-23

appropriations have resulted in a distortion of the program to the point that those who worked on putting it together would hardly recognize it today. By way of example, one of the major controversies over the original bill was the balancing and fine tuning of the various percentages of appropriations for the many activities authorized. When agreement was reached on the allocations of appropriations among the purposes of the bill most other disagreements were resolved. Yet the appropriations for emergency school aid have never followed the allocations specified in the law.

We urge the Committee to find a mechanism to guarantee funding at levels necessary to accomplish its various purposes.

We further recommend that the law be amended to authorize multi-year project funding, depending on the time necessary for a school district to achieve integration and overcome the need for emergency assistance.

Under multi-year funding, personnel would have time to get to know their materials before they began to teach with them. It would mean that they would know where they would be working in the Fall and would not be placed in a months-long limbo in regard to future employment. In some districts, a teacher is required to indicate intent to return for Fall as early as March 1st, but decisions concerning employment for the Fall cannot be made by the school board until it knows what funds will be available.

-24

Indian Education

With the enactment of the Indian Education Act as part of the historic Education Amendments of 1972, the Congress took the first step in nearly forty years toward recognizing the Federal obligations to the education of Indian children and adults. The long-standing Federal policy in favor of assimilation of Indian children into white society and destroying their languages and cultures was at least brought to a halt.

Unfortunately, the changes envisioned in the Indian Education Act were severly hampered by the lack of enthusiasm of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the program authorized by that Act, by placing appropriations for that Act is the same bill with appropriations for BIA, and by limiting those appropriations to the point that the Act was almost nullified.

There is a pressing need to examine the manner in which appropriations are enacted. Historically, it was thought the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations should have jurisdiction over the appropriations process. At that time it may have been the best course to follow. However, we suggest that at this time the more appropriate committee would be the Labor-HEW Appropriations Subcommittee. This is not to indicate that the Interior Subcom

mittee has not given adequate attention to the program; we believe that the Labor-HEW Subcommittee is better equipped to deal with this funding question.

In our view the Office of Education has not given full

attention to the Indian education program because its funding pro

-25

cess is a different appropriation bill. OE has treated Indian Education as a step-child.

Thus we

One of the outstanding provisions of this Act is the parental involvement in Part A of the Act. However, it has become increasing apparent that some local school districts are not assuming their responsibility for the education of Indian children. recommend that Indian parents be given a means of encouraging those school districts to apply for funds to which they are entitled and that the discouraging paper work be eliminated.

The special program and projects section under Part B of the Act has provided the Indian community with renewed hope of being able to control and design educational programs that assist their children. It may be appropriate to consider that there is some duplication of effort. For example, in the current law one of the criteria for receiving funds is a bilingual-bicultural project. We believe that such applications shouldbe funded under Title VII of ESEA, the Bilingual Education Act. It may be possible to consider a transfer of certain amounts of Title VII funds to the Office of Indian Education for this use. The authorization level for Part B should be increased.

Part C, adult education, should be amended to increase the authorization to $15 million for each year. There is evidence that many Indian adults are returning to pursue their educational opportunity.

We suggest that new sections be added to provide for grant
It is true that agencies have

in research in Indian education.

-26

funds available for research.

However, the competition for such grants is keen and Indian education research is not always high on their funding priorities. The new language should reflect that the Office of Indian Education will ensure that such research would improve the quality of Indian education. We recommend that $7 million be authorized for the first year and $10 million for each succeeding year. In addition, we would suggest that teacher training be given adequate priority both in the area of in-service and pre-service levels.

The National Advisory Council on Indian Education should continue with some changes. This council in current law was mandated with certain responsibility that it has been unable to fulfill because no funds or staff have been assigned to carry out its mission. We recommend that the council's role be changed to carry out the national policy on Indian education.

Standardized Tests

There are two bills pending before this Committee which deal with standardized testing: H.R. 6776, which would use the Federal spending power to regulate and limit the use of standardized tests; and H.R. 6088 which would require the use of standardized tests and passing grades on such tests for all high school graduates.

Standardized testing has been the subject of considerable controversy for a number of years. A critical appraisal and revision of current testing programs is necessary. The introduction of these bills should encourage a review of testing procedures.

-27

Since 1972, NEA has favored the elimination of group

standardized intelligence, aptitude, and achievement tests until we know more about testing. During the past few years, the use of standardized tests has grown as a major determinant in the fields of education and employment. In general, standardized

tests tend to be arbitrary and biased. They lack validity in measuring actual ability, skill, and competence.

We therefore are opposed to the provisions of H.R. 6088. At the same time, we have long been opposed to federal control in the field of education. If H.R. 6776 were enacted, the federal government would be entering into, and dictating, educational practice. For this reason we cannot support the enactment of that bill. It would be preferable for educators and the testing industry to find an alternative for standardized tests without government regulation. It could be that federal regula. tion, in itself, would perpetuate testing of the type which ought to be discontinued.