Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
October 27, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3920 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY October 27, 1999 BRENT GISH NISA PRESIDENT NAITONAL INDIAN IMPACTED
SCHOOL ASSOCIATION SENATE INDIAN AFFAIRS EDUCATION ASSISTANCE
REAUTHORIZATION
BODY:
Testimony of NATIONAL INDIAN
IMPACTED SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION on the Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act Presented before the SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
October 27, 1999 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the National Indian Impacted
Schools Association regarding reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. My name is Brent Gish. I am a member of the White Earth Band of
Chippewa Tribes of Minnesota and a former tribal council member. For twenty
years I taught in the Naytahwaush Elementary School on the White Earth
Reservation in Minnesota. I am currently Superintendent of the Mahnomen Public
School District on the White Earth Reservation and am also President of the
National Indian Impacted Schools Association (NIISA). The Mahnomen School
District provides education both inside and outside the walls of our school
facilities. In addition to educating students in our two elementary schools and
the junior/senior high school, our educational services include a home
intervention program, a pre-school program, and after- school child care. The
National Indian Impacted Schools Association represents public school districts
which contain Indian trust land and Alaska Native lands. The Impact Aid program
provides federal funds for public school operations that would have otherwise
been provided by local tax revenues but for the presence of federal property --
in our case, primarily lands held in trust by the federal government for Indian
tribes. The Impact Aid program is administered through the Department of
Education. Approximately 90% of Indian and Alaska Native elementary and
secondary students nationwide attend public schools. Most of the remaining 10%
of students attend Bureau of Indian Affairs-system schools whose operating
budgets come through BIA appropriations. Every state represented on the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs receives federal Impact Aid -- the most recent
figures we have show that in fiscal year 1997, $331 million in Impact Aid was
distributed to states whose Senators are on this Committee.' About half -- or
$300+ million -- of the Impact Aid basic support payments are made to public
school districts because of the presence of students living on Indian lands.
Other funding is provided to school districts which have limited tax bases due
to military land and low rent housing. My comments will focus on two areas:
Impact Aid and school construction. As a legislative matter, Impact Aid is under
the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee
and public school construction-will fall under the jurisdiction of the HELP
Committee and/or the Finance Committee' depending on the content of the
proposal. It is- appropriate however, that the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs be knowledgeable about and make recommendations to other Congressional
Committees on the Indian aspects of the Impact Aid program and school
construction. These are critical issues for schools educating students from
Indian lands. Impact Aid. There are several Impact Aid reauthorization proposals
in circulation -- proposals by the Administration, the Senate HELP Committee (at
this time in the form of a discussion summary) and the National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS). NIISA members, all of whom are also members
of NAFIS, support the NAFIS Impact Aid proposal, but there are positive
provisions in other proposals and there are provisions NIISA would like which
are not in any current bill. Below are key points regarding Impact Aid on which
we ask your support. Forward Fund the Impact Aid Program. We urge Congress to
take the long overdue step of providing appropriations to forward fund the
Impact Aid program. Other major education programs, e.g., Title I,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Bureau of
Indian Affairs school operations, are forward funded. Public school
administrators in heavily impacted districts must make very difficult and risky
program and personnel decisions for the upcoming school year or the next school
year without knowing how much Impact Aid funding they will be receiving. For
many Indian lands schools, Impact Aid is the primary source of school operations
funding and the schools would close without it. While school administrators cope
with this system, it makes much more sense for a school administrator to know
6-12 months prior to the beginning of the school year what its budget will be.
For example, in Minnesota we are required to sign contracts for tenured teachers
by April 15th for the upcoming school year. For non-tenured teachers, we must
sign contracts by June 1 for the Fall term. Because Impact Aid is not forward
funded, we must sign contracts for tenured teachers 4 1/2 months prior to the
knowing the amount of money we will receive - and that is under circumstances
when we have a Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill which is signed by
October 1st - a rare occurrence, as you know. When the government shut down
several years ago, Impact Aid schools had to borrow money just to stay open and
had to pay large amounts of interest -- tens of thousands of dollars for some
schools -- for which they were not reimbursed. Some Impact Aid schools are in
the position now of having to borrow money because of problems at the Department
of Education resulting in chronically late Impact Aid payments. We know that
Congress understands this problem because it has made most federal education
programs forward funded. Impact Aid is a program of basic support for schools -
it hires the teachers, pays the utility bills, transports students, etc. and
this makes it all the more urgent for it to be forward funded. We realize that
the first year of forward funding will strain the appropriations process as
Congress would have to make available two years worth of funding. On the other
hand, we have a budget surplus and there is support from the Administration and
both parties in Congress for increased federal education funding. If the Impact
Aid program cannot be forward funded in total, we suggest that the Basic Support
and the Disabilities portions of the program could be forward funded or Congress
could look at the possibility of a phased-in approach to forward funding. -
Maintain Flexible Use of Impact Aid Funds. One of the attributes of the Impact
Aid program is that it provides flexible funds to public school districts.
Because Impact Aid funds are actually in lieu of a property tax base, it is
logical that they are not geared toward specific program use or federal
accountability standards. That said, public schools must meet local and state
standards, and rightfully so. It is just that we do not believe that another set
of standards should be linked to the Impact Aid basic support program. Make the
Trust Responsibility for Indian Education an Exhibit Part of the Impact Aid
Findings. Neither current law nor the Administration's Impact Aid proposal make
specific reference to the responsibility of the federal government for assisting
with the education of children living on Indian trust and Alaska Native lands.
We recommend that the Impact Aid law contain an express acknowledgment of the
federal responsibility to provide funding to school districts for the education
of federally connected children, and that it expressly mention the
responsibility for children living on Indian trust and Alaska Native lands. *
Maintain the Current Indian Policies and Procedures. We oppose the changes the
Administration has proposed regarding implementation of the Indian Policies and
Procedures (IPP) for the Impact Aid program. Under current law, a process called
"Indian Policies and Procedures' provides a formal link between tribal
governments, Indian communities, and public schools. We support this process.
Specifically, it requires school districts which receive Indian lands Impact Aid
funding to consult with tribes and the Indian community and develop Indian
Policies and Procedures. Tribes and parents of Indian students are able to
comment on whether Indian students are equal participants in educational
programs and school activities, and to request modifications in school programs
and materials. Tribes also have administrative appeal rights under the Impact
Aid statute. The Administration proposes to require each school district which
receives Title IX, Part A (Indian Education Act formula grants) to use the Title
IX parent committee to carry out its impact aid consultation requirement.
Another option proposed by the Administration is for the school district to
comply with its Impact Aid consultation requirement through meeting the parental
involvement requirement of the Title I program - a difficulty with that option
is that Title I committees have no requirement for Indian membership and
problems could arise with this Committee handling the consultation on a program
premised on the presence of Indian lands. We do, of course, work with the Title
IX parent committee on the Title IX program and those committee members are
always welcome to participate in any consultations on of the use of Impact Aid.
But we already have a broad, community-based consultation process in place
involving tribal governments, parents and community members, and do not think it
wise to change this process by vesting it in one particular committee. Provide
Meaning & Construction Assistance to Heavily Impacted Schools. In recent
years Congress has appropriated between $4-$7 million annually under the
authority of the Impact Aid law for construction/repair. Funding is distributed,
via formula, to heavily (50%) impacted schools. The funds received by the
schools are so small that they cannot make any real dent in construction needs.
We welcome any funds for repairs, of course, but we need more than band aids for
our crumbling schools. Senators Baucus and Hagel introduced Impact Aid-specific
school construction legislation which we would like to see included in the
reauthorized version of the Impact Aid law (or enacted sooner, if possible).
That bill, S. 897, would authorize discretionary grants for school construction
and renovation for federally impacted schools. It would authorize $50 million in
FY 2001 and such sums as necessary for the next four years. Funding would be
divided as follows: 45% Indian land schools, 45% military schools and 10% for
emergencies for schools that have at least half of their students from Indian
lands. The bill was referred to the HELP Committee. A House companion bill was
introduced by Representatives Hayworth and Pomeroy. The Administration's Impact
Aid construction proposal would provide all appropriated funds for Indian lands
schools. Most school construction proposals -- and there are many -- do not
authorize direct construction funding as would S. 897 but rather would utilize
the tax code to assist schools with facility construction. We comment on some of
these proposals below. School Construction Proposals Outside the impact Aid
Program. We urge that major school construction legislation, whether as part of
ESEA reauthorization or not, be enacted by this Congress. How one views school
construction proposals is determined in large part by the economic circumstances
of the school district. And school districts with Indian lands vary widely. For
instance, there are 80 school districts which are made up entirely of Indian
lands and 161 school districts which have at least 50% Indian lands. For the
most heavily impacted Indian lands schools which have little or no bonding
authority, legislative proposals whose benefits are dependent upon the local
school district issuing a construction bond, are of no benefit. But for schools
with a lesser percentage of Indian trust lands, relaxation of arbitrage rates
and tax free bonds may indeed be of some assistance. We would like to see a
legislative proposal which takes into account the varying circumstances of
Indian lands schools. NIISA has reviewed many of the pending school construction
bills from the 105th and 106th Congresses, and has the following comments on
their applicability to Indian lands schools: SEAs Should be Authorized to Issue
Bonds. Pending bills which would authorize State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to
issue school construction bonds can, if a state uses this authority, be of
assistance to revenue-poor Indian lands school districts which have limited or
no bonding capacity. We realize that some states will not use this authority,
but we urge that school construction legislation provide this option. Proposals
which rely totally on Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) raising funds through
the issuance of bonds will not help heavily impacted Indian lands schools.
Equitable Distribution of Benefit. We prefer those school construction proposals
which take into account the needs of LEAs. For instance, the bills which would
allocate federal tax credits for school modernization bonds that would provide
65% of credits to states based on the Title I formula and 35% to the largest 100
urban schools is preferable to the proposals which would split the benefits
50/50. (Tax credits for school modernization bonds would pay 100% of the
interest on bonds as opposed to 25-30% of the interest cost for traditional tax
exempt bonds.) Target Benefits to Low-Income School Districts. Some of the
legislative proposals which would require states to apply to the Secretary of
Education to apply for bond authority also require that the state describe how
it would use its funding to assist LEAs Which lack the fiscal capacity to issue
bonds on their own. We support this approach. Relaxation of Arbitrage Profits is
Not Needs-Based. The proposals which would relax the restrictions on arbitrage
profits as a means to stimulate school construction, while being beneficial to
some schools, do not target funding to low-income districts. Nor do they address
the lack of local revenue sources in districts which have a small or no tax
base. In summary, NIISA recommends that Congress and the Administration work
with tribal and state governments and school districts to develop workable
school construction funding options for public schools on Indian lands. A firm
commitment from all levels of government is vital. A variety of needs- based
financing options including direct federal appropriations, loan guarantees, tax
credits, and lease-back arrangements should be seriously examined. Again, thank
you for the invitation to the National Indian Impacted- Schools Association to
appear before this Committee. We look forward to working closely with you as
legislation affecting Indian and Alaska Native students in public schools moves
through Congress.
LOAD-DATE: October 30, 1999
