absence
of sufficient appropriations, the School would lack the
resources to continue to administer its Congress' programs
independently. And indeed, for several years, Congress has
appropriated insufficient funds to cover the School's
administrative needs. Accordingly, reading Section 2008(b)(1)
to prohibit the use of ISEP funds for necessary administrative
functions would force tribes and tribal and tribal
organizations to rely on the federal government to run its
schools. Such a result would be contrary not only to the stated
purpose of the TCSA as whole, but also to a stated purpose of
Section 2008(b)(1) itself to enable tribes and tribal
organizations to ``provide all related administrative overhead
services and operations to ``provide all related administrative
overhead services and operations necessary to meet the
requirements of law and prudent management practice,'' and to
carry out their ``necessary support functions which would
otherwise be provided'' by the federal government. ( emphasis
added)
For the same reasons as held in Shiprock, causing school funding
reductions for these schools via any kind of parental choice voucher
program ``would frustrate the Congressional policy which underlies the
statute (to maximize tribal control of their children in local
schools), and is therefore ``invalid'' on those grounds alone. Oglala
Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, 603 F.2d 707, 715 (8th Cir. 1979).
Moreover, these BIE-funded reservation community schools are a
critical anchor that helps preserve each tribe's culture and ways of
life. Undermining or destroying those schools' fiscal viability would
both violate the controlling federal statutes and cause severe harm to
the affected tribal communities served by those schools.
VI.
The Taos Pueblo has been evaluating the option of assuming direct
Pueblo control and operation of the Taos Day School per 25 U.S.C.
2501 et seq. The Pueblo has made no final decision on taking that
action, but the Chitimacha Tribe and the Mississippi Choctaws have
already taken that action.
Neither Tribe knows if 7 of the subject Executive Order was
intended to apply to tribally-controlled BIE-funded schools operated by
a tribe per 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq. or just to BIE operated schools In
the event that the Executive Order was intended to apply to ISEF
funding or other federal education funds appropriated and allocated to
support the operation of tribally-controlled schools, all of the ISEF
statutory provisions which prohibit reallocation of any ISEF funds away
from BIE operated schools to non-BIE operated schools would apply with
equal force to bar any such reallocation of ISEF funds now allocated to
support the operation of tribally-controlled schools, and there are
other legal bars to any such reallocation of that funding from
tribally-controlled schools.
In this regard, the same ``eligible Indian student'' definition
that to BIE operated schools for the ISEF formula is incorporated by
reference into 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq. See, 25 U.S.C. 2511(2)--
Eligible Indian student:
The term 'eligible Indian student'' has the meaning given such term
in section 2007(f) of this title.
And, per 25 U.S.C. 2503(b)(2), the grants awarded to tribes or
tribal organizations to operated BIE-funded schools per 2501 are in
substance contracts having the same contractual status as Pub.L. 93-638
contracts awarded to permit direct tribal operation of such BIE-funded
schools. Section 2503(b)(2) provides:
(2) Schools considered contract schools
Tribally controlled schools for which grants are provided under
this chapter shall be treated as contract schools for the purpose of
allocation of funds under section 2006(e), 2007, and 2008 of this
title.
Further, per 2503(b)(1)(A)&(B), Non-ISEF funds allocated to a
tribally-controlled school via various other Title 20 education
programs
. . .shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and shall
not be subject to any additional restriction, priority, or limitation
that is imposed by the Bureau with respect to funds provided under--
(i) title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 [20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.];
(ii) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq.]; or
(iii) any Federal education law other than title XI of the
Education Amendments of 1978 [25 U.S.C. 2000 et seq.]
(B) Applicability of Bureau provisions
Indian tribes and tribal organizations to which grants are provided
under this chapter, and tribally-controlled schools for which such
grants are provided, shall not be subject to any requirements,
obligations, restrictions, or limitations imposed by the Bureau that
would otherwise apply solely by reason of the receipt of funds provided
under any law referred to in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph
(A). (emphasis added)
These statutory provisions expressly bar the BIE from attaching any
kind of conditions on BIE award of this non-ISEF federal education
funding which they are required to award to tribally-controlled
schools. This bars making those awards subject to reduction by
requiring the schools or BIE to allow parents of otherwise eligible
Indian students to force the reallocation of any of those funds to
support any ``private, faith-based \5\ public charter schools'' the
parents may choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 25 U.S.C. 2502(b)(2) expressly bars tribally-controlled
schools from spending ISEF money to support ``religious worship or
sectarian instruction.'' Per 25 U.S.C. 2503(b)(3), this same
prohibition likely applies to BIA operated schools. This alone would
bar reallocating ISEF monies to faith-based schools if this prohibition
remains enforceable. But recent Supreme Court rulings if applied to
federal legislation would make this prohibition unenforceable. See,
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022) (State law disqualifying private
sectarian schools from same benefits as non-sectarian private schools
was unconstitutional). Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591
U.S. 464 (2020) (State law excluding religiously affiliated private
schools from State scholarship program for students private schools).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, per 25 U.S.C. 2502(g) ``grants provided under this
chapter may not be terminated, modified, suspended, or reduced solely
for the convenience of the administering agency.''
Finally, per 25 C.F.R. Part 44.101. Grants Under the Tribally-
controlled Schools Act, the only directives that can lawfully be
applied to triballycontrolled schools are:
(a) the Tribally-controlled Schools Act,
(b) the regulations in this part; and
(c) guidelines, manuals and policy directives agreed to by the
grantee''. (emphasis added)
Thus, any directives based on 7 of the President's Executive
Order cannot lawfully be applied to reduce the ISEF or other federal
educational funding awarded to support the operation of any tribally-
controlled school without its consent, and even tribal consent to those
kinds of funding diversions could not legitimize them as 2007 and
2501 et seq. flatly prohibits expenditure of those funds to support the
education of students enrolled in non-BIE funded schools.
VII.
In summary, the Secretary of the Interior has no legal authority to
authorize, permit or require that any portion of monies appropriated by
the Congress to support the operation of BIE-funded schools be diverted
from expenditure at those schools to pay for Indian students to attend
a ``private, faith-based or public charter school''. The Secretary has
no discretion to disregard the controlling federal statutes. Ballinger
v. United States ex rel. Frost, 216 U.S. 240, 249 (1910):
`'Whenever, in pursuance of the legislation of Congress, rights
have become vested, it becomes the duty of the courts to see
that those rights are not disturbed by any action of an
executive order, even the Secretary of the Interior, the head
of a department. However laudable may be the motives of the
Secretary, he, as all others, is bound by the provision of
Congressional legislation.''
To like effect are United States v. Arenas, 158 F. 2d 730 (9th Cir.
1946)
In his dealings with the Indians, the Secretary of the Interior
does not have the power of an Asiatic potentate or even of a
benevolent despot. He, like his wards themselves, is subject to
legislative restrictions. The Supreme Court found it necessary
to sound such a note of caution in the case of Ballinger v.
United States ex rel. Frost, 216 U.S. 240, 249, 30 S.Ct. 338,
340, 54 L.Ed. 464.
and cases there cited, and Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Kempthorne, 442
F.Supp.2d 774, 783-784 (D.S.D. 2006):
Standard principles of statutory interpretation do not have
their usual force in Indian law cases. Montana v. Blackfeet
Tribe of Tndians, 471 U.S. 759, 767, 105 S.Ct. 2399, 85 L.Ed.2d
753 (1985). The court must construe statutes liberally in favor
of Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted in their
favor. Id. The canons of construction applicable in Indian law
are based on the unique trust relationship between the United
States and Indian Tribes. Id. The court must construe federal
statutes liberally in favor of the tribe and interpret
ambiguous provisions to the tribe's benefit. See Hagen v. Utah,
510 U.S. 399, 411, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d252 (1994).
* * * *
Agency action taken without statutory authorization, or which
frustrates the congressional policy which underlies a statue,
is invalid. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, 603 F.2d
707, 715 (8th Cir. 1979).
VIII.
All of these laws respecting Indian education laws are rooted in
the unique legal and political status of Indian tribes as domestic
dependent nations having a continuing government-to-government
relationship with the United States. This is made clear by 25 U.S.C.
2501(b) and (e):
(b) Commitment
Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the
Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship
with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education
of Indian children through the establishment of a meaningful
Indian self-determination policy for education that will deter
further perpetuation of Federal bureaucratic domination of
programs. (e) Federal relations
Congress declares a commitment to the policies described in
this section and support, to the full extent of congressional
responsibility, for Federal relations with the Indian nations.
and, by 25 U.S.C. 2000:
Congress declares that the Federal Government has the sole
responsibility for the operation and financial support of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs funded school system that it has
established on or near Indian reservations and Indian trust
lands throughout the Nation for Indian children. It is the
policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government's
unique and continuing trust relationship with and
responsibility to the Indian people for the education for the
education of Indian children and for the operation and
financial support of the Bureau of Indian Affairsfunded school
system to work in full cooperation with tribes toward the goal
of ensuring that the programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs-
funded school system are of the highest quality and provide for
the basic elementary and secondary educational needs of Indian
children, including meeting the unique educational and cultural
needs of those children.
This historic trust relationship and the unique status of Indian
tribes far predates any ``diversity, equity and inclusion'' initiatives
and is not a part of any such initiatives. Cherokee Nation v. State of
Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 PET.) 1, 16-17 (1831); Worcester v. State of
Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 PET.) 515, 559- 562 (1832). ``The Indian nations
had always been considered as distinct, independent political
communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed
possessors of the soil. The very term, 'nation,' so generally applied
to them, means `a people distinct from others.'); Williams v. Lee, 358
U.S. 217 (1959) (ruling that the broad principles established in
Worcester v. State of Georgia remain the law but have been modified
``where essential tribal relations were not involved and where the
rights of Indians would not be jeopardized; McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591
U.S. 894, 928-929 (2020) (reaffirming the core holding of Worcester v.
Georgia that Indian tribes are ``distinct political communities having
territorial boundaries'' not subject to ``State jurisdiction and
control'').
IX.
Finally, the current consultation process regarding the funding
reduction (parental choice voucher) concept endorsed in the subject
Executive Order does not satisfy the requirements that must be met for
such a consultation to pass muster per 25 U.S.C. 2011, and the
Executive Branch's own consultation policy issued per Executive Order
13175. These requirements must be construed together. Yankton Sioux
Tribe v. Kempthorne, 442 F. Supp.2d at 783.
Both 7 of the Executive Order and the Dear Tribal Leader Letter
of February 28, 2025 reference the BIE's duty to ``submit a plan [for
implementation of 7 of the Executive Order] describing [the]
mechanisms and the steps that would be necessary to implement them for
the 2025-2026 school year; and, the registration confirmation issued by
the BIE in advance of the consultation calls held March 14, 2025 states
that the intent of that consultation is to provide ``tribes. . . the
meaningful and timely opportunity to review and comment on a draft
plan'' for implementing 7 of the Executive Order, but no such plan
has been provided to the Tribes for their advance review and comment.
Moreover, the Interior Department has not stated whether it intends
the new policy to apply to tribally-controlled schools. That issue was
only posed as a question for further consideration in the March 14,
2025 consultation call.
The Department has also not disclosed how Indian parents' purported
``share'' of federal funding appropriated for and awarded to BIE funded
schools (for educational functions, transportation and O&M functions)
to support their school operations would be calculated or addressed
whether some share of administrative costs (awarded to tribally-
controlled schools per 25 U.S.C. 2008) associated with direct
educational fund would be included in any voucher transfer.
Further, as reiterated in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Kempthorne at 783:
''Consultation'' is defined as ``a process involving the open
discussion and joint deliberation of all options with respect to
potential issues or changes between the Bureau and all interested
parties.'' 25 U.S.C. 2011(b)(2)(A). Interested parties (including
tribes and school officials) shall be given an opportunity.
Here, neither the Executive Order nor the Interior Department have
articulated any rationale for how allowing individual Indian parents
whose children now attend BIE-funded schools to take away a share of
the federal funds awarded to support them to instead support the
operation of private, faith-based or on public charter schools could
even conceivably comply with the statutory commands at 25 U.S.C.
2011(a) and 25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq., which make clear that the Indian
Tribal Governments for the reservation communities in which those
schools are located are to have control over these kind of decisions.
Mandating that individual Indian parents can dictate what schools will
receive federal education funds awarded to BIE-funded schools would be
in flat violation of the statutory rights of the affected tribes to
address those issues, even if the subject statutes would permit any
such diversion.
In short, the Department has done no more than regurgitate the
words of 7 of the subject Executive Order, just restating the
concept there set out. Failing to provide details and/or a concrete
proposed plan for implementing the concept set out in 7 and not
giving Tribes a meaningful opportunity to critique that plan, does not
satisfy the special consultation requirements applicable to proposed
administrative plans or directives that would affect Indian education.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Jewell, 205 F. Supp. 1052 (D.S.D. 2016)
(enjoining implementation of BIE reorganization plan for failure to
comply with tribal consultation requirements); Yankton Sioux Tribe v.
Kempthorne, supra (enjoining implementation of BIE reorganization plan
for failure to comply with tribal consultation requirements); Eight
Northern Indian Pueblos, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 2006 WL 844 3876 (D.N.M.
2006) (enjoining implementation of BIE reorganization plan for failure
to comply with tribal consultation requirements).
X.
Per the Indian Canon of Construction, to the extent there is any
ambiguity in any of the statutes and regulations referenced above, that
ambiguity must be construed in favor of the Indian schools those
statutes were intended to benefit. This Indian Canon of Construction
has its roots in the same historic trust relationship between the
United States and the Indian tribes as reflected in the Indian
education laws addressed above. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians,
471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985) (``Statutes are to be construed liberally in
favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their
benefit''); County of Yakima v. Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251, 269
(1992) (when faced with an ambiguous statute, the court's choice
between ``two possible constructions. . . must be dictated by [this]
principle'); Cherokee Nation v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 467, 478
(2006), (applying the Indian Canon of Construction in interpreting
ambiguities in legislation enacted for the benefit of Indians in favor
or the tribe's reasonable interpretation thereof offered in support of
the Cherokee Nation's legal position in that suit, and entered judgment
in favor of the tribe); Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, 112 F.3d 1456,
1461-62 (10th Cir. 1997) (``[T]he canon of construction favoring Native
Americans controls over the more genera I rule of deference to agency
interpretations of ambiguous statutes''); see also, Ramah Navajo
Chapter v Salazar, 644 F.3d 1054, 1062 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ramah
Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, supra,), aff'd, 567 U.S. 182 (2012). In Lujan,
the Court applied the Indian canon of construction to a question of
statutory interpretation and ruled that where there exist two
reasonable interpretations of a statute enacted for the benefit of
Indians that fact establishes ambiguity and a tribe's reasonable
interpretation of the statute must be accepted over an alternative
federal government interpretation. Id. at 1461-1462.
Conclusion
The Taos Pueblo, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, and the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians respectfully request that the
Secretary advise the White House that there is no available legal
mechanism that could be used to implement any kind of parental choice
voucher plan regarding federal funding appropriated and allocated to
support the operation of BIE funded schools as contemplated in 7 of
the Executive Order.
______
Prepared Statement of Armond Jason Kahawai, Project Director, Keiki
Assets Accounts Program, Partners in Development Foundation
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of
the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the
Keiki Assets Account project operated by Partners in Development
Foundation (PIDF) and in support of programs that provide educational
services to Native Hawaiian communities.
We respectfully urge your continued and robust support for the
Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP), a vital federal initiative
that empowers Native Hawaiian families and improves educational
outcomes in our communities. Among the impactful programs funded by
NHEP is the innovative Keiki Assets Account (KA`A) Program, which
directly addresses financial barriers and educational inequities
intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The evidence-based KA`A program aims to mitigate the adverse
impacts of COVID-19 and other economic hardships by enhancing financial
security, fostering family financial capability, and improving
educational outcomes among Native Hawaiian children and families.
Financial assets are intrinsically linked to educational success;
research consistently demonstrates that household assets positively
influence academic performance, high school graduation rates, and
college attendance. Unfortunately, Native Hawaiian families,
particularly those in asset-limited and income-constrained households,
were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic through heightened
unemployment and economic vulnerability, the effects of which are still
present today.
In collaboration with American Savings Bank, KA`A establishes and
manages savings accounts for children, ages birth to five, enrolled in
early learning programs such as Tutu and Me preschool, Ka Pa`alana
Homeless Family Education, and Na Pono No Na `Ohana Family Education in
Waimanalo. Families involved in early education programs run by our
nonprofit partner, INPEACE, are also eligible to enroll. 1
In 2024, the KA`A program was awarded a second NHEP 3-year grant to
expand to `Aha Punana Leo Hawaiian Immersion preschools, Kamaile
Academy, and Ke Kula `o Samuel Kamakau Public Charter Preschools. The
new grant is still in its first year, and partnerships have been
established with the expansion sites, and with Brandeis University
(KA`A contracted evaluator), a national leader in research on
children's savings account (CSA) programs. Brandeis conducts original
research in the CSA field, tracks the impact of CSA programs, and
translates that work into accessible and useful formats for staff,
policymakers, and funders. Funding cuts for the newly added preschool
programs would truncate growth in financial literacy and positive
saving habits for all KA`A families.
Families receive an initial deposit for their accounts and have the
opportunity to receive matching funds as they participate in a series
of workshops focusing on skills such as managing money, building
savings, protecting income and assets, paying for child care or
preschool, creating financial and educational goals, and saving for a
child's college education. The matching funds are based on a family's
level of participation.
The measurable impacts of the KA`A program include:
Higher Attendance Rates: Children participating in KA`A
achieved significantly higher attendance rates compared to
their peers.
Financial Goal Setting: 100 percent of the 582 caregiver
participants set both savings and individual financial goals
for themselves and their children.
Active Savings Participation: 91 percent of caregivers made
at least one deposit beyond the initial $500 KA`A seed
contribution.
Enhanced Financial Literacy: Families participating in
financial literacy and college preparation workshops showed
significant improvements in financial knowledge and
decisionmaking skills.
Asset Building: Since its inception, KA`A has successfully
created over 998 Child Savings Accounts (CSAs), amassing
$2,602,090 in total assets through seed funds, incentives, and
caregiver deposits.
Additionally, KA`A's comprehensive approach includes training life
coaches and integrating financial literacy into family-child
interaction learning programs, and equipping families with essential
skills and resources to navigate their children's educational journeys
effectively. All KA`A Staff are Certified Financial Social Workers by
the Center for Financial Social Work. This certification is accredited
by the National Association of Social Workers. KA`A's innovative,
culturally grounded model highlights the capacity of NHEP-funded
programs to create enduring positive change in Native Hawaiian
communities.
Sarah K.'s KA`A Story
I am writing to show my support for the KA`A program. I have been a
KA`A program participant since October 2024, and this program has
already been incredibly beneficial to me and my `ohana. It has helped
us build a more consistent routine when it comes to saving for our
keiki's future and learning more about financial well-being.
By incentivizing different financial activities, such as making
quarterly deposits into our keiki's account and attending the online
webinar classes, we're slowly building a habit of talking about money
more regularly and openly, without it feeling awkward or uncomfortable.
While we've only attended one webinar so far, we walked away with
several helpful lessons. One that really stuck with us was the idea of
carving out time in our calendar to regularly talk about finances as a
family. We also learned how valuable it can be to involve our keiki in
financial discussions and decisions in ways that are age-appropriate.
One especially sweet moment was when our keiki received a KA`A
program backpack at school. Inside was his very first piggy bank, along
with books and pretend money we now use to teach him about the value of
saving. He's already showing so much enthusiasm for it, whether he's
counting coins before putting them in, ``feeding the piggy,'' or just
shaking it to hear the clinking sounds. He's totally engaged and
excited.
Another part of the program we've really appreciated is the monthly
check-ins with our coach, Carol. These conversations are a helpful
reminder to pause, check in as an `ohana, and reflect on our current
goals and challenges. Carol is always patient, understanding, and
supportive. She takes time to answer our questions thoughtfully and
often connects us with helpful resources tailored to our needs.
We are so grateful for the opportunities the KA`A program has
provided for us in just a few short months, and we're excited to keep
learning and growing together. It's clear that this program is designed
to support families like ours in meaningful, lasting ways, not just
financially but holistically.
These life-changing impacts have been made possible through the
support of the U.S. Department of Education's Native Hawaiian Education
Program (NHEP). Thanks to the Native Hawaiian Education Act, NHEP
resources help fund KA`A and other programs dedicated to improving the
educational outcomes of Native Hawaiian students. Similar to the
effectiveness of the Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP), which has
improved student success and academic achievement for Alaska Natives,
NHEP funding has produced demonstrably positive outcomes for Native
Hawaiians. Historically, state and private funding alone have been
insufficient to fully address the educational gaps and systemic
challenges faced by these communities.
A 2021 profile analysis of NHEP grantees from 2010 through 2018
reported that in 2017 and 2018 alone, NHEP grants served 98,996
participants, including 77,808 students, 18,429 parents, and 2,759
teachers. All grantee programs targeted Native Hawaiians, with 42
percent focusing on low-income populations. Despite receiving little to
no supplemental funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act via the State, NHEP-funded programs have remained agile
and innovative, providing a continuum of services for students and
their families.
Continued federal support through NHEP is vital for the
sustainability and expansion of transformative initiatives like the
KA`A program. By investing in these culturally responsive, evidence-
based programs, we strengthen families, empower communities, and pave
pathways toward educational success and economic self-sufficiency for
generations to come.
Chase and Daisy's KA`A Story:
We are writing to express our deep gratitude and support for the
KA`A program. It has provided invaluable financial guidance that has
been instrumental in helping us establish an educational fund for our
child's future. As parents, ensuring that our keiki receives the best
possible education has always been a top priority. However,
understanding how to effectively save and plan for that future was a
challenge--until we found KA`A.
The expertise, tools, and support offered through the program
empowered us to take clear, actionable steps toward long-term financial
security. We now feel confident that we can provide our child--and any
future children--with the opportunity to pursue higher education
without the heavy financial burden that many families face today. This
achievement would not have been possible without the critical resources
and compassionate guidance that KA`A has provided.
Beyond saving for education, KA`A has opened the door for our
`ohana to have meaningful conversations about budgeting, saving, and
spending habits. The program has helped us build a solid foundation for
our financial well-being, and the relationship we've formed with our
case manager/life coach has been an essential part of that journey.
Their thoughtful support and encouragement have given us the confidence
and clarity we need to stay on track with our goals.
We are truly grateful for the opportunity to be part of the KA`A
program. The education, resources, and personal support we've received
have made a lasting, positive impact on our lives. We look forward to
continuing this journey and hope that many more families will benefit
from the same life-changing support that KA`A has so generously shared
with ours.
KA`A Impact (SY 2023-24):
KA`A children had a significantly (p<.05) higher attendance
than other students in all three participating FCIL programs.
Less than one percent of adults voluntarily withdrew, except
in unavoidable circumstances (e.g., moving).
All (100 percent) 582 caregivers set savings goals for their
children and individual financial goals for themselves. All
(100 percent) caregivers surveyed at post-test expect their
children to go to college.
Most caregivers (83 percent) attended coaching sessions,
well over the 60 percent target.
Most caregivers (91 percent) made at least one deposit after
the initial $500 KA`A deposit into their Children's Savings
Account (CSA).
Caregivers who participated in financial and college
knowledge workshops demonstrated a significant (p<.05) increase
in knowledge of financial literacy from pre-test to post-test
in all three workshops.
931+ CSAs created to-date with $2,480,618.65 (includes seed
money, incentives, and personal deposits).
5,216 personal deposits made out of family's own pockets,
amounting to $74,228.65.
14 volunteers and FCIL staff completed train the trainer
program. All FCIL programs incorporated financial literacy into
curriculum.
Mahalo nui loa for your ongoing commitment and consideration.
Together, let us ensure that Native Hawaiian families continue to
receive the crucial support they deserve to thrive and succeed.
______
Keiki O Ka Aina Family Learning Centers
4/15/2025
Dear Senator Schatz, Senator Hirono, Representative Case, and
Representative Tokuda:
We write to request your support in protecting and preserving the
Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP). Keiki O Ka Aina has utilized
Native Hawaiian Education Program funding for over 20 years to provide:
Early Childhood Programs
Homevisiting to the most at-risk families
Free preschool
Science Camps
Afterschool Programs, including tutoring and Workforce
Development for SPED students
Agricultural Workforce Development
Literacy Programs and Book Distribution
Leadership classes for elementary school-aged children
Building School classrooms and preschools
Creation of new science-based curricula
Helping teachers learn about social-emotional learning
For over 28 years, Keiki O Ka Aina has successfully served the
needs of Hawaii Families statewide. We have a distinguished record of
establishing trust within the community. Our many programs in the
community have served over 80,000 families since our inception, and
many of them have become employees or have gone on to work at other
community-serving organizations. KOKA has hosted and coordinated large-
scale conferences for providers statewide on parent/child interaction
and reintegration for ex-offenders. It is through these programs that
KOKA has realized their goal to educate children, strengthen families
and enrich communities.
Almost 90 percent of 100 full-time staff are funded by Federal
funds, and these people provide services to over 8000 at-risk families
statewide. These programs include educational programs, childcare
assistance, workforce development, family strengthening, and after-
school tutoring programs. Our staff have received professional
development and training, enabling them to provide the specialized
services these families need to thrive and help children become ready
for kindergarten and lifelong learning. Our Workforce Development
programs are for teachers, agriculture, and special needs populations.
If these programs are taken away, the families that can least afford
these services will be most affected.
To ensure that we and many other organizations in Hawai`i will
continue to access consistent and reliable funding from The Native
Hawaiian Education Program for fiscal years (FY) 2025, 2026, and
beyond, we ask that you:
1. Continue to support programs that have supported our
families and communities, creating a stronger workforce and
successful school outcomes for these families.
2. Appropriate at least $45,897,000 for NHEP for FY 2026
Your leadership in protecting and preserving the Native Hawaiian
Education Program is needed to maintain vital programs that benefit
communities across Hawai?i. We look forward to continuing to work
together on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Momi Akana, CEO
______
Kha'p'o Community School
March 31, 2025
Dear Senator Schatz,
Kha'p'o Community School (KCS), which is a tribally controlled
school of the Santa Clara Pueblo and is located immediately within the
Pueblo, receives about one-quarter of its funding from the Department
of Education (DOE), routed through the Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE).
About one-third of the school's students are students with special
needs, and programs to educate them are funded by DOE (via BIE). These
funds allow KCS to hire specially trained teachers and staff to serve
these students. In addition, the services and accommodations that these
students desperately need are also paid out of Part B of the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). KCS also sets aside
a portion of its funds that it receives as part of the Indian School
Equalization Program (ISEP) to ensure these services are provided. ISEP
is formula funding for Indian schools to help make up for the fact that
they are not supported by local tax revenue, as public schools are. In
short, the students with the most pressing educational needs--students
who require special educational assistance--are the most at risk from
the potential loss of DOE funding.
Respectfully,
Porter Swentzell, Ph.D., Executive Director
______
Nez Perce Tribe
March 26, 2025
Ms. Linda McMahon, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
Mr. Doug Burgum, Secretary,U.S. Department of the Interior
Re: Advancing Educational Outcomes/or Native Children
through the Federal Trust Responsibility
Dear Secretary McMahon and Secretary Burgum:
The Nez Perce Tribe writes to encourage continued engagement in
partnership with your agencies, based on the government-to-government
relationship between tribes and the United States. This unique
political and legal relationship is rooted in inherent sovereignty, the
United States Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and
court decisions.
Tribal Nations share many of the same concerns and priorities about
the future of education in this country. We are eager to work with the
Administration on ensuring each tax dollar spent is effectively and
efficiently by streamlining federal funding mechanisms. However, we
believe this must be fulfilled through the continuation and full
funding of the Bureau of Indian Education and through the continuation
of the programs and funding which currently exist under the Department
of Education to serve Native students across the country.
The federal responsibility for Indian education is rooted in
treaties between the federal government and Tribal Nations, a system
that operates under various statutes and case law. The Bureau of Indian
Education's responsibilities began with the Indian Civilization Act of
1819, were codified as a federal directive in the Snyder Act of 1921,
later revised under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975 and the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
Meanwhile, the trust responsibility to individual Native children
in public schools has been reinforced in federal law since the Johnson-
O'Malley Act of 1934, followed by Public Law 81-874 (1950), Title VI of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Indian
Education Act of 1972. These laws make clear the federal obligation to
protect and provide education for Native students.
In the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988, Congress declared
that ``a national goal of the United States is to provide the
resources, processes, and structure that will enable tribes and local
communities to obtain the quantity and quality of educational services
and opportunities that will permit Indian children--( 1) to compete and
excel in areas of their choice; and (2) to achieve the measure of self-
determination essential to their social and economic well-being.'' We
urge the Administration to stand with us in advancing this goal.
We request that the Administration ensure Tribal programs--both
tribal-specific and tribal inclusive--are not paused as executive
actions are considered and implemented. In recognition of our distinct
political status and trust relationship, we request exemptions from
policies that would negatively impact the federal government's
responsibilities in Indian Country, including those for the greater
purpose of Indian education. These exemptions can be straightforward
such as the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3416,
which protects the ``the statutory authorities, treaty, and/or trust
obligations of the Department and its Bureaus/Offices to Tribal nations
and the Native Hawaiian Community.''
The United States' trust and treaty responsibilities to Indian
Country are mandatory. Indian education is an obligation, not a
discretionary part of the federal budget. Any changes to the
administration of federal education programs must include meaningful
consultation with Tribal Nations and ensure that funding mechanisms
remain intact for the benefit of Native students.
The Nez Perce Tribe looks forward to partnering with the new
Administration. As that process unfolds, we urge the Administration to
protect the unique, political, federal trust relationship between our
sovereign Tribal Nations and the federal government.
Sincerely,
Hon. Shannon F. Wheeler, Chairman
______
White House Initiative on Advancing Education Equity,
Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans,
and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities
January 17, 2024
Dear President Joesph R. Biden,
On October 21, 2021, you signed Executive Order 14049, which
created the White House Initiative on Advancing Education Equity,
Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and
Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities (White House Initiative
for Native Americans and Tribal Colleges and Universities). The White
House Initiative for Native Americans and Tribal Colleges and
Universities, along with three sister White House Initiatives, are
housed at the Department of Education in the Office of the Secretary.
Under section 3(c) of Executive Order 14049, this annual report
submitted to you documents the White House Initiative's activities and
recommendations. It also contains recommendations from the National
Advisory Council on Indian Education, a fifteen-member council
appointed by the President made throughout the years. The Executive
Order also created three co-chairs: the Secretary of Education, Miguel
Cardona; the Secretary of Interior, Deb Haaland; and the Acting
Secretary of Labor, Julie Shu.
As per section (h)(i) of Executive Order 14049, the ``Co-Chairs of
the Initiative shall report to the President the progress in carrying
out its mission and objectives.'' Please consider this annual report
\1\ as fulfilling this section of the Executive Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The White House Initiative for Advancing Educational Equity,
Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and
Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities Annual Report to the
President 2023-2024 has been retained in the Committee files.
Sincerely,
Naomi L. Miguel, MPAP, Executive Director
______
NACA Inspired Schools Network (NISN)
Keeping Dreams Alive: How Federal Funding Supports
Indigenous Education
At the heart of the NACA Inspired Schools Network (NISN) is a
commitment to self-determined education--where Indigenous students see
themselves in their curriculum, hear their languages in the classroom,
and learn from educators rooted in their communities. Over ten years,
NISN has strengthened Indigenous educators, leaders, and Tribes to
build schools that honor culture while achieving academic excellence
for their children. Schools like Dream Dine Charter School in Shiprock,
NM, have redefined education for Navajo students, proving that when
communities lead, students thrive.
When Elvania Toledo (Navajo Nation) first enrolled her daughter in
Kindergarten at Dream Dine, she sought more than just a classroom--she
wanted a learning environment that nurtured her child's identity,
language, and cultural roots. That vision became a reality through the
support of the Accessing Choice in Education (ACE) federal grant. The
ACE grant is crucial in making expanded learning opportunities
available to students, such as traditional Navajo rug weaving, sewing,
storytelling, and hip-hop dance classes. Her daughter is in second
grade and has benefited from ACE programming for two years. Elvania has
seen her child's curiosity about the world grow. ``Mom, I'm from this
small, little town, but I can get into this whole other scene through
dance,'' her daughter shared.
Elvania's daughter is expanding her skill set, and her self-
confidence has flourished. ``With ACE helping her, she now goes up to
community vendors, and I feel like she is confident in speaking her
language to others, being proud of who she is, and connecting.'' For
too long, Indigenous students have been forced into education systems
that erase their identities and fail to serve their unique needs.
Schools like Dream Dine, empowered by federal support, allow Indigenous
communities to reclaim education as a tool for strengthening rather
than assimilation. They enable Indigenous students to learn in
environments that honor who they are and where they come from.
However, with discussions about dismantling the U.S. Department of
Education, the future of out-of-school programming at Dream Dine hangs
in the balance. Without federal funding, Indigenous-led schools could
lose essential resources, limiting access to programs that strengthen
Indigenous students to succeed. The ACE grant is not just about
funding, it's about equity and the right to an education that respects
Indigenous identity. Keeping the Department of Education intact means
ensuring Indigenous students have the resources they need to thrive,
today and for future generations.
[all]