DOCUMENT REAums1ED 209 00BC 012993TITBureau of Indian AffairsSpecial - PDF document

1 DOCUMENT REAums1).ED 209 00BC 012-993.-T
DOCUMENT REAums1).ED 209 00BC 012-993.-TITBureau of Indian Affairs'Special Edupaion'Opportunities for E.;ceptional Children, Youth andAdults: The First Anngal.Report to theDepartment of,*.the Interior..-T..INSTITUTION.Bureau of "Indian Affairs (Dept. of Interior),-Washington., D.C....,.t,-,_,_____SPONS AGENCYDepartment of the Interior, Washington, D.C.A-POE DATE..-Dec480.4\,NOTE:--74p.: Preperedby,the'Bureau of.-IndianAffairs,,Advisory. Committee for ExceptionalChildren.1,,.,*EDRS PRICEMF01/PG03 Plus'Postage..,k-DESCRIPTORSAccessto Education; Advisory Committees;.Alaska.:Natives: *American Indian Education; *AmericanIndians: *EdcitOnal Needs; Educational Philosophy; _ ,Elementary Secondary EducationL *ExceptionalPersons;......,.*Federal Indiai'Relationsbip; Federal Programs.;..Program Development; Program Evaluation; *SpecialEducation; Special Program's1IDENTIFIRRS-*Bureau of Indian Affairs_,-.4 ABSTRACT'..The first annual report (1979) of the 15-memberBureau of 'Indian Affairs (BIA) Advisory Committee for Exceptional,Children ,(ACEC) reflects activities, concerns,and recommendations tothe Department of the 'Interior for providing appropriatespecialized'programs and services for education of the projected 4,506 AmericanIndian and Alas,k4.__Atiive 'exceptional children.Contents include:lettlit.of transmittal to Departmentof,the Inerior; philosophystatement:. names and addresses ai ACEC members; officers and adhocsubcommittee nembers;:ACEC Presidents statement; locatiOns, dates,and summaries of full ACEC meetings; recommendations; andACEC reviewof Department of'theInterior/BIA..FY t979 Annual.Program Plan.Recommendations inbinde: better information for parents;formation ofa Divisioi'of'Exceptional'Education Within the Office of IndianEducation Programs: preserviaetinSeevice training, opportunitiesinspecial education for American Indians And Alaska Natives;_standardized special education regulations for BIA schools.Appendices 1:resent:,BIA projected Wellenber FY 1979 childcount; ACECcharter; names and addresses of special education per'sonnel;U.S.eneral ACcounting Office report entitled, "TheBureau of Indiankffairs Is Slow in Providing Special Education Servicesto AllHa

2 ndicapped Children"; .Department of the-
ndicapped Children"; .Department of the-,Interior reSpUseto U.S.,`General Acconnting'Office report: and Report of The ConsortiumforHandicapped Indian Children.(NEC)f.**********************4*******************e*****************************Reproductions supplied by, EARS are the best tha \can be made**fVfrom the original document..*..*****************.*******************************4******1**************** arAifBUREAU OF IND1AWAFFAIRS SPECIALEDUCATION OPPORTUNITIESFOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN,YOUTH AND ADULTS:THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENTOF THE INTERIORttSCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICEThe ERIC Fa hty has assignedthis docume,0 oto:In our Judgement, this documentis also of interest to the cleating-*houses noted to the right. Indexing should reflect their specialpoints of view.fDts4U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION.CENTER IERIC)IThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or orgenitabon,rigroating isfi Minor changes have been made to Improvereproduction QualityPontrof view or opinions stated in ts document do not necessarily represent official NIEpositron or policy, r41...1.4,41,BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS SPECIAL EDUCATION .OPPORTUNITIES.`...)FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN, YOUTH AND ADULTS:eTHE FIRST ANNUALREPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORo....,iRBureau of Indian Affairs Advisory Committee for Exceptional Children/December 1980i3,eti..,.. o../c.a..-)iL-.._tReproduced at-1t. ao/..o.4.....v8-1. -.800..The Office of Technical Assistance and TrainingDivision of Auxilliary ServicedBrigham City, Utah-..4' 0United State's Department of the InteriorBUREAU OF INDIA/4 AFFAIRSADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENTO: THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY- INDIAN AFFAIRSThe Bureau of Indian Affairs Advisory Committee for Exceptional Children is pleasedto submit itsFirst Annual Report to the. Department of Interioras, required by its charter, reflecting our activities,concerns, and recommenations regarding specia1,education within the ,Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA).Throughout this past year the-Advisory Comulittee,.has aptempted to support cheBureau's efforts toestablish and provide (appropriate specializedprograms fi

3 ndfor.. the eduction of AmericanIndian a
ndfor.. the eduction of AmericanIndian and Alaska Nativej exceptional children, youthd adults. While much remains to beaccomplished in this regard, we look forward to' working with the Department,and the Bureau ofIndian Affairs to assure that all exceptional individuals haveavailable appropriate educationalopportunities.st!Respectfully yours;Terri Kline, ChairpersonAnnual Report SubcommitteeBIA Advisory Committee forExceptional Childrent.iii5( 4,71ILOSOPHY STATEMENTThe Bureau of Indian Affairs Advisory Committee for Exceptional Children believes that all AmericanIndian and Alaska Native exceptional (handicapped* and gifted and talented) children, youth and!adults have a right to- a free appropriate public education. In order to provide for the unique needs ofthese culturally diverse" exceptional individuals, the Committee is dedicated to advocating and ad-vancing improvements in the U. S. Departnient of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs policies,procedurv, administrative organization, plans and funding to assure the availability of comprehensivespecial education and related services.p* handicapped - refers to those individuals by profdssionally qualified, persomiel as being,mentallyretarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visuallyhandicapped, seriously emotionallydistuibed, othopedically impaired, other health, impaired, deaf-blind, multi-handicapped, or as havingspecific learning disabilities, who because of those impairments need special education and relatedservices.*,4444,.6,ives1. 'ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMB1IItS1979 - 1980Mr. Lafe Altaha (White .River Apache)Tribal Council MemberP.O. Box 605Whiteriver, Arizona 85941Ms. Cora Adrews (Red Cliff Chippewa)Parent of Handicapped Child,,P.O. Box 646Ms. Evelyn Gabe (Sioux)Parent Of Handicapped ChildP.O. Box 219McLaughlin, South Dakota 57642Ms. Marilyn J. Gorospe (Acoma)Associate Director of Special EducationAcoma Tribe1000 Indian School Rd. NW, Box 1667Albuquerque, New Mexico 87105Ma.,,Geneva Horsechief (Cherokee)Parent of Handicapped Child.Route 1Meramac, Oklahoma 47015Ms. Cinda 'Lynn Hughes (Kiowa)StudentAnadarko, Public SchoolP.O. Box 455Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005Ms. Theresa KlineDistrict ManagerArizona C

4 ouncil of the Blind,.S.S.& R., Inc., Hom
ouncil of the Blind,.S.S.& R., Inc., Home IndustriesLakellavasu City, Arizona 86403Ms. Deborah LaCounte (Assiniboine)Fort Belknap Community CouncilP.O. Box 249Harlem, Montana 59526Mr. Benjamin Lee (Navajo)Director, Special EducationNavajo Tribe, Division. of EducationP.O. Box 810Window Rock, Arizona 86510-Ms. Francis LeMay (Menominee)President, Board of DirectorsCoalition of Indian Controlled School BoardsP.O. Box. 456Keshena, Wisconsin 54135Ms. Barbara MurphyCoordinator, Special EducationCouer D'Alene Tribal SchoolP.O. Box 62Desmet, Iditlio 83834'MK,: Bruce A. Ramierz (Luiseno/Sioux)Director, American Indian Special')Education Policy Project__The Council for Exceptional Children1920 Association DriveReston, Virginia 22091Ms. Elvina Turner (Eskimo)Parent of Handicapped ChildP.O. Box 205Unakleet, Alaska 99684.Mr. Kenneth Williams (Papago)Administrator,- Papago Special LearningProgramP.O. Box 815'Sells, Arizona 85634Ms. ,Janice'Yerton (Hoopa)Special Education TeacherHoopa Valley High SchoolP.O. Box 1308HoOpa, California 95546 Sr4aBIA Advisory Committee for Exceptional-ChildrenOfficers and Ad Hoc Sub Committees.1979-1980OfficersBruce A. Ramirez - PresidentFrances LeMayriticerPresidentCinda Lynn Hughes - corresponding Secretary1.Annual Report SubcommitteeTerri Kline, ChairpersonMarilyn Gorospe,Franses LeMayKenneth Williams8viawig OrPIUnited States"Department of the InteriorBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENrDuring the rather brief history of special education programs and services within the Bureau of IndianOfffairs (BIA), countless dedicated individuals have attemptedto meet the needs of American Indianand Alaska Native handicapped students. Unfortunately; many of theselreffortswere not supported. ina consistent manner through clearly written policies, administrative support or adequate human andfinancial resources. The result was a "hitor miss" sidtem of educating handicapped children thatdepended primarily upon flowthrough funds from the then Office of Education, Department of Health,Education and Welfare for support.This situation began to improve considerably,in 19whe the united States Congress directed theBIA to allocate from fund

5 s mailable ftachooLeratio$2 million for
s mailable ftachooLeratio$2 million for special education. Also,during this same year, Mr. Rick C. Lavis, If Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,in a public,address at a regional conference on Indian handicappedcen declared that "...the Bureau ofIndian Affairs is cokninitted at the highest levels, to parse vigorously a policy of educatinghandicapped children.V It was also emphasized that the educatn of these children represented theBIA's "number one educational. priority."Since -then, Conand the\Department of theInterior/BIA have respond'ecl to the educational needs of handicappAhcitildren_hy: (1) establishingcategorical special education funding; (2) increasing fiscal suppOrt for the educatioilTot handicappedchildren; (3) creating a Division of Exceptional Education within the Officeof Indian EducationPrograms; (4) employing increased numbers of special education and related services personnel; and(5) publishing proposed special education rules and regulations.'As important as these advances -are, much remains to be accomplished,as indited by the reports .containec within the Appendix of this report, if the 'more than 4,500 handicappedhildr@trmand youthcurrently being provided special education and relatA servicedare to continue to rec ive such services.Nat. to be forgotten are unserved and underserved Indian and Alaska Native han icapped childrenwho have yet to benefit from an appropriate education. As_ the BIA special ed cationprogramcontinues to ,develop, it is important that these programs relfect community inputs.d involvement.To this end, the.Advisory Committee for Exceptional Childrencan serve as a catalystd focal point.While these last severalyears have been marked - by extensive change, the Education Athendments of1978,,P.L. 95-561, and the implementation of the Education for AU/Handicapped ChildrenAct, P.L.94-142, will continue to, haire a profound affect upon BIA, Special education service delivery. sTliesechanges and the vast amount of information associated witthese programs have challenged theCommittee to become well informed and involved in numerous activities and issues. We believe thatinits first. year the Committee has provided a firm fou

6 ndation for carryingout the Committee'sc
ndation for carryingout the Committee'scommitment to work with the Department of Interior/BIA, Indian tribes and organizations, otherfederal and state agencies,- advocacy groups and parents'to seek full and appropriate educationalopportunities for all handicapped children serVecrby the Bureau.Bruce A. RamirezPresident, B(A Advisory Committeefor Exceptional Childrenvii9 *.t-TABLE OFCONTENTS4t..441Letter of Transmittal to the!pepartment.of InteriorPhilosophy StatementivAdvisory Committee Membe,.,v'0L,Officers and Ad Hoc Sub COMmit+4tees'viF-1vii,.President's StatementZ'4i.=INTRODUCTIONi1fr.--,PART I1A'Map -Placesand Dates of Full Advisory Committee Meeting5B Summaries of Full Advisory Committee Meetings.6PART II\,A Recommendations\,?-.11B AcfiriSory Committee Review of the Department of the Interior/BIA FY 1979.Annual Program Plan....r13'.,4.44APPENDICES,.A BIA Projected December FY 1879 Child Count23B Charter!25C Division of Exceptional Education, Office of Indian Iducation Programs and Area Office-Special Education Pereohnel`.v27D U.S. General Accounting Office. Report "The Bureau of Indian Affairs is Slow in ProvidingSpecial Education Services to Alldicapped Children",'29E U.S. Departnientji the Interior RespOnse to the U.S. General AccOunting OfficeReport45F Report of The ConSortium for Handicapped Indian Children: A Report444444o53 ,eINTRODUCTION.,,, \In July, 1979, Secretary of the Inthrior eit D. Andrus, appointed fifteen (15) individuals to theBureau of Indian Affairs Advisory Compitfor Exceptional Children. The newly created committeewas formed as a result of a provision of theucation for All Handieapped Children Act1975, P.L.94-142, which requires states and other jurischc ions receiving financial assistant under this Act tohavean advisory.panel on the education of handicapped children appointed by the 'Governoror othergovernmental official authorized under law to make-such appointments.IDuties.,The committee ha been charter(see Appendix) in accordance with the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct, P.L. 92-463, ais presentlthe only sticli advisory group within the Department related toIndian Education. The uties of th committee are to-.Comment publicly on the BIA An

7 ual Pram Platy,Comment on proposed regu
ual Pram Platy,Comment on proposed regulations and the procedures for the distribution_of funds;-,4.'.:.Advise the Secretary of the Interiorthrough the Assistafit Secretary of Indian Affairs ofunmetneeds in the education of Indian or Alaska Native handicapped children; and-_.-Assist in developing and reporting such information as may help BIAserve Indian or Alaska Na-tive handicapped children.Membership1.The Advisory Committee is composed of individuals concerned with and/or involVed in BIA specialeducation programs and services and includes the following kinds ofpersona. handicapped individuals,parents of himdicapped children, teachers and adminstrators of special educationprograms and localschool officials In addition to profespional, consume,r,and tribajAiversity the committee is reflective cifthe administrative organization of the Bureau as wellas the// ",national"nature of its school system.Accordingly, each member was selected to represent the concerns too the entire' systemor a given AreaOffice as indicated below:.,..-.,Advisory..Area Office-'Committee embersAberdeenr,---.Ms. Everyn GabeAlbuquerque)Ms. Marilyn Groospe,AnadarkoMs.,dirida Lynn HughesBillingsM. Debrorab LaCounte...,EasternMs. Terega L. Kline,.JuneauMs. Elvina.TurnerM. neap° is...---11,,,,,._.Ms. Cora AndrewsT-.`,,I.MuskogeeMs. Geneva .HorsechiefNavajoMr. tenjamin Lee---'PhoenixMr. Kenneth WilliamsPortlandcMs. Barbara MurphySacrtfmentoi'Ms. Janice YertonAt-LargeMs. Frances LeMayAt-LargeMr. Lafe Altaha,,AtLargeMr. Bruce Ramirez.,A,3Each,,member of the, committee serves for a three :year period with five membersreplaced each year(see summary of Washington, D.C. meeting for committee membersterms of office)....o.,1 .11,N 1,ssAnnual RipOrtIn addition to its other duties the committee is required to report by July 1 of each year Concerningits activities and suggestions to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.Other Activities,°The Advisory uommittee is required to meetbat least three times a year and it has beep the position ofthe zommittee that these meetings should be held-where possible at different location& throughout the!Bureau to allow for maximuin input from those in different regions, be

8 sides 'regularly scheduledmeetings commi
sides 'regularly scheduledmeetings committee members attend and, participate in a wide variety of meetings and conferencesconcerned with .the education of handicapped children, youth and adults Ilirnughout the BIA, as wellj as similar activities concerned by 'other federal and state rides and Indian tribes and organizations.e to obtain more information-Those interested in obtaining more information about 'Advisory Committee activities or41,wishing tobring a concern and/or recommendations to the Committee's attention tail do.io by contacting any ofthe officers or members directly or at the following address:cBureau of Indian Affairs AdvisoryCommittee for ,Exceptional ChildrenU.S. Departmen.of the Interior,*Office of Indian Education ProgranisCode 507(18th and C Streets, N.W.tWashington, D.C. 20240.SY-fi°OA.00$Co12s-1 197940 BIA ADVISORYCOMMITTEE FOR EXCEPTIONALCHILDREN [ACECJ MEETINGSA4Washington, D.C.Salt Lake City, UtahPhoenix, ArizonaAlbuquerque, New MexicoI he previous numbered page Inthe originsl document was blank.July 10-11, 1979August 22 -23;1979October 26.27, 1979January 25.26, 19796 tWashington,The first official meeting of the BIA, AdvisoryCommittee for Exceptional Children was held attheHoward Johnson Inn, Crystal City, Virginia,Jut), 10-11, 1979.In addition to meeting with Dr. Kathleen Brady andthe staff of the Division of ExceptionalEducation the Committee vitas_ addressed by Mr. Rick Levis, DeputyAssistant Secretary for IndianAffairs. Ms..Mary Howard, Department of the InteriorCommittee Management Offices and Mr.EarlBarlow, Director 'of the Bureau' Office of Indian EducationPrograms. 'Other individuals makingpresentations to the Committee included Mr. Martin Gerry, aconsulting attorney to the Division ofExceptional Education, who was reviewing P.L.96.561 in terms of its special education implicationsand Dr. Charles Cordova, State Plan Officer, 'Bureau ofEducation for the Handicapped, U.S.Department of Health, Education and Welfare, who explainedapplicable provisions of P.L.:94-142,The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, and the annual programplan p/r6cess. Mr. Rohi?ulJohnson and Mr. Manny Moran of the Indian Health Serviceaccompanied by Governor

9 Floyd Correaand Victor Sarracino of the
Floyd Correaand Victor Sarracino of the Pueblo de Laguna and Mr. DelfinLavato of the All Indian Pueblo Council,also made a presentation about the Indian Childrens' Village program.The Committee also elected officers and determined the following termsof office for each of thecommittee members.Summaries of Full Advisory Committee forExceptional Children (ACEC) Meetings14,One-Year, TermMarilyn GorospeTerri KlineFrances LeMayBarbara MurphyBruce RamirezThree-Year TermEvelyn Gabe'Deborah LaCounteElvina TurnerKenneth WilliamsJanice YertonTwo-Year Term`Lafe AltahaCora AndrewsGeneva HorsechiefCinda Lynn HughesBenjamin LeeThe Committee also discussed a wide varietfoforganizational details and made tentative plans forfuture meetings..Salt Lake City, UtahThe second meeting of the ACECwaslheld at the Ramada Inn, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 22-23,1979.The primasryurpose of this meeting was to meetwith all of the Bureau Area Office SpecialEducationInd,nd, toreview,and_ comment on the Department of theInterior/BIA FY 1979 AnnualProgram Plan, required for fundie under Part B of theEducation-of thelandicapped Act as amendedby PL.,94-142.6 101Special Education coordinators making- presentations about the availability of special educationservices within each Area Office included: Mr. Bruce PrayAberdeen Area, Ms, Ann Crawley-Albuquerque Area, Ms. Judy Connywerdy . Anadarko Area, Ms. Noel Malone-Eastern :Area, Mr.Charles Christian - Juneau Area, Mr. Dick Wolfe- Minneapolis Area,, Mr. Tom Patterson, MuskogeeArda, Mr. Nornian WilcoxNavajo Area, Roselle LawrencePhoenix Area and Mr. Al Ledford -Portland Area. Additional presentationswere given by Mr. Pray, regarding and development of ascreening instrument for use by BIA schools and Ms. Crawley, who providedan update on the"Indian Children's Program". Dr. Brady, Acting Chief, Division of-Exceptional Education, alsometwith the Committee to discuss the difficulties of employing special education personnel, the inaccuracyofthe tentativeallotments, and thequestionofthecontinuationofthespeCialeducationadministrative unit as a seperate division (see recommendation.After reviewing and commenting on the Annual Program Plan (see reconunendatiora), t

10 he Committeeformed an Ad Hoc subcommitte
he Committeeformed an Ad Hoc subcommitte to develop and complete the CommitteesAnnual Report to theSecretary of the Interior. Benjamin Lee volunteered to drafta philosophy statement for considerationby the full committee The Committee discussednumerous organizational details including., futpremeetings, notice to the Indian Educationand special education groups and organizations prioro eachmeeting, agenda items and the development of mailing lists. The Committeealso reviewed anddeveloped recommendations concerning the publication entitled PublicLaw 94-142: A Manual forParents of Handicapped Children (see recommendations).Phoenix, Arizona2The third meeting of the ACEC was held at the Los Olivos Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona, October 26-27,1979.Dr. Brady, Acting Chief,-Division of Exceptional Education addressed theCommittee and.reviewedthe budgeting systems for 3100 and P.L. 94-142 special education funds, the Bureau'sresponse to theU.S. General Accounting Office Report.Mr. Carlyle Cuellor and Mr. Warren Joseph also addressed the Committeeconcerning theIndian School Equaliziation Program (ISEP). Mr. Pete Soto, AssistantArea Director ahLallience, Special Education Coordinatorof the Phoenix Area Office provided the Cornoverview of BIA special education services within Arizona, Utah and Nevada. Agenceducation coordinators addressing the committee included: Ms: Sylvia Wimmer (PapagoMs. Norma Wolfslaw(Salt River Agency) accompanied by Mr. Mike, Roberts.Wieizkiewicz, Program Specialist for the Washing SchoolDistrict in Phoenix, Mr. JerrySchool 'for the Deaf and Blind and Ms. Gail Harris, Coordinator ofAmerican IndiaTraining in Speech Pathology and Audlolo y Program presented overviews of theirprogr'tatus of theMs. Rosellettee with anlevel specialAgency) andMs. Helenkee, ArizonarProfessionalams.In addition to attending to numerous organizational matters, the Committee formeda work group tostudy the U.S. General Accounting, Office Repost and suggest recommendations.The Annual ReportSubcommittee continued to make plans for the preparation of the annualreport.Albuquerque, New MexicoThe fourth meeting of the ACEC was held at the Sheraton Old Town Hotel inAlbuquerque, NewMexico; Janua

11 ry 25.26, 1980.Prior to the meeting seve
ry 25.26, 1980.Prior to the meeting several members of the committee visited the special educationprogram at SkyCity Community Seiko] and the Acoma Early Childhood Development Program,a tribal program that"served very young handicapped children.'1C ul+10'IAt--I5r. Charles Cordova the first director with a permanent status of the Division of ExceptionalEducation met with, .the Comrn' ittee concerning numerous BIA special education matters includingApecial education regulations, the FY 1980 Annual Program Plan and pre-school handicapped children.In addition to providingan overview of spebial educition service delivery within the AlbuquerqueArea Office Ms. Ann Crawley discussed the status of the IHS/BIA Indian Children'sProgram pilotproject. Other individuals making presentations included Mr. Victor Sarracino, Director, LagunaTribal Education Division and Ms. Carol Baker, Office of Indian Education Programs, who gave an indepth presentation of the ISEP.Mr. Bruce Ramirez and Ms.A.Marily'n Goroape of the Advisory Committee also made presentationsMr.Ramirez distributed and discussed products developed by the American Indian Special EducationPolicy (AISEP) Project of the Council for Exceptional Children. Ms. Gorospe provided an accountofsome of the difficulties she had experienced in securing full and appropriateservicesfor herhandicapped child atlas local BIA day school.After taking care of organizational matters the Committee received reports from subcommittees andwork groups. Concern was expressed by the Committee on a number of matters including the U.S.General Accounting Office Report, the lack of Division of Exceptional Education involvement with 'thework of P.L. 95-561 Standards Task Force, certain provisions of the ISEP that appears to negativelyimpact upon the special education program, training opportunities for Indians and Alaska Natives,interested in careers in special education and related services areas; the IHS/BIA Indian Children'sProgram pilo4 study', and the negative impac that late travel authorizations and' reimbursements werehaVing on the Committee (see recom eOther Activities and Planninefirk MeegsSeveral Advisory Committee members attended the )3IA Sp

12 ecial Education Coordinators in serviceT
ecial Education Coordinators in serviceTraining Meeting in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, May 21-23, 1980. In addition to taking part, in thevarious training sessions, committee members participated in a working session concerned with.organizational matters and staff support from OIEP Pfior to the meeting members of the Comniitteereceived copies of the National Association of &lite Boards of Education and Indian( EducationTraining, Inc. publication entitled The Consortium for Indian Handicapped Children: A Report. Thereport is a result of a series of 'nationwide meetings held in 1978 and attended by state and federaleducation personnel, representatives of Indian tribes and advocates. Because some of the concerns and,recommendations detailed in the report relate to BIA education the summary has been included in theappendix its reference.A-fifth meeting of the full Advisory Committee was scheduled at the Holiday Inn (next to DullesInternationalAirpost),Sterling, Virginia, June 26-28,1480.Dr. Cordova,Chief, DivisionforExceptional Education presented a briefing 'on BIA special education programs and activities andpresented each of the members of the Advisory. Committee with a copy of National GeographicSociety's The World of the American Indian, in appreciation for their efforts during the past year..Additional presentations were made by Ms. Mary Howard; Department Committee ManagementOfficer, U.S., Department of the Interior regarding the selection process for the ACEC members. Ms.NoerMalone, Special Education Coordinator, Eastern Area Office regarding the scope of SpecialEducation programs within her area; Dr. Ray Meyers, State Plan Off cer, Office of Special Educationaccompanieeby Mr. Mike Ward, Education Program Speciagarding the Annual Program Planapproval process/administrative reviews, And Ms. Linda Moore,. Officeof SPED and RehabilitativeServices concerning the "Indian Initiative" within the Department of Education.Committee 'actions consisted of numerous organizational details with much emphasis on finalizingtirinnal report and philosophy statement.17 %Os4'PART IIRECOMMENDATIONSANDrREVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR/BIA FY 1979ANNUAL, PROGRAM' PLAN:A09.1Se REC

13 OMMENDATIONSNEED FOR PARENT INFORMATION:
OMMENDATIONSNEED FOR PARENT INFORMATION: At the request of the Division of Exceptional Education, theAdvisory Committee reviewed a manual, ie. Public Law 94-142: A Manual for Parents of HaidicappedIndian Children, developed by the Sacramento Area Office for parents of Indian handicapped children.While the committee has some concerns about the accuracy and suitability of thisparticulardocument, there is a critical need for such information. It was unanimously recommended that theBIA develop and disseminate a more concise and straightforward handbook or brochure on the rightsof Indian and Alaska Native handicapped children and their parents. To insure its appropriateness, itwas also unanimously agreed Fiat a working advisory group composed of Indian parents ofhandicapped'children be formed to assist in the development of the document.PLACEMENT OF ,THE DIVISION OF EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATION WITHIN OIEP: In 'the pastthe lack ofDiyision of Exceptional gducation has impeded attempts to develop and implementcomprehensive special education services for Indian and Alaska Native exceptional students. For thisreason the Advisory Committee is in strong support of theestablishmenti and full staffing of theDivision of Exceptional Education within the Office of Indian Education P4rams. Becaus'n-oLthetoo frequent reorganizations within the BIA that could affect this permanent division, the AdvisoryCommittee would expect to be informed and consulted about any anticipated move within the BIAand DOI. that would alter the present status of the Division.eSPECIAL EDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES TRAINING' OPPORTUNITIES FORINDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES: In view of Indian Self-determination, Indian PreferenceSection 1135 of P,L. 95-561, it is recommended that the Division of Exceptional Educationthe-"Office of Indian Education Programs, develop plans and implement procedures to provide pre-serviceand in-service training opportunities for American Indian and Alaska native individuals seekingprofessional training including certification/licensure in Special Education and related services areas.It is, urther recommended that this training be undertaken where appropriate din conjunction withother agencie

14 s within the Depaitment of Education, th
s within the Depaitment of Education, the Department of the Interior and theDepartment of Health and Hikman Services.4rc.GAO REPORT AND THE NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONItULESAND REGULATIONS:During the Phoenix, Arizona meeting, the Advisory Committee for Exceptional Children discussed theSeptember, 1979 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) repbrt entitled The Bureau of Indian Affairsis slow in Providing Special sEducation Services to All Handicapped Indian Children. While theAdvisory Committe received a rather detailed explanation from the Division of Exceptional Educationregarding the fairness of this repoit, the committee feels that the problems noted in the, report need tqbe addressed in a straightforward and timely manner.Foremost among the'GAO finding was the lack of policies for providing special education'serviles toAmerican Indian and Alaska native handicapped Indian children and youth. In view oche difficultiesthat areeing encountered with the implementation of Education for All Handicapped Children Act of1975. P.94-142, there appears to be an ever-present need for special education rules and regulationsthroug out the Bureau school system. The absence of- such provisions'makes it impossible forhandicapped students and their parents to hold t'he Bureau accountable for providing appropriatespecial education and related services. For these rea4ons, the Advisory Committee urges the AssistantSecretary for Indian Affairs and the Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs to proposeand adopt rules and regulations to govern the provision of special-education and related services tohandicapped children for the 1980-81 school year in consultation with tribes, school personnel, schoolboards, parents of handicapped children, advocates and others concerned about the education ofIndian and Alaska Native handicapped children.The Precinct numbered page Inthe original document was blank. 9..a'aBIA/IHS INDIAN CHILDREN'S PROGRAM PILOT STUDY: During the past year (1979-801 thecommittee was reqtiested to 'make recommendations concerning the BIA/IHS Indian Children'sPi.ogram pilot. study. While the committee has yet to receive the results of this study, severalindividuals e

15 xpressed their concern to the committee
xpressed their concern to the committee about the need for better cooperation fit'om BI/),education, BIA Social Services and.,IHS. Iny norder to maximize resources and insure delivery ofServices in other agencies it is urged that these agencies develop and adopt plans for the coordinationof services-to.exceptional individuals.INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM FORMUL A: During the Albuquerque, NewMexico theeting,. the Advisory COmmittee for Exceptional children discussed the Indian SchoolEqualization Program with Ms.*Carol Baker of the Office of Indian Education Programs. In particular,it was pointed out that there' was a, provision within the 1.491Eileeional Financial Plan regulations(31h.621d) of Subpart E) that allows schoolsko plan to expand as much as 20.percent of the funds)generated for handicapped students for specianducation, it is conceivable that as much as $1.4 millioncould be used for other purposes based on a total special education appropriation of $7 million.It appears that this provision sanctions the practice of using funds generated by handicapped studentswith special learning needs for some other purpose. It also appears that handicapped children arebeing discriminated against since, no other group of children with special needs is being similarlytreated."In view cf the fiscal and other demands facing local schools, tit is all too likely that the handicappedmay not be the benefactors of fiends generates to meet their special needs, This is precisely the kind ofproblem that has undermined programs for the handicapped over the years. For these reasons, theAdvisory Committee urges the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the Director of the Office ofIndian Education Programs to amend this particular regulation to require that 100% of the fundsgentrated by the formula for the education of handicapped students be expended for special educationand related services.EDUCATION STANDARDS AND PROPOSED SPECIAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: theOffice of Indian Education Programs is developing and adopting Education Standards for theeducation of American Indian and Alaska Native students. lit the same time, .the Dividion ofExceptional .Education is preparing pro

16 posed. rules and regulations for Swcial
posed. rules and regulations for Swcial Education. TheAdvisory Committee is concerned,that there appeats to be little coordination of these two activities.'To minmize confusion and conflict in the development, adopticT and imptlementation of these policies,it is recommended that the Educatian. Standards incorporate, where appropriate, Special Educationpolicies,,NEED FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO RECEIVE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATIONS ANDREIMBURSEMENTS IN A TIMELY FASHION: Unfortunately, the Advisory Committee has hadless than complete participation from several members, which many members believe is largelyattributable to the lack of coordination and support from the Central Office'. Many of the memberscannot afford to finance their travel to the meetings unless they have received travel' reimbursementsfrom the previous meetings. The reimbursements, therefore, must bey submitted and received on a moretimely basis. The travel authorizations along with the prepa' tickets should also be sent out, so thatmembers are in receipt of them in sufficient time to make arrangements to attend the meeting. Travelauthorizations should also cover a period that will allow Members adequate time to make it to themeeting and to return home taking into account some of the unicOe circumstances of some of themembers relative to remote areas and familiar commitments. The Aavisory Committee recommendsthat these areas receive immediate attention. By ad ressing these concerns, itis hoped that thecommittee members woutd be more responsive in terms otheir participation in Advisory Committeeactivities.1I12.204 Commented the:BIA Advisory Committee for Exceptional Children.Respecting the.,BIA/Departmentof the Interior FY 79 Annual Program Plan AinendmentRevisedfor Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Actas amended by P.L. 94-142.-"- Noyember 23, 1979.I. GENERAL COMMENTSWe recommend that the following be changed throughout the Annual ProgramPlan (APP):1. That American_ Indian or 'Indian be used in all instances where "native" is used.This would bemore consistent with current BIA.policy and terminology..-2. That all references to days mean consecutiWdays rather than school days.This is not diear in theAPP, a

17 nd could be a source of confusion inot c
nd could be a source of confusion inot clarified.3. That LEA not be- used interchangeably to refer to Area Offices fogency Office,or loal school,. Wehave noted instances in our specific comments where distinctionsare called for, howaer;there areundoubtedly other instances that May require clarification.4. That some consideration 'be given to havinga definitions sectionsothat commonly used. termscould be explained. This would be particularly helpful to those uffamiliarwith many of the specialeducation and BIA terms.jII. SPECIAJCOMMENTSSection I,. Public Notice and' Opportunity for CommentIn view of the lack of public input that is being accorded the AnnualProgram Plan (APP), theAdvisory Committee recommends the following clugiges in this4section. First, the' Committeesupport'sthe efforts of the BIA Office of Indian EduCation,Programs to make the APP availableto tAgencyOffices in addition to the Area Offices. The Committee believes that itis unrealistic to expectinterested individuals to travel'-the Area Office, which is often located in another state,to reviewthe. APP.lJ.Second, the APP (p.4) indicates that a hedifig will be held in order'to obtain more pubic input. Inmost .instances, the hearings are held at the Area Office, however, these officersare not readilyaccessible to all those within the-boundaries of the Area. For thisreason, the Advisory Committeerecommends that public hearings be^conducted at the Agency Office levelto encourage greater publicparticipation.,sThird, it is stilted (p.4) that letters will be sent to all Bureau operatedand con tracted school officials,heads of Bureau operated programs' for the handicapped andparent organizations concerning thehearing and opportunity for review and comment. In addition,we would, recommend that theOffice and /or BIA Office of Indian Fducatian Programs also provide noticesto tribal governing bodiesand/or tribal education committees, and where appropriate,. to tribaleducation agencies..We would further suggest that the notices sent to BIA operated and Contrachools be posted in a-public place stfiat others will have an opportunity to,be informed aboutthe AWe *ould also like4": to suggest,that the Area Offi = 'maint

18 ain a listing of the parent organization
ain a listing of the parent organizations that are annuallyprovided anotice of the availdity of the APP.Fourth, while it is'indithat h'earings will be held, there appears to be much variability in howthis activity is carried ut: In order to bring about consistency to the conduct of th6 hearings, it isrecommended that the BIA -Office of Indian Education Programs develop procedures or guidelines,including the availabili i,of translators, regarg this most important activity.Fifth, it is stated that commentvimay be subrnitted,:toAhe Area Office and/or Central Office for reviewand action. Unfortunately; the APP does not kdentifran official by name and position. aildress orphone number, so that interested individuals are aware of the individual to, whom they can siddressitheir comments and at the same time 'expect a response. In this regard, we ,wotild reEommeAd thatsuch information be specified within the APP.Section h, Right to Education Policy StatementThis section states that alluhandieapped Indian children ages 3 through 21 enrolled in or eligible forenrollment in BIoperated, contract or cooperative schbols have ,"the right to a free, appropriatepublic education."ecause the right to education policy statement is qualified by "enrolled in oreligible for enrollment", the Advisory Committee feels that-these phrases nto be defined so thatit is clear who is eligib e to receive services. In view of the various age fas served by most BIAschools, there also seems to be some question regarding the availability of such ervices to children 3-5and 19-21. h4 this regard, it is recommended. the ages at ;which' children are to be provided services beclarified.It is also indicated that the BIA right to education polity has been mandated by the AssistantSecretary for Indian Affairs and applies to both education and social services. Since the policystatement, i.e.?, federal law, regulation, IAM or BIAM 4clanual, etc., may clarify the concerns raisedabove, the Advisory Cpmmittee recommends that the policy statement be included as a part of the''APP.is section also, states that the Indian Health Service (IRS) is not subject to the Assistantretary's policy statement In-view of the pilot p

19 roject being undertaken by BIA and IHS,
roject being undertaken by BIA and IHS, it isrecommended that BIA assure that such diagnostic services compjy with the requirements of P.L.94-142.This section further states that handicapped children have "a right di a. free, appropriate public.education." While a definition or "free" is provided, no definition is prOvided for "appropriate publiceducation." It is recommendedat'propriate public education be defined to emphasize specialeducation and related services.It is also unclear what rights Indian handicapped children who are ,not enrolled in a BIA school andwho are out of school have under the APP. Again, it is hoped that the policy statement would clarifythe rights of such children, however, if this is not the case, it is suggested that thespecify therights of these children.Section III, Full Education Opportunities Goal and TimelinlsThis section includes information about program ,accessibility. It is further indicated that the Divisionof School Facilities conducted an accessibility study and that funds have been requested based onchariges recommended in the survey. The Advisory Committee would like to request a copy of thecompleted report, and would furthef recommend that the amount 0 funding annually requested andthe kinds of modifications by specific location be, included in the APP.11422 4Section IV, Policies on PrioritiesThe second paragraph of this section indicates that arrangements will be made immediately to provideneeded services when a handicapped child is found to be receiving an inadequate edtication. It isrecommended that this sentence be changed to make it Llear that "it shall be the responsibility of theBIA operated or contracted school to provide special education and related services whenahandicappedlchild,is foundto be receiving an inadequate education."Sectiorl V, Child Identificatidn..The first paragraph specifies that "all handicapped native children birth through 21 ..within thejurisdiction of the Bureau...shall be idjntified, located and evaluated." In Flew of thewidespread confusion concerning the geographic areas where the BIA will conducf child identificationactivities, it }s recommended that "within the jurisdiction of the Bureau" b

20 e clarifiedso that parents,educators and
e clarifiedso that parents,educators and tribal official; understand BIA child identification responsibilities.,The third paragraph of this section specifies who is included in'the annual child find conducted byeach Area Office. Again, discugsion centered on the need for clarification concerning whether thisrequirement also includes BIA contract schools. It. is also suggested that "within the jurisdiction ofthe Area" be defined. Does this refer to educational jurisditionor a more general jurisdiction?The first paragraph on page 15 indicates that Area Offices presently not havingagreements will begincontacting states to delineate each's respective child find activities. Rather than merely contact states,we would recommend that Area Office meet with states aridevp written agreements concerningeach's child find duties. Moreover, the Advisory Committee afterscussing the various educationalagencies involved in serving Indian communities, would suggest tha statement be added indicatingthat Area Offices will cooperate with public schools and Head Startprogrtims in conducting their, childidentification activities.Section VI) Individualized Education ProgramThe first paragraph of this section indicates' that each local educationagency (LEA) will develop an'individualized education program (IEP) -for each handicapped child receiving special education and'related services. Upon inquiry, the Committee was informed that LEA is used interchangeably to referto the Area Office, Agency Office, or the local school. In view of the changes being brought aboutas aresult of P.L. 95.561 and the clarification from BIA staff that itwas their intent that the developmentof the IEP was to be the responsibility of the local school,we would recommend that LEA be deletedand local school inserted./Statement' No: 4 of this section mentions, an IEPpi)anningconference. The word "planninglwas foundto be confusing since this would seem to indicate that another meeting would follow to deVelop theIEP. Rather than refer to the meeting as a planning conference, it is suggested that the word"planning" be deleted in provisions No. 4 and 5.Statement No. 12 states that the Area Office will develop. and maintain

21 an IEP for handicappedchildren placed in
an IEP for handicappedchildren placed in or referred to a private school/facility by the BIA. This section is confusing,particularly since "BIA" is not more specifically defined. It would appear thatan artificial distinction.is being made between kids who may require placement in a private school facility and those whoseneeds can be met by the local school. Unless the Bureau can provide a clarification of the section,werecommend that the local school maintain' this respdnsibility. If need be, the local school could requestassigtance Worn the Area Office, however, it has a responsibility to Provide an appropriate education to,all idenifigd identified handicapped uuldren 'regardless of the severity of their handlcapping condition..1523012 ye`C.4kStatement No. 13 makes reference to "a representative of the Bureau" being present atmeetrngs topreview the IEP of.a child placed in a private school/facility. Inkeeping with our previous suggestion,it is recommended that the Bureau representative be specified to be an individualfrom the localschool..eN\indicatesStatement No. 14, mdicates that for children' placed' or referred to private schools by theBureau,compliance with IEP requirements remains with the Bureau. Since the Bureau is composed of manydifferent offices and levels, we feel that conitrliaace by "the Bureau" needs to beclarified".Section VII, Profedsionai SafeguardsPThe Advisory committee discussed at somelength the question of under what conditions, i.e.,' age,marital ,status; etc., a student can request a hearing on his/her own initiative (Statement'No C-1).This appeared.be unclear and we suggest that these conditions be clarified and, Set forth intheA P,,-Statement No, C-9 of this section states that due process hearing procedures will follow the hearingprocedures bsiablished by 45 C.F.R. 80.9. Since these procedures are not specified in the presentplap.L___we suggesttkat these procedures be inclutd in the Appendix of the APP..Statement No. Gotussfts the child's status during the hearing procedures. The second paragraphmakes referenceadmission to "public 'scifF61." We suggest that "public school" bechanged�to BIAoperated, contracted or cooperative/schools

22 .Statement No. D.1 specifies that the pa
.Statement No. D.1 specifies that the parent has a right. to an independent educationalevaluation, at"public extiense." Since the APP applies to the BIA, it is suggested that it, §It' specified that"publicexpense" means ategense of BIA.Statkrnent No. D4dicethat, whenever a local school pays for an independenteducationalevaluation, the criteria,on and qualifications of the examiner mustbe the same as the criteriaused when t e local schitiates an evaluation.ThiCommittee is concerned that use of the word"same'"' is t o restrictive and suggests that "cohiparable" be used instead.Statement Na. E-1 sets forth the conditions under which a surrogate parent will be assigned. Whileititinot mentioned, the Advisory Committee would like to know if there, is consideration given to thechild's wishes or preferences in the assignment of the surrogate. This same paragraph furtherindicates_that a representative selected by the parent may participatein the IEP meeting at thediscretion of theparent. Is there an age at which a student has'discretion in 'selecting a, representative to attend theIEP conference?Statement No. F-4 under Access Ito Records mentions "participating, education agency." Itissuggested that this term be Alined to include all types of Bureau schools and/or Area and Agency;Offices if applicable.During 'the. course of our discussion of the Confidentiality section, the AdvisoryCommittee wasinformed that in instances where 'Psychological services are contracted, the individualpsychological ',report is maintained at the Area or Agency and a copy is sent to the localschool.' In vier: of the needto maintain the confidentiality of such records, it is recommended that theindividual lt vtfluationreports be maintained at the local schOol and that a certified statementattesting to the completedreport be kept at the Area or Agency Office for purposes of maintaining contractingrecords.919:162 4 ISection VIII, Least Restrictive Environment4-Statement No. 4 indicates that the responsible &ea* Office must provide'orarrange for the provision'of alternative placement settings in Appendix F. In keeping withour previous recommendations, it issuggested that this be a responsibility of the

23 local school. Again, theArea Office can
local school. Again, theArea Office can provideassistance if needed.de.Statement. No. 5 indicates, that "placementas close as possible to the child's home" shall beinterpreted to mean "as close as possible among those appropriate educationprograms operated,dirL.ctly or indirectly,-by the Department of theInterior." It is recommended that this phrase berestated so that the test (closeness is not the nearest BIA operated, contracted or cooperativeschool, but rather the closest appropriate`program whether that be Bureau or non-Bureau.. Forexampl, if the_palelts_gree, a handicapped child could boardat a BIA school and attend a _nearbypublic school rather ehan attend another BIA school.- ISection IX, Protections inEvaluation Procedures-,Statement No. A-1 states thatno single test or type of test will be used as sole criterion fordetermination of placerbent. In, view of the fat--that theIEP determines placement, it is suggestedthat this statement refer toa determination thgt the child is handicapped and in need of specialeducatiorr and related services.-Statement No. A-3 indicates that eValuationsmust be made by individuals .expert in the area of thesuspected disability. It is recommended that "expert" be changed tocertifiecr personnelmeeting staterequirements" to ensure that qualified individuttlsare completing the evaluations.,.,.StatementsAit-4issntaottesfeatshiabtle 't'eevdaleuaeteirHmowateevriearisnowwilhierbeeis itinmeinisntiornedinthatht eachild'sdeterminatione11 be made of the child's native language. If this isnot done prior to conducting the evaulation, theBau may be administering tests in the-native Janguage when it is inappropriate to do so. Of course,the opposite could also be true. For thesereasons, it is recommended that the net* Or, primarylanguage of the student be determined prior to conducting the evaluation.2.,Section X, Comprehensive System of Personnel Development./The Advisory Committee was informed that this sectionor parts of the section were developed almosta year ago. With regard to the Input and Implementation subsection, it is 'suggested that this part beupdated annually,---The Annual Needs Assessment subsection indicated that the Bureau survey

24 ed allof its schools in- April, 1978. In
ed allof its schools in- April, 1978. In order for the Advisory Committee to better understand the personnel needs of theBIA, we would like to request a copy of the results of the 1978survey., Further, the Committee wouldlike to be informed of the results of the 1979 as wellas future needs assessments to determine ifsufficient numbers of qualified personnel are available throughout theBureau.cAlthough it is not a requireinent of the APP,the AdvisoryConnittee is disappointed that theBureau has not seen fit to include a subsection to increase the number of Indian specialeducatorsrelated services personnel. This is unfortunate particularly in view of the Btireau'sIndian preferencepolicy. For these reasons, we recommend that the BIA develop and implementa plan to increase thenumber of Indians and Alaska Natives qualified toserve as special educators and related servicespersonnel. It is further recommended that this plan be incorporatedas a regular part of the BIA APP., 17 6Section XI, Participation of Private School Children_T he Advisory Committee found this particular section to be very confusing. For example, itisassumed that stated will provide for the participation of private' school children on reservations,however, jri cases where a state is not participating under P.L. 94442, such as New Mexico, theBureau may have to assume Mt responsibility. Moreover. the last sentence indates that the Bureauwill provide, a frees appropriate education to Indian handicapped children 1ehot receiving specialeducation and who are voluntarily attending a private school. Sinceitis not stated that thisresponsibility is limited to on or near reservations, one could assume that this responsibility extendsstate-wideFor these reasons, we suggest that this section be refined sothatthe Bureau'sresponsibilities can be clarified:.,Section XII, Placement in Private Schools'-The first- sentence in this section states that "when, an eligible handicapped native child has beenidentified as being handicapped and in need of exceptional education..We recommend that theWord "handicapped" be deleted between "eligible" and "native" and that "exceptional education" bechanged to "special education."aThe la

25 st sentence or the first paragraph state
st sentence or the first paragraph states that such children, prror to placement, remain theresponsibility of the Area Office. In keeping with our other recommeridatiOns we recommend that thisbe a local school dutyThe second paragra phindicates that handicapped- children placed by BIA in private facilities willhave all, the rights they would haVe if educated,in a public school. We recommend thi:q, public schoolbe-changed to BIA operated, contracted 'or cooperative school...Section XIII. Recovery of Funds for Misclassified Children-The first sentence of this section gives the misconception that the Bureatisdoes not have,a procedurefor the recovery of funds allocated to Areas and schools. Upon discussion with BIA staff, it wasfoundthat this was not the case. It is suggested that this fact lae:emphasized rather than the fact that theBureau does not receive its funds.from the B'ureau'oftEducation for the Handicapped on the basis of achild count.Section..XIV, Hearing on ItEA'ApplicationThe first paragraph indicates that the Central Office has the final approval authority for the LEAapplication. We suggest the official, i.e., the"Director, Office of Indian Education Programs, who hasthis duty be specified in the APP...r-Section XV, Annual EvaluationAgain, ,this section make( reference to local schools and Area Offices, yet uses the general term LEA.It is suggested that_distinction he made when this sectip makes difierent °requirements of theseschools and offices.he last statement of this sectionIndicatesthat.the BIA Central Office will producela total evaulationret. The Adviifory Committee suggests that this be stated to indicate that this responsibility bethatf the Division for the Education of the Exceptional Child of the BIA Office of Indian Education...ePro ams. -...,-,--.--18-, The Advisory Committee would also like to request that the findings of the annual evaluationofcommunicated to the Committee.Section XVI, Additional RequirementsUnder subsection A, it is indicated that the Director, Office of IndianEducation Programs is delegatedthe authority to ensure that all handicapped childrenon reservations serviced by schools operated forIndian children by the Department

26 of the Interiorare provided a free appro
of the Interiorare provided a free appropriate education. Does thisalso include contract schools? We suggest that such schools be includedsince they are included in oher__other sections of the APP.Subsection C discusses Complaint Procedures, and it isnot clear to whom .o.ne should direct hiscomplaints. It is recommended that an official be specified by name; title,Address and telephonenumber so that it is clear who is responsible for receiving andfollowing up on complaints.Under subsection G which discusses the AdvisoryCommittee, it is recommended that this subsectionbe changed to be, specific to the Committee's charter. For example,under 3a, the Committee advisesthe Secretary of the Interior through the Assistant Secretaryof Indian Affairs of the unmet needs inthe education of handicapped Indianor Alaska Native children.Under subsection K, it is stated that the Bureau receivesno "state" funds. This is not entirely truesince the BL does receive funds (3100i for the education of handicappedchildren. Moreover, theredoes hat-gTpear to be anything in this section that prohibits commingling of3100 funds and U.S.O.E.flowthrough funds for the handicapped. It is recommended thata statement to this effect be included.Section XVII, Description of Uses of Part, B FundsThis section indicates that the Central Office will develop needsassessment for facilitiOs, personneland services. Beyond identifying needed resources, the Advisory Committeewould like to recommendthat a statement be added specifying that the Central Office, i.e., Director, Office of IndianEducationPrograms, would be responsible for developing and implementing plans tocorrect the inadequaciesidentified through the various needs assessments.The Advisory Committee would like to have a definition of excess cost included in the APP.It wouldalso be helpful to have examples of the kinds of services that such costs couldcover. For example,would it be possible to use such funds for the education of children birth through 5?2719 The preview numbered page Inthe original document was blankLAPPENDICES21�et28Cy. APPENDIX ABUREAU OF INDIANAFFAIRSEJECTED DECEMBER FY 1979 CHILDCOUNTMentally Retarded831Hard of Hearing108Dea

27 f6Speech Impaired.883Visually Handicappe
f6Speech Impaired.883Visually Handicapped42Seriously Emotionally Disturbed286Orthopedically Impaired39Other Health Impaired30Specific Learning Disabled.t2281Multi-Handicapped343Total46k4506The priwiaus tumberedagetothe original document was'blank.2923I. APPENDIX BCHAPTER OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRSADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENOFFICIAL DESIGNATIONThe official designation of this committee shall be:BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, ADVISORYCHILDRENPURPOSESCOMMITTEE FOR EXCEPTIONAL1. This committee shall serve only in an advisory role.2. They shall comment publicly on the annual program plan.3. They shall comment on proposed rules, regulations and procedures for the distribution of funds.4. They shall' advise the Secretary of the Interior through the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairsof the unmet needs in the education of handicapped Indian or Alaskan Native children.95. They gra assist in developing and reporting such information as may help the Beau of IndianAffairs serve handicapped Indian or Alaskan.Native children;TIME LIMITThis committee is required by P.L. 94-142, anofis expected to continue beyOnd the forseeable future.However. It's continuation will be subject to bienneal termination and renewal provisions of Section144P.L. 92-463.OFFICIAL TO WHOM THE COMMITTEE REPORT&The committee reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs.ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTAdministrative support will be provided by the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs:.;DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE1The duties shall be as described in the purposes and in addition they shall.1. Report by July 1 of each year its activities and suggestions to the Assistant Secretary forIndian Affairs.ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTActivities of the committee will reqbire an estimated $25,090.00 and one (1) man year of Fedeyal,employees support annually.NUMBER AND FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS:The committee will meet at least three (3) times per year..The previous numbered page Inthe orlginel documentwas blank.25 MEMBERSHIPto1. The committee shall be composed of fifteen (15) members. Each shall serve a term of three (3)years with five (5) members replaced annually. Initially the terms will b

28 e staggered.2. Membership on this commit
e staggered.2. Membership on this committee shall be by appointment of the Assistant Secretary for IndianAffaiis.3. The committee shall consist-t not limited to:1. Handicapped individuals.2. Teachers of the handicapped.3. Parents of the handicapped.4. Special Education Program administrators.5. Local education agency offtals.4. A member may be terminated by the Secretary of the Interior at any time following -formalnotification for:L Violation of Department of Interior rules and regulations.2. Conflict of jnterest.3. Repeated absence.4. Failure to discharge duties.STATUTORYAUTHORITYThe statutory authority for this committee shall be P.L. 94-142.COMPENSITIONMembers may be reimbursed for allowable travel, per diem and expenses.OFFICERSThe officers of this committee shall be President, Vice President, Corresponding Secretary and shallbe elected annually from the membership of the committee. Their duties shall be:1. President shall preside at all meetings.2. Vice President shall serve m the ,absence of the President.3. Corresponding Secretary mall receive all communications and reports to the committee.toCk.1SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORDATE SIGNEDDATE FILEDs2631 ,/ APPENDIX CDIVISION OF EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATIONOFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMSANDAREA DICE SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNELDIRECTORYOffice of Indian Education Programs / Division of Exceptional Education..United States. Department of the InteriorBureau of Indian AffairsOffice of Indian Education ProgramsDivision of Exceptional Education18th and C Streets, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20245 (Mail Code 507)Phone 202-343-4071,2,3Dr. Charles Cordova, ChiefMr. Goodwin K. Cobb III, Education Specialist4IPMs. Cathie Bacon, Education SpecialistMs. Marie Emergy, Education Specialistok.Ms. Dixie Owen, Education SpecialistMs. Thelma Harjo, SecretaryMs. Janice Ingram, ClerkArea Office Special Education CoordinatorsAberdeen Area OfficeBureau of Indian AffairsFederal Building115 Fourth Avenue, S.E.Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401Education Specialist - Mr. Bruce Pity.Phone (605) 782-7496Albuquerque Area OfficeBureau of Indian Affairs5301 Central Avenue, N.E.P.O. Box 8327Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108Education Specialist- Ms. Ann CrawleyPhone (50

29 5) 374-3161.e-3227-Anadarko Area OfficeB
5) 374-3161.e-3227-Anadarko Area OfficeBureau of Indian AffairsP.O. Box 368Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005Education Specialist- Ms. Judy ConnywerdyPhone (918) 743-7251Billings Area Office;Bureau of Indian Affairs316 North 26th StreetBillings, Montana 59101Education Specialist - Mr. John Vandell,e; 4\sfJuneau Area OfficeBureau of Indian Affairs,P.O. Box 3-8000Juneau,-Alaska 99801,Education Specialist - Mr. Emil Kowalcyz.Phone (907) 586.4115Anchorage Field OfficeP.O. Box 120Anchorage. Alaska 9954Education Specialist Mr. Chuck ChristianMinneapolis Area OfficeBureau of Indian Affairs831 gaZond Avenue, SouthMinneapolis, Minnesota 55402Education SpecialistMr. Dick WolfPhone (612) 725-2901Muikogee Area OfficeBureau of Aidian AffairsFederal' BuildingMuskogee, Oklahoma ,74401Education Specialist - Mr. Tom PattersonPhone (918) 736.246028Eastern Area OfficeBu'reau of Indian Affairs19th & Constitution Avenue, NW.W.Washington, D.C. 20245Education 5p3cialist - Ms. Noel Malone(703) 235-2571Navajo Area OfficeBureau Of Indian AffairsP.O. Box 1060'Window Rock Arizona 86515Education Specialist - Mr. NorinanWilcox -Phone (603) 479-5224Phoenix Areas OfficeBureau of Indian AffairsP.O. Box 7007Phoenix, Arizona 85011Education Specialist - Ms. RosellaLawerencePortland Area OfficeBureau of Indian Affairs-1425 Irving Street, N.E.P.O. Box 3785Portland. Oregon 97208,Education specialist - Mr. Al LedfordPhone (503) 468-4789p A.4.APPENDIX DU.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE R.EpOR.T -"THE BUREAU OF INDIANAFFAIRSIS SLOWIN PROVIDING SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICESTO ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ",293464O .IICOMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE'UNITED STATEWASHINGTON, D.C. 205411The Honorable Robert C.,Byrd-Chairman, Subcommittee on theDepartment of Interior andRelated AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States SenateDear Mr. Chairman:sr?..1_o1,,Subject: The Bureau of Indian Affairs. is. Slow in Providing Special Education Services. to All..Handicapped Indian Children (CED-79-121)o,.Your February 16,, 1979, letter requested that we conduct a review to determine the progress theBureau of Indian Affairs has made in its elementary and secondary schools to--achieve the Education for All Ilandicapped Children Act of 1976 mandate

30 of providing a free andappropriate publ
of providing a free andappropriate public education' to all handicapped children between the- ages of 3 and 18 not later,-than September 11978, and416.-,,0,4--hire 202 special education teachers and specialists provided for by the Congress in appropriating an',additional $6 million in fiscalyear 1979..-..1.and.Our review at the Navajo and Phoenix area offices showed that the Bureau made some progresstoward achieving this mandate, . but had not complied with the act's requirement to serve allhandicapped childran..We visited 19 schools with a, total of 883 handicapped children. At thesesch 'bols, teachers identified 340 students, or 3.8 percept, receiving full special education services, 113students, or 13 percent, receiving partial sertices, and 430 students, or 49 percent, receiving no°,services.,,-ff,0'0%°The lack of progress resulted becaude the Bureau did not'0implement and adminer an effective program at an early date,... __Iso0-r.X.-0--identify and evaluate the handicapped children needing special education in a timely manner, and'0°--make sufficient efforts to recruit and hire needed-special education personnel..0;The Bureau did not take the initiative, after the act was passed in November 1976, to develop anadminister a special education program in time to comply with the September 1, 1978, deadline. It wnot until early in 1978 that the Bureau established an ad hoc division to manage a special education_program. However, .the division's effectiveness was limited because it was staffed with only lourtemporary program positions. The division alio did not have direct authority over area offices andschools until an officialivision with an increased staffing Jevel was created in March 1979, over 6months after the compliance deadline. The Bureau's 14k of timely emPluisis andieadership adverselyaffected the development and progress of the program. Specific and comprehensive Program guidelineswere not developed and less than half of the identiied handicapped atudehti were actually receivingfull special education services.:;the ptiviousnumbered pegs inthe originaldoculltent was blank.si 35 A'0In passing the Edudation for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Congr

31 ess found that therewere many handicappe
ess found that therewere many handicapped children participating in regular school programs who were nothaving asuccessful educational experience because their handicaps were undetected. The act piovided foridentification, and. assessment of handicapping conditions in children. The identification of the numberof handicapped students, their location, and their handicapping conditions are vital first steps inproviding special education services. Until these steps are compirted the number, of teachers neededcannot be determined. However, the Navajo and Phoenix area offices didnot,,Aet assessing studbntsimmediately. Student assessments were started in August 1977, in the Phoenix area, and in January1978, in the Navajo area. Although at the time of our review the two area offices had 'completedassessments on most students suspected of being handicapped, they had not yet assessedallsuspected children.The Congress provided the Bureau with an additional $5 million of special education funds in fiscalyear 1979 to hire an estimated 202 special education teachers and other specialists. Although thesepersOnnel are essential to providing special educati2,n services, the Navajo and Phoenix area officeshave made insufficient efforts to recruit and hirer them. Consequently, many,, handicapped Indianchildren are not benefitMg from special education services. The two area'offices do have on boardabout 38 percent of the special education personnel that they have identified as needed -134-theirspetial education personnel needs, may be greater than expected because some schools and" agencieshad not determined the number of personnel they need: In edition, the present staffing level is not 'agood indication of theoefforVPut into hiring because 'most:are ,not new hires but were converted fromthe title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For example, 26 of the Navajo'sn special education teachers and 6 of ,the 10 Phoenix special education positions were converted fromthe title I program.In fiscal year 1978 the Bureau received $3.9 million for special education-whick was used primarilyfor student assessments. Funding was increased to $9.4 million in fiscal year I'919 pri

32 marily to allowthe Bureau to hire an est
marily to allowthe Bureau to hire an estimated 202 special education personnel. However, since the Bureau did nothire the necessary personnel, n4,st of the funds were not sent and special education services have notbeen delivered as planned. The"Navajo and Phoenix area, offices received a special education allotmentof bout $5,092,000 in fiscaLyear 1979, but as of May 31, 1979, had only spent $797,000, or 16 percent.e noted that the Navajo area officeplanned/tospend spec),ar education funds for dormitoryiture,.office supplies, and athletic equipment even though the Bureau's central office has not yetissued -instructions which specify how special education funds should be used. Moreover, the Bureauygenerally ignored the House Coittee on Appropriations' requirement that funds be used to hire 202special education teaers and specialists.0CONCLUSION:e-C.0The Bureau is slow to comply with the mandate of the qducatioti for All Handicapped Children Actof 1975 because of. poor leadership and a lack of emphasis placed on the program. The other problems,such as the late start oh the student assessments, the limited efforts to hire special educationpersonnel, and the expenditure of funds for purposes other than hiring teachers are all a direct resultof the lack pf leadership and emphasis. This "situation should show some improvement as the newlycreated division responsible for special education assumes the management of the program.RECOMMENDA ION TO THEAPPROPRI ATIS COMMITTEESWe recommend hat the Senate and House Corrunitteese on Appropriations, restrict the bureau'sfiscal year 1980 s ecial education funds to hiring special eatication teachers and 'specialists. Thecommittees shouldof allow the Bureau to use these funds for other purposes withoutcongressionalapproval. `3C-;) °AaRECOMMENDATIONS TO THESECRETARY OF THE INTERIORa..-,,4IWe recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairsto:Deterrhine the number of special education personnel needed by each location and develop a planto hire those personnel.at the earliest pospible date.Develop polidies, guidelines, and realistic goals to meet the mandate of the Education for AllHandicapped

33 Children Act of 1975,for the -delivery o
Children Act of 1975,for the -delivery of special education services toallhandicapped children in Bureau-operated schools.--rsEnclosure I describes the Bureau's special -educationprogram in the Navajo and Phoenix areaoffices and discusses the above issues inmore detail.1,Between Fe ruary 23, 1979, and June 1, 1979,we contacted officials in the Bureau'e Central Office,the Navajo anPhoenix area offices,_seven agency offices, and 19 schools. At your request we did nottake the time to obtain comments from the Department of the Interior on the matters covered in this1..,report,x1/4)CWe will also sen d copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary forIndiarrAffairs, Interi4r's inspector General, and other interested parties.I% f-Sincerely yours,ie.aConiptrollei General.of he Milted States-;Enclosure.-.(3.\33...'.".?Ii...e.,lei `lbsawtit411.54ENCLOSUREContentsTHE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IS SLOW IN PROVIDING SPECIALEDUCATION SERVICES TO ALL HANDICAPPED INDIAN CHILDRENProgress in providing ipecialeducation has been libaitedPage36Funds used for purposes otherthan hiring teachers40:ConclusionzRecommendation to the AppropriationsComxpittessRecommendations to the Secretary of,the interiorIINAVAJO AREA DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS PERHANDIC1PPED STUDENTr*the precious numbered page Inthe original docvment Was blankt-c--11g38364242)2 14,ENCLOSURE ITHE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRSIS SLOW IN PROVIDING.SPECIAL EDUCATIONSERVICE§TO ALL HANDICAPPED INDIAN CHILDREN.The Education for All Handicapped Children Act pf 1975, Public Law 94-142, mandated that, allhandicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate public education which emphasizesspecial education and related services. Special education is specially designed instruction meeting theunique. needs of a handicappedchild,including -classroom instruction,instructioninphysicaleducation, home-instruction, and instruction within hospitals and institutions. Related services are,transportation, supportive services, speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physicaland occupational therapy, recrcounseling services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. The law establi

34 shedthat special education services will
shedthat special education services will be provided to all children aged 3 through 18 by September 1,.1978, and children aged 3 through 21 by September 1, 1980.PROGRESS INPROVIDING SPECIALEDUCATION HAS BEEN LIMITED4,,4The Bureatilas made some progress in complying with the law, bpt it did not meet the September1, 1978, deadline even though the act was passed in November 1975 and allowed about 3 years forpreparation and imrdementation. Special education programs are not yet complete because of poorleadership and a lack of emphasis given the program and because the Bureau- did not impleme ntprogram at an early date. 'Also,'the Bureau was late in evaluating students, there were not enoughspecial education personnel, and only limited hiring and recruitment efforts were made. Consequently,many handicapped children in the Bureau's schools are not receiving the benefits of special educationservices. At the time of our review, area office records showed there were abdut 1,700- handicappedNavajo students and 800 handicapped Phoenix students for a total of 2,500 handicapped students.--This number will probably increase because evaluation of students is not complete..Navajo and Phoenix area office officials were. unable to inform us or' provide tis with recordsshowing the number of handicappedstudents receiving special education services., .We therefore visited 19 schools id the Navajo and Phoenix area to find out how maw -of the 883handicapped ,students were receivingfull,: partial,or no specialeduCationservices. Throughexamination of school records and discussions with teachers and other school officials, we categorizedstudents as follows:°--If, according to teachers, all the educational requirements of a sttidenee individual education pro-gram were being met, that student was Categorized as receiving full special education services. Wedid not evaluate the quality of the services or whether the services, were adequate to. meet thehandicapped needs of the student,'--If, according to teachers, one or more but not all requirements oran individual educatIonprogramwere being Met, that student was 'categorized as receiving partial special education services..--If, according to tea

35 chers, a-handicap' ped student Was Dot e
chers, a-handicap' ped student Was Dot enrolled in a spe cial education program,that student was categoriied as receiving no services even though 'the student was attending a regularschool class and could have beeri receiving some type of special education services.,.Using these categories, teachers identified 340. students, o38 percent, as receiving full_ specialeducation services, 113students, or 13 percent; as receiving pial services, and 430, dtudents, or 49percent, as receiving no services.jr369- SchoolChin leCottonwoodMany 'FarmsCrownpointWingateGreasewoodTohatchiSa,nosteeTeecnospos,AShiprockTuba City H.S.Tuba City B.S.Leupp-Salt RiverSanta Rosa RanchSan StrionSanta liOsa B.S.ShermanCasa BlancaalrHandicappedstudentsReceivingfullserviceReceivingpartial.service.po14024240190029'1086361752826301249014458380361648yr-rgoaa:0,987408040o18609362714107222275820022011883;'340-113ENCLOSURE IaNo special.educationservice360'19940181472202021511.430W also noted that in th Navajo area, 23 of about 70 schools with handicappedchildren did nothave any special educatioteachers and that in the Phoenix area, 3 of the 25 schools' withhandicapped: students did no have,- any special education teachers.Leadership and emphcldngThe Bureau's initial finding of the Public Law 94-142 specialeducation program began in fiscal yeal1978 when the Congress directed about $2 million be set aside from the Bureau'sgeneral educationfunds for this program. An additional $1 9 million was obtained from the Bureau ofEducation for theHandicapped, Department of Health, Edudation, and Welfare. In fiscalyear 1979, the Congress againdirected that $2 million of general education funds be set aside, and also-added$5 million to theBurtvu of Indian Affairs' appropriation. The Bureau alseieceived $2.4 millionfrom the Bureau ofEducation for the Handicapped..11$The Bureau established an ad hoc diirision responsible for special education inearly 1978. HoWever,this division did not have direct authority over area officespr...schools andwas staffed with only fourpersons in temporary positions who had program respomiability. T e Bureau officially established the.division in March 1979 and increased the staff to eight p

36 ositions. Te central office staff has pr
ositions. Te central office staff has preparedsome policY statements and monitored programs at some schools, a practice weencourage; however,the staff, has not yet prepared or developed comprehensive guidelines for implementingand operating-the program. Goals for providing full service have been established butare not very realistic. Themost recent goal for the 1978-79 school year was to provide special education servicesto 100 percent ofthe handicapped. Indian children, but the Navajo and Phoenixareas were providing full services to lessthan 40 percent of their handicapped' students during the .1978-7q1schoolyear.N\.,._,rf"4 o ENCLOSUREAccording to the act, the Bureau must submit an annual plan to the Bureau of Education for theHandicapped to receive funding. Education officials encourage submission of annual program plans inthe January to April time frame preceding the fiscal year for which the plan is approved. This is doneso that funds can be provided in time to hire teachers and meet other expenses prior to the schoolyear. However, the Bureau's annual plans were submitted late. The fiscal year 1978 plan wassubmitted in March 1978, 11 months late; the-fiscal year 1979 plan.was submitted in June 1979, 14,months late."'The _special education staffs at the Navajo and Phoenix area offices have not prepared anycomprehensive written guidelines or procedures. An April 1979 monitoring report on the Navajo areastated closer.coordination was needed regarding budget development and distribution of fundsween the area office,'"gencies, and schools. It also stated that a procedural plan may be needed tohelp the schools and agencies in meeting the requirements of the law. The April 1979 monitoringreport on the Phoenix area stated more coordination between the area office agencies and schools wasneeded. The report .stated the guidance, monitoring, and follow-through' from the area office wasinadequate and that an area plan providing areawide policies and procedures had not been developed.This lack of direction affected the distribution of funds and the special education program's day-to-dayoperations. 'For, example:.-:-At 13 Navajo schools where we obtained this information, fun

37 ds initially allocated to handicappedstu
ds initially allocated to handicappedstudents by the Navajo age,ficy offices for materials, supplies, and equipment were unevenlydistributed. Funds for m it -ials and supplies ranged from $18 to $750 per handicapped student;for equipment they ranged from $0 to $292 per handicapped student. (See enc. II.)--f herewas an atmosphere.of confusion and uncertainty in the program's day-to-day operations. Attwo of the Navajo agencies we visited, the education staffcomplained,about the lack ofleadership, direction, and management of the program. One of these agency education officialss tated that no written policies or directions had been received from the area office. In onecase, one agency knew of instructions allowing education funds to be used for mobile housingunits but another agency did not. The education staff at one agency in the Phoenix area statedthat program information was sometimes confusing and conflicting. They said they were toldby the Bureau's central office staff to destroy all the evaluations on students who were idsntifiedas not being handicapped. However, monitors from the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped 'later said that. they should have retained all the evaluations for auditing purposes.Students not evaluatedon a timely basis1The actact requires that 1:11'Fder to qUalify for fh ancial assistance an annual plan must be submitted.The plan must, among other things, assure that all children residing within a specific jurisdiction whoare handicapped; and are in need of special education are identified, located, and evaluated. The plan.,also must set forth procedures to assure that testing and evaluation materials will be selected andadministered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shallbe provided and administered in the child's native language or mode of communication, unless itclearly is not feasible to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion for determining anapprppriate educational program for a child. The act- further states the goal of providing a fulleducational opportunity to all handicapped children ages 3-through 18 by September 1, 1978.The nearly 3 years the act allowed bef

38 ore special 'education services had to b
ore special 'education services had to be provided was notnecessarily a long period of time, partichlarly for a governmental organization that receives fundsthrough a budget and appropriation process. It was important, therefpre, that the Bureau not ,wastetime before identifying, locating, and evaluating Indian children. An accurate determination of thenumber of special education personnel, their required skills, and their needed locations cannot be made'until the handicapped children have been located and evaluated. In spite of the need for immediacy,the evaluations hadslow start in the Phosnix and Navajo areas. Each area office awarded severalcontracts for student evalutions and started the evaluations in August 1977 in the Phoenix office andJanuary 1.978 in the Navajo office. The two area .offices have evaluated 7,600 students, which webelieve are most of the students needing an evaluation.4 138 ENCLOSURE IBoth area offices are presently having problems with their student valuations.An April 3, 1979,central office monitoring report on the Phoenixarea stated that incorrect diagnosis and inappropriaterecommendations had been made by the student evaluationcontractor. A representative of thePhoenix area office also requested that 29 evaluations bereturned to the contractor becauseinappropriate tests were conducted, the reportswere incomplete, the evaluation conclusions wereinconsistent with the test results, and the testing forsome severely emotionally disturbed children wasinadequate. Additionally, a' school principal believed23 evaluations done by one contractor containedgross errors and requested that another contractor reevaluate the students. The central office'smonitoring "repor stated thata clarification is needed for the requirements of a proper psycholigical orpsycho-educatioassessment for a specific learning disability.The centrafice monitoring report on the Navajo area office stated thatsome students had beenmisdiagnosed and/or misclassified. Some of the special education teachersand specialists at agencyoffices and schools also had problems with the quality ofmany evaluations. The following, examplestypify their complaints--The evalutions were written in s

39 uch a manner as to make them confusing,d
uch a manner as to make them confusing,difficult to' interpret,and of little or no use in developing individual education programs for the students.--The evaluations of Indian students were worthless because of culturally biased evaluation tests.School officials stated localized norms for Indian children would provide for moreaccurateevaluations. We were told that interpreters were not always used, althoughsome of the studentsneeded them.--The evaluations were not complete; visual and hearing tests were lackingat one school.--The evaluations were of poor quality, because health and social background histories forsome stu-dents were not available or used by the testers.Hiring efforts of specialeducation personnelhave been limited,.The Navajo and Phoenix aredo not have sufficient specialucat on personnel to provide servicesto all identified handicapped students. he needed personnel are special education teachers andotherspecial education professionals, which include speech pathologists, physicaltherapists, social workers,diagnosticians, and technicians.The Navajo area office had 67 percent of the special education teachers and 20percent of the otherprofessionals that have been identified as needed. According to thearea office records, it had 39 of the58 teachers and 5 of the 25 other professionals that were identifiedas needed. However, 26 of theteachers were not new hires, but were teachers Converted from .the Elementaryand SecondaryEducation Act's title I program to' the special education program. The' title Iprogram is directed tothe special education needs of educationally deprived. children. Incontrast, the special educationprogram is directed to the special education needs of handicapped children.According to information at the Phoenix area office, they had 5 of the 27 teachers,or 19 percent,and 5 of the 32 other professionals, or 16 percent, thatwere identified as needed. Area _office recordsshow that 6 of the 10 special education positions are funded thorugh the title Iprogram and the otherfour positions are funded under the general educationprogram. All 10 positions are planned forconversion to the special education program.However, the actual number of specia

40 l education personnel needed hasnot been
l education personnel needed hasnot been completelydetermined, and more teachers may be required than Bureau records indicate.Both area offices arestill in the process of completing student evaluations; and the number ofstudents identified ashandicapped will affect the number of teachers needed. For example,as of June 1919, one Navajoagency was still. in the process of establishing positions and requesting approvals for recruiting andhiring. This agency only had three special education ``teachers during the1978-79 school, year for 329handicapped students in 14 schools and had recently identified16 special education vacancies. These16 vacancies were not included in the area office's statistics of needed personnel.Additionally, in thesame agency, the Crownpoint Boarding School had 57 evaluations to be completed. The schoolprincipal stated he. did not know how many additional\.teachers wquldbe needed as a result of theevaluations.394 2 Hiring efforts9.ENCLOSURE I\Mhen the Congress provided ,additional funds for the program, it intended that, the Bureau hire anestthrated 202 special education teachers and specialists. The Navajo area office received authorizationto hire no more than 86 new special education personnel on December 8, -1978. However, as of June1979, efforts to fill these positions had been insufficient. The schools that requested special educationteachers did not classify the requests as 'urgett, and the area's education division did not request thatspecial emphasis be directed toward filling the requests. The area's Chief of the Recruitment ands.PlaCement Section said that if priority had been assigned to these positions, a special effort to provssapplications and visit collegestudents would havebeeirmade. He stated applications were sent to 200or 300 persons on the civil service register, but few of thenad been hired. He added that because norecruitment effort was made this spring, it will be difficult to hire, the necessary number of teachers bythe beginning of the next school year.The Phoenix area office's hiring efforts consisted of issuing a, recruitment bulletin for specialeducation teachers on March 19, 1979, and processing 26 vacancy announcements

41 for special educationpersonnel as of May
for special educationpersonnel as of May 31, 1979. However, only one offer of employment had resulted from these efforts.This problem was further compounded by administration and coordination problems in processingpersonnel positions. For examples area personnel officials stated that no one alerted them that specialeducation poitions were being established until January 1979. Also, the classification process forspecial education positions has been time consuming. An area personnel official stated all of thespecial education 'position descriptions had to be rewritten to conform to Public Law 95-561. Otherdelays resulted because agencies and schools did not determine exactly what positions they needed,and some position requests had to be returned for changes.Officials at both area offices stated that it is difficult to hire special education personnel because--special education teachers are in high demand;--the working and living. conditions are poor at many of the isolated schools; and.°--the career opportunities are unattractive in that appointments can not be made beyond September30,-1980, and appointees will not be paid between the springand fall sessions of schools.Authority exists to establish special pay schedules or to pay post differentials for isolated areas as arecruiting incentive; however, the Bureau had Snot taken any specific action in this direction at thetime of our review.FUNDS USED FOR PURPOSESOTHER THAN HIRING TEACHERSAlthough the Bureau- has made some progress in developing a special education program, theadditional:funds appropriated by the Congress to hire 202 special education teachers and specialistswere being used for other° purposes primarily because few_such teachers were hired and many otherteachers were being paid with-funds from title I of thReTnentary-en4-Sesondary_Education Act.In fiscal year 1978, the Bureau received,$3.9 million for the special education program. Two milliondollars was set aside from the general eddcation program and $1.9 million was Department of Health,Education and Welfare funds carried over from fiscal year 1977. A Bureau officidl stated most of thesefunds were used to evaluate Indian children. In fiscal year 1979

42 , the Bureau's special education funds°
, the Bureau's special education funds° increased to $9.4 million. The Congress provided an additional $5 million and directed the Bureau toset aside $2 million from the regular education program for a total of $7 million. The Congressintended that the additional funds wOrild make it possible for the Bureau to complete assessments andOiito hire an estimated 2special education teachers and specialists. The remaining $2.4 million wasobtained from the Depa ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. As of May 31, 1979, the Bureauhad'obligated $11 million, or 33 percent, of these fiscal year 1979 funds.4arL4013 ENCLOSURE IIn fiscal yelir 1979, the Navajo and Phoenix area offices received special education allotmentstotaling morethan $5 million. The Navajo's allotment was $3,674,347, and Phoenix 'a allowmentwas $1,417,24.98:CaHowever, as of May 31, 1979, only about 16 percent 'of these funds had been obligated. The Navajoarea had obligated $517,000; the Phoenix area had .obligated $226,000. A sizeable portion of theallotments were programed for special education salaries, however, sincemany of the special edpersonnel had not been hired, and many of the present teachers were funded through title,feofthese funds were sPen5f For the Navajo schools, we visited, only about 20 percent ofe specialeducation funds progrdmed for salaries had been spent or obligated as of May 31, 1979.In passing the education act for the handicapped; the Congress clearly intended that --glikacialeducation funds be used to help hadicapped children overcome their handicaps and enjoy a fulleducation. The act specificially allows the expenditure of funds for mink services including recreationservices. The expe,nditure of these funds are limited, however, to only the excess costs of specialeducation and related services for handicapped children. In providing additional funds for the Bureau,the Congress was more specific; the House Committeeon Appropriations report accompanying theDepartment of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1979, (Public Law 95-465), states:"Education.--The additional $6,013,000 recommended for school operations will provide $5,000,000 tomeet the needs of handicapped c

43 hildren as required by Public Law 94-142
hildren as required by Public Law 94-142 and $1,013,000 for theoperation of the Labre Indian School. The Labre School will provide educational services to 366 daystudents in preschool thrOugh 12th grade and 85 barding students for a.total enrollment of 431.The increase for handi/apped children will make it poisible for the first time toserve a significantnumber of handicapped children. The funds wilt be used to complete the assessment of each childand to hire an estimated 202 special education teachers and speCialists."We noted that Navajo area school and agency officials were planning to use some of the additional\appropriated funds for such things as athletic equipmentnd office and dormitoty furnittire. Whilethese types of purchases may be allowed under the Educat' n for All Handicapped Children Act of1975, they were made while the 'specific congressional requirement to hire 202 special educationteachers and specialists was generally ignored.The following are examples of planned expenditures:--The Tuba City Boarding School prepared requisitions f6r several items, such as athletic equip-ment, entertainment, and dormitory furniture, for a total of more than $11,000; We discussed theappropriateness of these requisitions with agency and school officials and were told therequisitions were subsequently charged to genera) education funds.--Wingate Boarding School requisitioned $823 of athletic equipment,includingbasketballs,baseballs, footballs, softballs, .softball gloves, and volleyballs. The school also requisitioned12,000 paper cups and 96 bottles of skin lotion costing $216.--The Shiprock agency office requisitioned 140(optical examinations and glasses at a cost of $9,800.We were told these examinations and glasses are for studetts not \formally assessedashandicapped. The agency also requistiioned $3,200 of office equipment and $1,700 of photo-.graphic and recording equipment.--The Shiprock Boarding School requisitioned about $2,000 of carpeting, rugs, drapery tape, andpajamas for trainable mentally handicapped students.44,'41.Lak. ENCLOSURE INavajo area office education officials informed us thataily expenditure made tofulfilltherequirements of its 1979-1980 school

44 year special education programis appropr
year special education programis appropriate. This "programallows such things as dormitories, personal hygiene suppliel,and physical education equiprhent.Accordingly, the Navajo area education office operates under thepreinise that many different types ofmaterials and equipment are necessary to servicehandicapped, student ,needs, and that specialeducation funds may properly be spent on items, such as electric typewriters,desks, trampolines, lawnmowers, rototillers, athletic equipment, cameras,movie projecteis, and calculators. Further, a' Navajoeducation .official stated that every special education classroom needsits own complement of suppliesand equipment which cannot be shared with other specialeducation or general education classes.Agency officials in the Navajo area stated that not 711 schoolshave adequate classroom facilitiesand teacher housing, and three of these four agencies haveprogramed Special education funds forportable classrooms andOusing. For example:--The WesternNavajo Agency has requisitioned two temporary classrooms at a cost of448,000.--The Eastern Navajo Agency hasrequested $97,000 of special education funds to purchase andinstall about four portable teacherhousing units and two portable classrooms.--The Shiprock Agency official statedthat they need 'f on. mobile homes at two schools forteacherhousing.--The Fort Defiance Agency has programedabout $177,000 for two portable classrooms and 10 port-able-housing units.,_.,s....Three of the schools we visited in thePhoenix area also stated there were inadequate classrooinfacilities. However, none of these schools had programmedspecial education funds for classroom units,instead they are trying to improve facilities with other funclinCONCLUSION'The Bureau's slow progre'ss in achievingthe mandate of the Education for All HandicappedChildren Act of 1975, is a result of poor leadership and alack oPtemphaiis placed on the program. Theother problems, such as the late start on thestudent assessments, the limited efforts to hire specialeducation personnel, and the expenditure of fundsfOr purposes other than hirihg teachers are all adirect result of the lack of leadership and emphasis.This situation should show

45 some improvement asthe newly cre(ted di
some improvement asthe newly cre(ted division responsible for specialeducation' assumes the management of the program.RECOMMENDATION TO THEAPPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEESWe recommends that the Senate and HouseCommittees on Appropriations restrict the Bureau'sfiscal year 1980 special education funds to hiring specialeducation teachers and specialists. Thecommittees should not allow the Bureau to use these fundsfor other purposes without congressionalapproval.RECOMMENDATIONS TO THESECRETARY OrTHE INTERIORWe recommend that the Secretary of the Interior directthe Assidtant Secretary for Indian Affairsto--Determine the special education personnel needed, by location,and develop a plan to hire thosepersonnel at the earliest possible date.--Develop policies, guidelines, and realistic goals to meet themandate of the EdUcation for AllHandicapped Children Act of1,975,for the deliv/y of .special education servicestoallhandicapped children in Bureau-operated schools.4* .43q,;,k.--.SchoollChinleAgencyChinkMany Farms.CottonwoodEastern Agency.CrownpointWingateFort Defiance AgencyGreasewoodTohatchiShiprock AgencySanosteeTeehbsposShiprock, Dorm #1............... \ -A!TAJO AREADISTRIBUTION Of FUNDSPER HANDICAPPED STUDENTENCLOSURE IIiAmount forPer handi)Per handimaterial &.cappedAmount forcappedsuppliesstudentequipmentstudentWestern AgencyTuba City (H.S.)Tuba City (B.S.)Leupp..----$16,00010,00010,00037,10020,2005,0005,000,26,994.5268,738.4.000(.,30,468'292.14,000'11,323\al3000116,3,044241,95MO'$ 5,000-0'020845,000O..082.'5,169l,.713,700' 47'.1,4000. 00s'(,46...43$320526L.-41718139.7136735686750635.3814 L.S...r.tAPPENDIX EIU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORea.I.rRESPONSE TO THE U.,S.,GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT..0o-Ithe previous numbered page Inthe original document was blank451.;47V/ce 0.0* AddendumReaders of theceptional childrecontact the BurSts., N. W., W1RESPONSE TO GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTBY THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR *AN.F,f t A nu. Report of thBureau of Indian Affairs Advisory Committee for Ex-who wo read thetire retanse.to the General Accounting Office report mayau of Indian Affairs, Division of Exceptional Education, Mail Code 507, 18th andingtoii, D. C. 20245.e444648. Un

46 ited States- Departmentof the Interior6F
ited States- Departmentof the Interior6FFICE OF THE SECRETARYWASHINGTON, D.C.20240The Honorable Abraham RibicoffChairmanGovernmental Affairs Committee,Room.337Russell Senate Office Building.Washington, D.C.20510Dear Mr. Chairman:,r0By letters dated-- September 4,1979 the ComptrollerGeneral transmitted concurrently lothe Subbpmmitteeon the Departmentof the Interior/and Related Agencies.of the Senate Committee onAppropriations and to thisDepartment a report prepared by staffof.the.GeneralAccounting Office entitled-"The Bureau' ofIndianAffairs is Slow in Provididg SpecialEducation Servicesto All Handicapped IndianChildren" ('CED-79 -121).The4letter.to Chairman Byrd summarizes theprincipal conclusionsreached by the repprt and includesspecific recommenda-tions to both the appropriationscommiiteeePadd to theDepartment of the Interior.Attached to thisletter is a statement by theDepartment of the Interior in response_tothe recommenda,tions contained in the Comptrol1erGeneral's Septeiiiber 4letter pursuant to the timeframsestablished by,Section 236 of the LegislativeReorganization Act of 1970.The development of an. effectiveprogrdm of specialeducation services for handicapped Indian,childtenhas been for several years a matter ofhighest priorityfor' the Departthent,of theInterior and' the Bdreau of,Indian Affairs.-In our judgment the report aspresently.drafted, while raising certainimportant matters'ofon-,:going concern, falls far short of a fair,impartial and'informed assessment of past andpiesent'efforts by staffof this Department to create frOminception a comprehensive,49'47 JIThe Honorable Abraham RibicoffPage ,Twor ,1.rtcomplex and sophisticated special.education'delivery systein rural and remote areas where such1oervicet havever existed in the past, among achildpulation forhom,most available identification andsessment instruments are totaklyinappropriate, andin an administr4,tiVe and legal environmentdramaticallyaltered during the first year of programimplementation.by'passage of P.L. 95-561.The report also fails toinclude an assessment of importa4t managementactionswhich occurred prior to Septembei'lThut afterthe cdtc,clusion of the ninety-day review.Accordingly, I 'am%

47 also enclosing a detailed re'sponie toth
also enclosing a detailed re'sponie tothe September 4report addressed to the apcuracy, completenessandfairness of the report and those actions whichhadalready been taken by.the Office ofIndianEducationProgramsprior to the-Completion-of the reportwhich°were.not'tncluded therein.9t4Enclosures313.,b a0Sincerely,-9,UNDER SECRETARY48, ,05o STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO. THESEPTEMBER 4,1979GAO REPORT:"THE BUREAU. OF INDIAN AFFAIRS! ;.IS SLOWIN PROVIDING SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO ADLHANDICAPPED INDIAk CHILDREN"-General Respdnse4The development of an effective program of special 4teducation services for handicapped Indian childrgn hasbeen, for several years a matter of` highest priority fortha bepartMent of the Interior and for the Bureau ofIndian Affairs.As the report, itself,inAesmany of theadministrative problems pointed out by the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) Report, "The Bureau of IndianAffairs is Slow' in Providing Special Education Servicesto All Handicapped Indian Children"-were, in fact,identified and subsequently corrected through the field.monitoring procedures followed bythe Office of Indian.Education Programs. 'Furthermpore, in light ofo the factthat the Bureau of Indian Affhirs (unlike the fifty state'educational agencieS covered"by.P.L. 94-142) initiated itsspecial education following the August,/19770publicationof regulations' under Part B of the Educsztion of theHandicapped Abt, the Bureau believes that far: from being"slow in. providing special education services" tohandicapped Indian children it has moved quickly to build,a special education program that meets Federalrequirements-during the first two years.1. --GAO RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES"We recommend that ,the Senate and House Committeeson Appropriations. restrict the Bureau's fiscal year-1980special education funds. to hiring special educationteachers and spedialists.The 'committees should not allowthe Bureau to use these funds for other. purposes withoutcongressional approvl."Response:The Department strongly pisagrees'withthis recommendation.Such a-limitation on-the abilityof the Department to manage its basic 'funding for thespecial education program would severely hamper the w

48 4ability of the Department to implement
4ability of the Department to implementfully the require-ments of-P.L. 95-561.Additionally, because otherspecial education funds available to theDepartmentunder P.L. 94-142 can only be usedfor services notgenerally provided to non-handicappedstudents (e.g.,instructional materials; evaluation instruments),theDepartment of the Interior would be pladedin the legallyuntenable position of either violating thecomparabilityrequirpment (45 CFR 121a.231) of the HEWRegulation orfailing to proviyle essential aspects of a freeappropriatepublic educatiprj to handicapped Indianchildren enrolledin BIA schools.The end result of the recommendedaction would beto prevent blind studentS fromreceiving braille texts,deaf students from being provided with'amplificationsystems and orthopedically handicapped-childrenfromaccess to adaptive physicaleducation equipment.The Department has and'will continue toplace avery high priority on the useof the additionallyappropriated special education funds for thehiring ofspecial education teachers and support personnel andthe Director, OIEP has ,initiated adetailed audit ofNavajo Area fund,utiliittion to ensure fullcompliancewith all applicable provisions.No constructive purposewould be served by the recommendedlimitation.on theDepartment's authority to manage the specialeducationfunds and its potential effect would only beharmful,tOrthe interests of.the children to be served.`sr///,-2.GAO RECOMMENDATION TO THESECRETARY OF THE INTE4OR"We.recommend that,the Secretaryof the Interiordirect the Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairs todetermine the special education peYsonnelneeded, by loca-tion, and develop and plan to hire thosepersonnelat the earliestpossible date."Response:Information concerning all neededspecial education personnel is beingprOvided,to OIEP °in�_peachschool/agency application submitted for P.L:94-142,\fuRding approval .consistent _with the currentAnnualProgram,Plan...'50 N544.4-.4.-.1under development by OIEPand will be completed byl.,_A plan to hire,all neededdpersonnel is currentlyDecember 1, 1979 andsubmitted to HEWwith FY1980,Annual Program Plan.Development of the plan is awaitingissuance on November1,1979 of the general per

49 sonnelstandards being developed bythe BI
sonnelstandards being developed bythe BIA _pursuant tokP.L. 95-561;.°--/.3.GAO RECOMNIENDATfoNTO THESEgRETAAY,OF THE INTERIOR"We recommend that the Secretaryof the Inteiiordirect the AssistantSecreal-y,for 'Indian Affairs todevelop policies,iuidelines,,and realistic goals tomeet the mandate of theEducation for All HandicappedChildrenAct of 1975, for the ,deaiverybf Specialeducation services to allhandicapped children in. Bureau-operated schools."'Response:The goals for full compliance of theBIA special education programwillconform with all&requirements of P.L. 94-142 asestablished by statute.Whether realistic ork not, those goalsmust be.adopted,by this Department in order to-comply with applicablelaw.A similar'set of goals areimposed on theDepartment by the HEWRe9Vlation implementing Section -504of the Rehabilitation Act of1973 (45 CFR:84).Attached at Tab Aare draft comprehensive regula-tionsreceAly,developedbythe'Departmentsto fullyimplement the requi,rements.of both the'HEWP.L. 94-142and 'Section- 504 Regulations,The"iegulations will bepublished for commentlaterthis month and when'finallypted later -this year will represent the most compre-he`i live polidies and guidelinesgoverning specialeducation in the United, Statep.5351yin A44.OOAPPENDIX FREPORT OF THE,CONSORTIUM FOR HANDICAPPED INDIAN CIiLDRENVoIhe prcvlous numberthe ongluel documentPage Ins-Jo454tirIetV-e11.ti ,4100THE CONSs RTIUMFOR HANDICAPPEDINDIAN CHILDREN:oaA REPORTPrepared by:The National Association of State Boards of EducationandIndian Education Training, Iric.the previous numbered pageInthe original documentwas blank;:55554, , ./Z.rThis report is dedicated toDAN RINGLEHEIM,who tirelessly and selflessly advocated'.for theprotection of the rights of American Indian andAlaskan Native handicapped childrenlb.*IoaN.4*I,,,.-airtfr1Ia..-..,This work was performed under contract with the U.S.Office of Education, Department of Health,Education and Welfare. Points of view or opinions stated do notnecessarily represent the officialOffice okEducation position or policy....-.56156 CONTENTSExecutive Summary58The Education of American Indians:,An Historical PerspectiveThe Education of American Indians today59The Ed

50 ucation of Handicapped Indian Children61
ucation of Handicapped Indian Children61The National and regionaly62Child FindDue ProcessEvaluation and TestingTraining and Program DevelopmentSupport ServicesRecommendationsti§71 OaEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe difficulties presently encountered in providing a "free, appropriate public education" tohaicappd Indian children (as mandated bP.L. 94-142) have roots in the history of Indianeduca on, and particularly in the jurisdicti nal ambiguity that results from the Indianf' unique statusas ation within a nation."Unlike other minority groups, American Indians have a trust relationship with thefederalgovernment (as defined by treaty) and are thprefore eligible to receive services from the, federalgovernnient as well as from their home state. One result of this jurisdictional overlap is that there arefrequent gaps in the delivery of services to Indians, just as there are frequent duplications.Recognizing the need for a new approach to this situation the Bureau of Education for theHandicapped contracted with the National Association Of State Boards of Education and IndianEducation Training, Inc., to conduct a series of national and regional conferences which would (a)identify problem areas (b) make recommendations and (c) establish linkages and create communicationnetworks among the major providers of educational services to handicapped Indian children.A national conference was heldin Washington, D.C. in November.1'977.bringing togetherknowledgable representatives from Indian tribeS and a number of federal and state agencies. Theseexperts discussed the problems confronting the provision of a free, appropriate public education tohandicapped Indian children, and, identified five broad areas of concern: (a) child-find (b) due process(c) evaluation and testing (d) training and program development (e) support services.These issues were examined in detail by state and federal agency personnel, representatives ofIndian tribes, and advocates at the regional conferences held later in the year. This report contains asummary of their findings, and a series of recommendations based on what they learned.-.c-It should be noted, however, that because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter

51 , and becausemany of those attending the
, and becausemany of those attending the conferences felt that the need for services far exceeded the presentcapabilities of the,service delivery systems to meet those needs, there was an emotional tone to themeetings which cannot beored. This report necessarily reflects some of the frustrations of thoseinvolved as well as their hopes.5850O ATHE EDUCATION OF AMERICAN INDIANS:AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEAs Europeans settled America, education became the primary method used to "civilize" the Indian.In 1784 the U.S. government signed the first treaty that promised educational services to the varioustribes. Over the next seventy yearsmany other treaties followed which contained 'vague and ill- definedpromises to educate Indian children, but these provisionswere rarely implemented by the federalgovernment. Such educationas existed was usually carried put by missionaries who looked to thefederal government for funding.In 1824, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)was created as part of the War Department tosupervise and regulate Indian affairs. Sevenyears later Chief Justice. Marshall ruled that the Indians"relation to the United States, resembles that of a ward to his guardian."That same attitude was evident in1872 in a statement issued by Francis C. Walker,, theCommissioner of BIA:No one will rejoice more heartily than thepresent Commissioner when the 'Indians of this countrycease to be in a position to dictate, in any form or degree, to the government, when in fact, the .lasthostile tribe becomes reduced to the condition of suppliants forcharity. (Nations Within:A Nation,p. 22.)Government schools were created in the early 1870's with the purpose of teachinga trade to theIndians and breaking Op tribal life. Though the BIA -was transferred to the Department of_ theInterior in 1849, old army buildings were used as schools and army officers took on the duties ofeducators.4In 1887 the Compulsory Indian Education Act was passed in another effort to assimilate the Indianinto the white man's culture. The government established boarding schools where Indian childrencould be indoctrinated into the Anglo-American cultUre. They were separated from their parents andtribes, and were forbid

52 den to speak their native language. Mili
den to speak their native language. Miliary discipline prevailed,even withinhoarding schools run by missionaries.In 1890 the Supreme Court ruled against the expenditure of federal funds for Missionary, ,schools.This left the education of Indians- primarily in the hands of the U.S. government, with boardingschools serving as the dominant mode of education until the 1930's.Federal responsibility for the education of ,Indian children was further increased by the IndianCitizenship Act of 1924. It gave more recognition to the Indians, and subsequent treaties andlegislation included educational provisions. However, the federal government continued topass on thisresponsibility to .religious orders, which were under contracts to provide school services.Itisnoteworthy that at this time 95% of all Indians who attended these schools returned to thereservations after completing their education, the drive to Europeanize the Indian through schoolinghad failed completely.1928 signalled the end of federal control of Indian education with the publication of -the Meriamreport -- the result of a study of federal administration of the Indians by the Brookings Institute, andnamed for the director of the project, Lewis M. Meriam. The report exposed the outmoded teachingmethods, primitive housing facilities for the students, and staff cruelties toward the Indian child.The federal government had for some time been looking to the states to take on the responsibility ofeducating the Indians, just as they were responsible for non-Indians: John Collier, the Commissionerof BIA at that'time, believed that Indians would be better served by public schools, for he consideredintegration to be essential if Indians were ever to enter the mainstream of American life.5t9 His policy was put into effect through the Johnson-O'Malley Act of 1934, a statute whichauthorized the federal government to contract with the states for the purposes of proividing education,medical attention, agricultural' assistahce ttnd social services for Indians. Prior to this act, BIAcontracted with .individual school districts for the purpose of enrolling federally-connected Indianstudents.Ih 1939, five years after the, passage of

53 Johnson- O'Malley, only four states had
Johnson- O'Malley, only four states had chosen to participatein this contracted arrangment; by 1957 that number had risen to 24, and since 1960, more than 70% ofall Indian children have been attending public schools.During the 1950's and 1960's a numbei -of federal programs were enacted which presumablyincreased the chances fdr an Indian child to have an adequate education. In 1953 the Federal ImpactAid Laws (P.L.8-874 and P.L.81-815) were amended to provide financial aid to public school districtslocated near non taxable Indian lands. The Elementary and Second Education Act (P.L.89-10) followedin 1965. Title I provides federal aid to. educationally deprived children in economically depressed areas.The Adult Educaiioh Act (P.L.89-750) was passed the following year with a provision for grants to thestates to be used in the devvelopmept of education programs for Indian adults.Although it was certainly unintended, one of the results of this rash of programs was to blur thelines of responsibility for educating Indians between the federal government and the motes. Thisconfusion grew as more laws were passed which were designed to help the states help the Indians, andremains one of the main problems in administering Indian education programs today.CIn the 1970's a number of ne* federal initiatives added to this jurisdictional ambiguity. The paesageof the Indian Education Act of 11972 (P.L..92-311) created the Office of Indian Education within theU.S. Office of Education. The purpose of ,the law was to provide financial assistance to educationrequiring their participation, in decision-making, and to provide financial assistance to educationagencies involyed in programs for Indians. Title VIII of the Native American Programs Act of 1974(P.L.93-644) authorized the Secretary of HEW to provide funds to community-sponsored Headstartprograms for Indians..In 1975, federal policies for Indians expanded into another previously neglected area. In addition t9providing funding to the states, the government legislated greater involvement of Indians in thedevelopment and implernentatibn of ,educational programs. The Indiaii Self-Determination andEducational Assistan(P.L.92-318) calls fo

54 r the funding of educational facilities
r the funding of educational facilities which shall beused in ways that the Indithemselves determine. This signalled another move away from directfederal jurisdiction of Native Americans, and resulted in some improvements. -Bpt it has alsoexacerbated the uncoordinatederies of educational policies that involve several agericies of federal,state and local governments,d greatly affects the way American Indians are educated today.THE EDUCATION OFAMERICAN INDIANS TODAY.Perhaps the main problem encountered in the present-day systent of Indian education is the absenceof any 'clear distinction between the responsibilities of the federal government and those of the states.Some state departments of education have taken the position that their responsibility for Indianstudents is identical to that for non-Indian students. It can only be taken away when a particularchild is enrolled in a BIA school.In other states, the issue is not so clear. Here, the responsibility is assumed to be a federal one'unlessa particular child is enrolled in a public school. This has created problems, because until 1977, it wasBIA policy that Indian students could attend BIA schools only when public school programs areunavailable. (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 25-E part 31.1a.). In 1977 that policy was changed sothat any student eligible for BIA services could attend a BIA school on request.60GO In some states the BIA and public school system jointly operate whatare known as coo i erativeschools. nese schools have shared jurisdiction over pupils located within thesame school bubut they frequently have difficulty defining federal and-state program responsibility.Since BIA is a federal agency with no state education jurisdiction, it has individual BIA schoolsbut no local education agencies. There isno line authority from the BIA director to education staff inthe field. Local agency superintendents .haveno authority to take emergency action and must gothrough a complex appeals piocess to implement local policies.The net result of these jurisdictional overlaps and ambiguities isan educational system whichfrequently falls short of providing even theaverage Indian child with an appropriate education.

55 Andthe problem is only compounded when i
Andthe problem is only compounded when itcomes to educating the Indian child who is also handicapped.THE EDUCATION OFHANDICAPPED INDIAN CHILDRENIn 1975, the Education for All HandicappeChildren Act (P.L.94-142) was signed into law. Itguarantees the right of all American children to aee, appropriate public education" by requiringthe states to provide educational services to all handicapped children and allocated funds for thatpurpose.,The Senate report (94-168) Which accompanied its version Of the bill specifically addressed the needsof American Indians:It is the intent of the Committee that all requirements applie d to state and local education agenciesrespecting eligiblity and application shall apply to the Department of the Interior and that all bene-fits and protections provided for handicapped children serveokby state and local agencies shall alsobe provided .to handicapped children served by the iepartmerft of the Interior.'.This special emphasison educating the Indian handicappe,d within the BIA school system wasclearly needed. *A study made by the General Accounting Office entitled "Concerted Effort Needed toImprove Indian' Education," stated that "BIAwas not operating its own program for providing specialeducation for handicapped Indian children, even though studies indicate that, Indian children sufferfrom a higher-than-average incidence of hearing loss, vision difficulties, and other handicaps." (He WillLift Up His Head, p.30).FCritics of the Bureau of Indian Affairsparticulary the Indians themselves -- were simply trying toassure themselves that the intent of Congress would not become swallowed up in the BIA's internalproblems. As the Special Assistant to the American Indian Policy Review Commission observed. "TheBureau of Indian Affairs has become a massive bureaucracy operating from a complex andcontradictory manual that has not been updated in nearly ten years. It has no adequate.system forrepOiting to Congress or Indian tribes how monies are being spent or whether they. are fufilling tribalneeds and the intent a Congress." (Nations Within a Nation, p.23).These words were written in 1975- the year P.L. 94-142 was passed, and the year that the U.S.Office

56 of Education reported thaout of an esti
of Education reported thaout of an estimated 19,500 handicapped children attending BIA.schools only 4500, or 23%, were receiving services." (He Will Lift Up His, Head, p. 29.)61 61 THE NATIONAL ANDREGIONALCONFERENCES,.In the spring of 1977, the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped assumed a leadership role inaddressing the problem. Realizing that an information shortage existed and a coherent strategy forlroviding appropriate services -to iiidian handicapped children ,vas lacking, officials at.ethe BEHecided to sponsor a series of meetings which would bring together knowledgable persons 'in the fieldo discuss the issues and make recommendations.Planning for the conferences began in the fall ,of 1977. The Bureau of Education fortheHandicapped decided that the National Association of State of Boards of Education, and Indianeducation'raining, Inc., would jointly plan and run the workshops .-arid the presentations of theconferencesAll three organizations perceived a need to untangle three central. questions: .What are the implications of Pl. 94 -142 for Indian students?If Indian students are eligible for services through both the BIA and their own state, who will beresponsible for which services?Can new,lines of communication be opened between Indians and state, education organizations,and between state and federal agencies as well?If was decided that these questions cduld best be answered by bringing togethei repr sentativall those groups and agencies involved, and a national conference was scheduledbe helWashington, DC., in November, 1977. It brought together some -fifty people whoere recognizednational leaders in Indian education. Their taskas to define the issues and to eablish workableformats for the workshops and training sessions that would' be featured at ,su sequent regionalconferences.Five broad areas of concern were outlined at the. Washington conferencechild fi d, due process,evaluation and testing, program development and training, and support services.These issues provided the focus for the efforts of those attending a series of regional conferences heldlater in the year. San Francisco, Denver, New Orleans, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Albuquerque weresele

57 cted as sites because of their proxiMity
cted as sites because of their proxiMity to large Indiari populations.As in the national conference, representatives from a broad spectrum of interests and- disciplineswere encouraged to attend. Participants included members from a number of Indian tribes: stateeducation agencies: local education agencies: state legislators: state Boards of Education: Indiancontrolled schools: BIA contract schools: Congressional staff members: the Office of Indian Education:the Bureau of Education for di* Handicapped: Indian Health Service: Head Start: advocate groups.What follows is a narrative digest of the many discussions that took place..6262 CHILD FINDJurisdictional OverlapC.-Perhaps the most perplexing single, problem in -identifying handicapped India.k children is' one ofjurisdiction. At .both the national and regional conferences participants cited the-lack ofany cleararrangements between the BIA and the various states as to who, exactly, is responsible for locatingthose children who will need special education, programs during' their schoolyears.tThis jurisdictional ambiguity is especially acute for youngsters living on' or near reservations. Inmany cases no one knows whether a child will be enrolled in the public or federal system until the first:day of school. Indians living within areas administered by the BIA theoretically have the choice ofattending either the public or BIA school, but this is a-choice- in theory only 4feven haltsthose eligibleopted for the BIA schools, the existing facilities and staff could, not begin' to accommodate. them.Parents who have assumed that their child would be attending the nearby ILIA school..frequently'learn at the last minute that there isn't enough space. This type of situation occurs with suchdepressing' regularity because the responsibility for making an accurate count of preogthool childrenhas never been clearly.,defined. In some parts of the country both the BIA and the local-school districtmake the count, and their figures are often at odds: In other areas each assnmes the other is doing thejob and it ends up. not being done at all.Fortunately, a- trend is ,beginning to .cle`,"elop in some states towardadelineation of responsibi

58 litybetween the BIAand local school dist
litybetween the BIAand local school districts. In some instances the arrangement's for locating childrenare collaborative. In others, the responsibility is assigned to one of ithe agencies with the provisionthat the other can use the information once it has been collected. Although these arrangementstare byno means perfect, they are nonetheless an improvement over an administrative vacuum in which eachagency assumes the other must he doing,thejob.60 63 VSh .ring InformationIalready unwieldly situation becomes even more complicated in trying to identify and provide'secal for handicapped Indian children To state and BIA educational systems areadded theirresctiVe social services and health branchesat least in theory. Project Headstart and the IndianHea th Service may enter the picture -- or they may not. Conference participants painted a picture;amultiplying number of agencies beComing involved, each withoutaclearideaofitsIiiwnresponsibilities.Moreover. instead of- increasing the amount of information transmitted, such multiple agencyinvolvement tended to have the opposite effect. Conferences cited many examples of breakdowns andblockages in communication. They noted that in 'some extreme cases as many as eight different,aencies will collect :information, then fail to share it with each other. It is not uncommon for oneagency to gather information which has been collected and code t.another the pievious year.Some agencies use U.S. census .figures. Others use their own os those gathered'by the BIA. Rarelydo these figures agree. And even in states which have sophisticated computer systems to assist inlocating handicapped children, the BIA is frequently left to its own resources simply because thenecessary arrangements to use the computers have never been worked out.Another problem area is associated with the- IndianIlealth Servite (IHS) Although it is supposedto maintain records of persons with birth defects and other potentia ly handicapping conditions -- thusbecoming a prime source of valuable informationIHS lacks the personnel to keep records up todate The records that do exist are seldom kept in a central office. this is largely the result of an IHSPractice of contrac

59 ting with civilian doctors in places whe
ting with civilian doctors in places where their own doctors are in short supply -- asthey are practically everywhere. 'to combat this situation, many conferees urged that paraprofessionalstaff be used to maintain existing records: as well as to actively seek out any pertinent information,other agencies may have at their disposal..-, tvWithin the BIA itself there is a problem in communications BIA social services and BIA educationmight share the same agency building, but they are on different administrative tracks The amount ofinformation passing from one branch to the other is spotty at best, and when it does happen it °usuallypasses from one staff member to another , the result of individual concern, not BIA policy. And, notsurprisingly, the responsibilities of each department toward the handicapped child are seldoin clearlydefined.(1,,There are other impediments to the sharing a informatio.Until January 1978, for example, IHS,worried about the privacy requirements of the Buckley 'Act, was reluctant to share its data with BIAeducation 'A memorandum of agreement between IHS and BIA to permit this exchange has beenworked out, but there is no similar agreement between IHS and Headstart programs Most conference.- participants felt that this was especially unfortunate, since. Headstart could play a crucial role inidentifying handicapped children before they enter school, and many conferees mentioned. a fear ofviolating the Buckley Amendment on the privacy issue as a principal reason for the excessive cautiondemonstrated by all agencies when it comes to sharing their data.Tribal Involvement.One of the recurring themes at the regional _conferences was the importance of demonstrating to- Indian parentsthat special education programs can indeed benefit Children with special problems:'However. this must be done in the race of a certain amount of skepticism on the part of many Indianparents, many of whom resist the idea of special education because of .its unfortunate association withpast abuses.rv'A number of tribal represenfatives.at the regional conferences reported that, until fairly recently,Indian children identified as handicapped were often sent away to residential in

60 stitutions which weretoo far away to all
stitutions which weretoo far away to allow parental visits. Although this i$ an infrequentoccurrence today, it Was noted.that Any Indian parents still believe that if they tell anyone they have a handicapped child, they will(in effect) lose that child-altogether,6464 4it Is also true that inmany -Ihdian communities certain potentially disabling diseasessuch asotitis ,media (which can cause deafness and trachoma have become so commonplace that people nolonger view them as handicapping conditionsThere is also the tendency to regard emotionallydisturbed children as youngsters who are simply discipline problems and who don't really need specialeducation. Add to this the fact that many Indian youngsters have been inappropriately placed inspecial classes because of difficulties with English, andyou have the basis for a considerable amountof Indian resistance to special education. This substantially reduces the role that Indian parents andtribal members might play in identifying children with potentially disabling conditions. However, mostconferees agreed that any visible evidence ofsuccess in the field of special education would help toconvensite for past abuses, and help to convince parents that thereare positive reasons for notifyingschools or IHS of their children's handicapThere was also general agreement that par 'ts and concerned tribal me/fibers must be encouraged toparticipate at a much broader and deeper le el than is presently the ease. Tribal organizationsparticularly health and education groupsshould be involvedatthe advocacy!revel.Suchparticipation should be\geared toward increa ing awareness among, Indians about the nature ofhandicapping conditions, and alerting them tohe ste t s that can be taken to meet the needs of thedisabled,A number of conferees also noted that it is not unto mon, for tribal members to know a great dealaboUt laws which primarily affect Indians,vet kinvlittle;about laws such as P.L. 94-142 whichaffect the general public as well. Hope was expressed that once parents and key tribal membersunderstand the ramifications of P.L. 9412, advocacygroups could be formed which might join forceswith their counterparts in non-Indian communities, there

61 by forging a bond which.would be helpful
by forging a bond which.would be helpful toboth.Other ProblemsConference participants also raised a number of other issues in the childfind process.There is a shortage of, trained personnel and a lack of good .materials to train these personnelto recognize and evaluate handicapping conditions.There are a number of Indian migrant children who might be eligible for special education if theymove So often makes it. difficult to maintain" centralized records and further complicates thedetermination of who is responsible for providing the necessary services.The process of identifyin& handicapped children in isolated areas is difficult, and expensive.y Responsible agencies must face that fact and make the necessary adjustments to make sure thisoccurs.Regular classrooin teachers and teacher's aides need more training to help them identify childrenwith potentially disabled conditions. Children who are not diagnosed as needing special attentionat an early age often go through school without getting 'the special education they are entitledto. The situation is exacerbated in many cases by teachers who have little or no experiencein dealing with Indian cultures.'In many areas children who hav-e already been identified as needing special education are stillwaiting to enroll in programs which could help them. This seriously reduces the incentive to locatemore.1,6565re' DUE PROCESS"The State shall assuthat...procedures area established for, consultation with individuals in-volved in or concernwith the education of handicapped children, including handicappedindividuals and parents or guardians of handicapped children, and that there are public hearings,adequate notice of such hearings, and an opportunity for comment available .to the general publicprior lo the 9option of the policies, programs, and procedures required pursuant to the proviSionsof this section.Section 612(7) of P.L. 94-142Understanding Due ProcessThe due process requirements of P.L. 94,142 provides for a system of appeals and hearings thatpresumably maximizes the chance of a fair decision when the rights of the various groups come intconflict However, this system cap only work when both students, parents, and the scho

62 ols understandtheir rights under the saf
ols understandtheir rights under the safeguards provided by Pl. 94-142.Conferees reported that most,Indian parents have little understanding of their rights under thepresent educational system. They do not expect professional educators to consult them regarding themost appropriate education for their children, and rarely volunteer any opinions on the matterAAlthough BIA schOols usually have advisory boards composed of Indian parents. these adVisoryboards wield little power in the overall system: and in boarding schools, the distance between schooland home usually precludes parents from taking an active role.The same situation Is true .in the public school system. Conferees reported that most Indian parentsfeel uncomfortable dealing with the "white man's school" and are hesitant about participating, evenwhen such participation would be welcome. Although some Indian parents have been active in federalIndian programs within individual schools."this involvemela has not extended to an assertion of rightswithin the larger education system.Because of this history of minimal parental involvement, conference participantsfeltthat asignificantly meter attempt must be made to inform the 'Indian community of their legal rights. Atthe present time the usual procedure is to post a list of rights, without explanation , on a communitybulletin board, 'where they usually go unseen or uncomprehehded' by those who might be affepted.Conferees urged that both the rights themselves and the reasons behind them be explained in detail atlocal community meeting's.,It is clear that the due process sections of P.L. 94-142 will not work the way they were intendedunless,parents understand them. In some cases this may mean translating the material into an Indianlanguage. More often it only means translating the legalese into comprehensible Engli4h. It wasfurther urged that these, explanations extend to school staff Members, including classroom teachers,many of whom are unfamiliar with the meaning or intent of due process.Surrogate ParentsAnother frequently encountered problem is that of surrogate parents. Many Indian children livewith adults with whom they share ari extended family relationship - un

63 cles, aunts, cousins,grandparents, etc.
cles, aunts, cousins,grandparents, etc. Sometimes they live with adults who are .not relativeaat all, in relationships definedby tribal custom, and recognized as "legal" by tribal membersthough not necessarily by thestates.-Conferees warned' that until the issue of what constitutes a "legal" relationshipis -resolved,.surrogate parents will continue to be reluctant to exercise their rights under due:proGesa sincele maymean getting involved in complicated, and perhaps costly, legal issues. Conferees emphasized thatsurrogate parents need to know what their rights are, while schools need to inderstand the importanceof these traditionalpibal relationships.66660 6Hearing OfficersIn most places there is Ei serious shortage of Indian hearing officers, and in-ore remote areas anabsence of any trained officer at all. The various tribes and inter-tribal organizations have notgenerally been involved in the selection of candidates for hearing officers rosters. There is therefore a_very real, fear among Indians thattheir appeals will be heard_ by someone with little or nounderstanding of their cultute or the problems they encounter in dealing with the white man's world.Objectivity does not exist in a vacuum; it -requires information and understanding. Most confereesbelieved that Indian confidence in the protection offered by due process would substantially increase ifat least some members of the..hearing panel understoOd what it meant to be an Indian child.Boarding SchoolsThe bOarding schools operated by BIA present a number of logistical problems in addition to thosefound in public and BIA day schools. By definition, parents df these children are not readily availableto discuss issues. or .present testimony. Many live in remote rtilial areas where there is neither atelephone or mail, delivery. the due process procedures are almost impossible to carry out over thecourse of a semester when parents who do not read or write pick up their mail once a week at atrading post. None of the conference participants provided an answer to this dilemma, but there wasgeneral agreement, that BIA needs to develop a systein for pro'iding educational services tohandicapped Indian children who attend

64 the boarding schools..a.06.0.6t'67",7.4
the boarding schools..a.06.0.6t'67",7.4O64flJI EVALUATION AND l'ESTINGParent Involvement.°3In the area °revaluation and testing arere is again the need tq compensatesfor the unfortunatehistory ol India,n edudation.In the, past, according to -conferees, many classes labeled "specialeducation" werein fact simply slow tracks. Childrenwere placed in such classes because they:scoredpoorly, on nests conceived by a different culture and written ina language that wasn't always entirelyfamiliar...'.-4,.There is a resulting resistance among Indian parents to participate actively in the evaluation andtesting process. They will sometimes withhold permission to test their children because they are certainit is simply an act of discrimination..4fr.4'...When permission is granted it'often conies ,froma feeling of 05 Werlessness,: rather than from anybelief that it will be helpful to the child. Conference participants wed that greater emphasis beplacecfcon the fact that parental involvement is an essential step in correctly diagnosing a child's abilities,and not merely a token exercise, in participatory democracy`-;-,Tribal InvolvementQOne helpful step toward a mote open dialogue between schools and parents could be an increasedinvolvement of tribal education grotips. If they were convinced Of the benefits of evaluation they couldencourage parents toward .g..greater participation.ommunity health representatives and conunCommunity.i..workers could also be involved.-.'.....All of this would require trainingof parents, tribal leaders, community health workers. A WbrIcable-system of refer/ills could then be worked out between .these groups and the schools. HoweVer, mostconferees seem to feel 6.4 increased tribal participation would only come about if the cultural bias ofmost existing tests were eliminated, and replaced by assessment techniques which are appropriate forthe Indian child..'4i,Boarding Schools-o'9Paients of boarding school student% have many of,the same problems ;described earlier in the sectionorocess. For years the cateh-all phrase "social problems" has been used in referring children toboing schools, andit covers children who are genuinely emotionally disturbed, as well

65 as childrenwho, have no outstanding pro
as childrenwho, have no outstanding problems at all. In some BIA areas' more than 50% of all children beingevaluated are classified as needing special education. This is many times the national average Oen forminorities and almost certainl3 in. error. Participants at the conferences agreed that BIA needs todevelop more precise definitions for some of the childrerr,placed in boarding scliools if this problem isto be eliminated,.Yurisdictiona,1 OVerlap,Here again there is the problem of a lack of any clearly fixed responsibility, as to who should handle,the evaluation procedures. Sometimes this jurisdicjional ambiguity results in multipletesting.Sometimes it results in no testing ,at all.,tt-Thitsituation up only Ile alleviated through regionid serviCes districts, or by combiningresourcesthrough cooperative agreements. In some states cooper,afive teams have already been established. Inothers, it is left up_to individual districts to work, out their own cooperative arrangements. Usually itis the state education agency oil the BIA area office that is, in the 'best position to/ kn" where theresources are located.-Similar cooperative planning and sharing of information is neLdeid between the' BJA andblic schools since many Indians move back.and fordhetween the two systems.TRAINING ANDPROGRAM DEVELOPMENT'JrThe ultimate success of current child -grins, evaluation and testing procedures, and theJ68r.684 , Rguarantees of due process depends to a large degree on the effectiveness of the §pedal educati6nprograms ,themselves. Although the negative aspects of the. history of Indian educatiop have beenmentioned often in this report, many' conferees' believed that Indians will support programs thatprpdire positive results. Clearly, however, such positive results will not be attained in the absence ofadequate staff, facilities, and training to run the programs the way they ought to be run..'4Personnel ShortageslYSchool administrators at the conferences noted that a major barrier in isolated reservation areas isthat it is extremely difficult to attract special education teachers. Salaries tend to be low, and in somereservation school communities there is no available housing. One con

66 sequence is that in manycommunities the
sequence is that in manycommunities the sentiment exists that it is pointless to launch recruitment drives because there aren:tenough facilities to take care of those who might be hired.A second problem, is the high turnover rate among teachers doming from the Anglo-Aniericanculture; the difficulties involved in "adjusting to another culture, and to the.isolation of many Indiancorkmunities has promptedmany qualified special education teachers to return to mainstream Americaafter a single tonr,pf duty on the reservation.One ,obvious solution is ,to begin extensive training programs for Indians who live 'in these remotecommunities. Many conferees urged that IHS and regional universities set aside more training skitsfor special education diagnosticians and teachersespecially special vocational education Jaacherswhich would be filled by people from the reservations. Another suggestion was to provide' training. in,special education to Indian teachers who are presently working in regular classrooms.While sch&ls are waiting for local people to be trained, there is a need to develop recruitmentprograms that offer incentives to special education teachers. These could be in the form of highersalaries, some sort of fringe benefits, or-simply the chance to make a real difference in the lives ofchildren who need all the help they can get.Another possibility mentioned at the conferences is to make certification standards more flexible forteachers working in isolated. communities, and to emphasize the training of paraprOfessionals..Facilities ShortagesApart from ursonnel needs, many of the smaller schools do not have the space fspecializedprograms. One result noted during the conferences is that children in need of special education may be2 4:thrown together in a single clapsfoom without regard for their individual needs, so many paients feelthat their child, though handicapped,. is better Off in a regular classroom, without special services.Most reservation schools have almost -no-- taxable property and therefore -no bonding capacity. Thisqualifies them foxfederalconstructionfunds underP.L.815 and TitleIIoftheIndianSelf-Determinatidn Act (P.L. 93-638) bur-appropriations for both a

67 cts have been minimal. In addition,many
cts have been minimal. In addition,many of the smaller schools, are over forty yearsold, and have architectural barriers which exclude anumber of handicapped children from easy access.The problems of developing individualized education programs (IEP's) for handicapped childrenwithin' 'these schools are complex and ex,pensive, and aggravated by a chronic' unpredictability of_funds. To solve" them will require careful planning, and the coordination of resources between MIA and .nearby public schools.Both systems usually hay.e extensive teacher aide prdgrams, and members of the regional conferen-ces ,strongly recommended that these aides be .given training in special education, even if it requires.4,giving, them released time from their other activities. The same course was urged for the manyparaprofessionals employed by Project Headstart. Without such training there is a danger thathandicapped children in their preschool years will be turned away because the paraprofessionals willhave no idea how to-work with them.MiscellOneousSome othlr course of action recommended by the various regional conferences include:the "need to develop special education curricula that is .compatible with maintainingidentity:,69ucultural that special education programs be extended into the summer months 'when staff and facilities arein greater supply:the importance of doing follow-up work with students leaving the system.the need to train and assist the parents of handicapped children to improve life at home and to getmore Parental involvement in the design of IEP's.'SUPPORT SERVICESJurisdictional Overlapk'There are potentially so Many gervice providers for Indiansespecially, federally connected Indiansthat it is frequently difficult to fix responsibilities. As simple a matter as a school physical forIndian chldren can create minor chaos. The local education agency doesn't do the examination becausethey think it is being done or should be done by the Indian Health Service. IHS cLeesn't do it becausethey *assume_it's being handledthrough special funds such as Johnson-ONalley.be people in theJohnson-O'Malley program are waiting for the local education agency to handle 111rAs one conferee,noted.

68 "SuppOrt servicfor Indians are frequent
"SuppOrt servicfor Indians are frequently reminiscent of a chair with ten legs and no.seat."Both state and local education agencies need to know the full range of services to which Indian'children are entitled. They also need to know which of those services are actually delivered. A childmay have a right to have glasses, orthopedic aids, or,,,a wheelchair, but in many areas these items arein short supply..,Some.states don't provide equal services to Indians in public schools because they think it's afederal responsibility. Many states have the basic provision of94 -142 built into existing statelaws, but in other states these requirements are altogether new. The innovativeirtitture of the new.requirements can add to the confusion; but it can also provide the impetus for the kind of coordinatedplanning that has been missing until now.This planning must include the diffiuclt question of who pays for what, and when. In legal terms it,can be defined simply: Indian children are entitled to all services and benefits going to other children,but they may also be entitled to additional federal services because they are Indians. Sometimes thesother services exist on ?raper but not in fact. In some regions of the country they don't even exist onConferees agreed that the situation isn't likely to change very much until BIA begins tocoordinate its own education and, social service effortsat the national policy level, in area offices,irnd at the local field level. When this ins accomplishedsigreements can be worked out between BIA and.,the states for delivery of support srvices.oN.'Relationships between IHS and state and local medical services also need to be defined. This isparticularly crucial in isolated areas where services Of" any kind of minimal. The various healthagencies also, need to work together with social serviertgencies to provide transportation, wheelchairs,orthopedic 'aids, and other such equipment that handicapped children need.r.,MiscellarieousConference- participants also pointed out a number of other issues that deserve attention if saportservices are to reach the children they're supposed to reach.There is a need-forgreatercooperation on a department level bet

69 ween the Departments of In-terior and HE
ween the Departments of In-terior and HEW. When this occurs, there will be a greater chance thatthe spirit of working toge-ther will filter down to the local leN;e1.States should _draw up a comprehensive list of all related services from federal, state and localprograms so that people will know who to go to for what.707 0;. 4guarantees of due process depends to a large degree on the effectiveness of the special education-programs themselves. 'Although the negative aspects of the history of Indian education have beenm n 'oned often in this repoany conferees believed, that Indians will support ,programs thatproduce positive results. Cley, however, such positive results will not be attained in the absence- ofadequate staff, facilities, and training to run the programs the way they ought to be run..-Personnel Shortages.School administrators at the conferences noted that a major barrier in isolated reservatidn areas isthat it is extremely difficult to attract, special education teachers.. Salaries tend to be low, and in somereservation school communities there is no available housing. One consequence is that in !pinycommunities the sentiment exists that it is pointless to launch recruitment drives because there aren't°Jenough facilities to take care of those who might be hired.,A second problem is the high turnover rate among teachers coining from the Anglo-Americanculture;thedifficulties involved in adjusting to another culture, and to the isolation of many IndianCommunities has prompteA-many qualified special education teachers to return to mainstream America,-after a single tour of duty on the reservation.-,One 'obvious solution is to begin extensive training, programs for Indians who live in these remotecommunities. Many conferees urged that IHS and regional universities set aside more training slotsfor spec. ial education diagnostiCians and teachers'especially special vocational education teachers --which would be filled by people from the reservations. Another suggestion was to provide training inspecial education to Indian teachers who are presently workjpg in regular classrooms.AWhile schools are waiting for local, people to be trained, there is a need to develop

70 recruitmentprograms that offer incentive
recruitmentprograms that offer incentives to special education teachers. These could be in the form of highertalaries, some'sOrt of fringe benefits, or simply the chance to make a real difference in the lives ofchildren who need all the help they can get..Another possibility mentioned at the conferences is to make certification standards more flexible forteachers working in isolated communities, and to emphasize the training of paraprofessionals.Facilities ShortagesApart from personnel needs, many of the smaller schoOls do nqt have the space for specializedprograms. One result noted during the conferences is that children in need of special education may bethrown together in a single classroom without regard for their individual needs, so many parents feelthat their child, 'though handicapped, is better off in a regular classroom, without special services.Most reservation schools have almost no taxable proeerty and therefore no bonding capacity. Thisqualifiestheinforfederalconstructionfunds, underP.J. ,S15 and TitleIIoftheIndianSelf-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638) but appropriations for both acts have been minimal. In addition,many of the smaller schools are over forty years old, and have architectural barriers which exclude anumber of handicapped children from easy access.The problems of developing individualized education programs (IEP's) for handicapped childrenwithin these schools are complex and expensive, and aggravated by a chronic unpredictability. offunds. To solve them will require careful planning, and the coordination of resources between MIA andnearby public schools.Both systems usually have extensive teacher. aide programs, and members of the regional conferen-ces strongly recommended that these aides 1p given training in special education, even if it requiresgiving them released time from their other activities. The same course was urged for the manyparaprofessionals employed by Project Headstart. Without ,such training there is a danger thathandicapped children in their preschool years will be turned away because the paraprofessionals willhave no idea how to work with them.MiscellaneousSome other course of action recommended by the various regional co

71 nferences include:the need 'to develop s
nferences include:the need 'to develop special education curricula that is compatible with maintaining culturalidentity:69 7/ that special education programs be extended into the summer months when staff and facilities arein greater supply:the importance of doing follow-up work with students leaving the system.the need to train and assist the parents of handicapped childrento improve life it home and to getmore parental involvement in the design of IEP's.SUPPORT SERVICESJurisdictional Overlap9,There are potentially so many servicelDroviders for Indiansespecially federally connected Indiansthat it is frequently difficult to fix fresponsibilitieS. As simple a matter as a school physical forIndian chldren can create minor chaos. The local education agency doesn't do the examination becausethey think it is being done or should be done by the Indian Health Service. IHS doesn't do it becausethey assume it's being handled through special funds such as Johnson-O'Malley. The people in theJohnson-O'Malley program are waiting for the local education agency to handle it. As one confereenoted. "Support services for Indians are frequently reminiscent of a chair with ten legs and no seat."Both state and local education agencies need to know the full range of services to which Indianchildren are entitled. They also need to know which of those services are actually delivered. A childmay have a right to have glasses, orthopedic aids, or a wheelchair, but in many areas these items arein short supply.Some states don't provide equal services to Indians in public schools because they think it's afederal responsibility. Many states have the basic provision of P.L. 94-142 built into existing statelaws, but in other states these requirements are altogether new. The innovative nature of the newrequirements can add to the confusion, but it can also provide the impetus for the.kind of coordinatedplanning_ that has been missing until now.This planning must include the diffiuclt question of who pays for what, and when. In legal terms itcan be defined simply: Indian children are entitled to all services and benefits going to other children,but they may_ also be entitled to additional federal servi

72 ces because they are Indians. Sometimes
ces because they are Indians. Sometimes thesother_ services exist on paper but not in fact. In some regions of the country they don't even exist onpaper. Conferees agreed that the situation isn't likely to change very much until BIA begins tocoordinate its own education and social service effortsat the national policy level, in area offices,and at the local field level.,When this is accomplished agreements can be worked out between BIA andthe states for delivery of support srvices.Relationship's between IHS and state and local medical services also need, to be defined. This isparticularly crucial in isolated areas where services of any kind of minimal. The various healthagencies also need to work together with social service agencies to provide transportation, wheelchairs,orthopedic aids, and other such eq pment that handicapped children need.MiscellaneousConference participants also pointed out ,a number of other issues that deserve attention if supportservices are to reach the children they're supposed to reach.There is a need for greater cooperation on a department level between the Departments of In-terior and HEW. When this occurs, there will be a greater chance that the spirit of working toge-ther will filter dom.' to the local level.Statevats should drawup a comprehensive list of all related services from federal, state and localprograms so that people will know ygho to go to for whams7072 When representatives of the tribes and various states get together to work out agreements,_they shouki_be talking_about, nothing-butt.special-education: The introduction of highly chargedissues such as.land or water rights virtually guarantees that no agreements will be worked out.Although various agencies have a share of responsibility for providing, support services to Indianmigrant children, those responsibilities are not fixed, nor clearly communicated, and there is lit-!tle pooling of information.There are serious problems in establishing inter-agency linkages in residential child care facilitiesNew agreements must be worked out.In many states the Headstart programs don't know whether to go to BIA or the state educationagencies for support services for handicapped child

73 ren. Responsibilities must be defined, a
ren. Responsibilities must be defined, and thisinformation dissemi ated.RECOMMENDATION1. An essential first step in working through jurisdictioiial contusion must bea written and clearlydrawn working arrangement between BIA and State Departments of Education. In order to give theagreement policy- making authority, it must ,be negotiated at a high administrative levelthe chiefstate school officer and the BIA area directorbut it must also include the state director of specialeducation and the BIA area director of special education. Theyare the people who will have to carryout the agreement and overcome obstacles on a school district and agency level. Therecan be no onemodel agreement that all states and areas follow. Each region has speclal problems and circumstancesthat must be taken into account.2. There must be a Policy Agreement on the Cabinet level between HEW and theDepartment ofInterior that will make it legal and practical to draw up local functional plans that will complementeach other.Once the individual states and the BIA have agreedon their areas of responsiblity and operation,clear roles must be defined for Indian Health Service, BIA Social Services, and state socialserviceorganizations.4. Clients receiving social services ought to know what services theyare entitled to, who offersthem, and where they can be found. Ideally, every community,_however small, would havea directorythat woWd-rell-thein what services to expect, and who to go lo for what. This willrequire extensivecommunity liaison work, and cannot be accomplished with one massive printing.6. Tribal staff members should serve as links in the community educationprocess. They willteed,additional information and trainingthose on the federal laws, and" the handicapped laws with acorresponding state. They will need to be familiar with the BIA plan for theirareas, as well as theirstate plan.6. Individuals who now work in programs for handicapped ,Indian children should be 'involvedintraining local or indigenous personnel. They are at essential lit* between federal andstate programsand local communities. They can describe what special programs' for the handicappedcan be ac-complished.7. Indian parents of

74 handicapped children can form part of t
handicapped children can form part of the base for developingIndian advocatesamong the parents. They have to date not been widely involved in advocacy programson either astate or local level. The notable eiceptions have been those parents whose children attendsome of thenew Indian contract schools for the handicapped, Existing' Indian education staff members alsoneed training and encouragement so that they can bring Indian parents together, with existingad-vocacy groups. It seems certain that. the boilds between parents of handicapped childrencan bestronger than the differences between Indian and non-Indian.7173 8. Federal and state agencies need to share their information systems. There is a need t'develop adata-gathering system which would allow an easy exchange of information between agencies. Thisrecommendation includes all related state systems, BIA Education, BIA Social Services and IHS.There should also be active coordination between Indian programs and migrant programs, particularlyat the regional and local levels.9. Agencies collecting information must realize the drawbacks in the U. S; census figures commonlyused" 'There are tribes where the voter registration count exceeds the total census count for peopleof voting age. Tribal figures aretconsiderably more accurate.10. Training funds should be committed on a national level to promote a considerable increase inthe number of Indian special pducation teachers. There should also be a great increase in trainingfor paraprofessionals. None of this willwork unless there is also a commitment on a Ttgional and locallevel from universities, hospitals, and diagnostic centers. Indian people also neeeto be trained inevaluation and testing. A.recrtiitment drive should be started at the high school and even junior highlevel for training in special education and all related fields.11. Vocational training for handicapped Indian needs to be considerably increased. Given the highunemployment rate in many areas for those who aren't handicapped, this will take imaginative plan-ning and the financial commitment of state and federal agencies. It will also take careful coordina-tion between training institutions and employment pl