A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n

Biennial Evaluation Report - FY 93-94

Chapter 113

Special Programs for Indian Students--Subpart 2

(CFDA No. 84.061)

I. Program Profile

Legislation: Indian Education Act of 1988 (Title V, Part C, Subpart 2 of the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, P.L. 100-297), as amended (25 U.S.C. 2621-2624) (expires September 30, 1999).

Purposes: Subpart 2 of the Act authorizes a variety of programs to improve educational opportunities for Indian students at preschool, elementary, and secondary levels and provide postsecondary fellowships for Indian students.

Funding History

Fiscal Year	Appropriation	Fiscal Year	Appropriation
1973	$5,000,000	1987	$11,568,000
1975	12,000,000	1988	11,707,000
1980	15,600,000	1989	12,307,000
1981	14,500,000	1990	12,557,000
1982	14,880,000	1991	11,992,000
1983	12,600,000	1992	12,038,000
1984	12,000,000	1993	12,134,000
1985	11,760,000	1994	14,300,000
1986	11,301,000

II. Program Information and Analysis

Population Targeting

In FY 1993 and 1994, Subpart 2 awards went to Indian tribes, Indian organizations, colleges, and universities. Also, 123 new and continuing fellowships were awarded to Indian students for undergraduate and graduate education in selected professional fields in FY 1993; in FY 1994, 103 new and continuing fellowships were awarded. A study of the 483 Indian fellowship recipients from the period 1985-89 identified them as members of 142 tribes and bands, and found the Lumbee tribe to have the greatest number of recipients--13 percent (III.1).

An evaluation of the Educational Personnel Development (EPD) projects focused on those students whose projects had ended before 1991. Ninety-six percent were American Indian or Alaska Native. Half (53 percent) the participants grew up on Indian reservations, and another 27 percent reported that their primary residence up to age 18 was in non-reservation rural areas (III.2).

Services

Using the six National Education Goals existent at the time as a foundation, the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force developed 10 National Goals for American Indians and Native Alaskans, a strategic framework for improving schools, and specific recommendations for various partners whose participation is critical, i.e., parents, school officials, tribes, local governments, State governments, the Federal Government, and colleges and universities. The Task Force recommended that the Indian Education Act of 1972, as amended, provide long-term discretionary funding for model projects and outreach activities for Native parents and students designed to improve schools and academic performance (III.3).

Grants under this subpart may be used for:

Planning, Pilot, and Demonstration Projects to design, test, and demonstrate the effectiveness of approaches to improve education for Indian students at preschool, elementary, and secondary school levels;
Educational Services Projects to improve educational opportunities for Indian preschool, elementary, and secondary school students, including enrichment programs and projects designed to reduce the incidence of dropouts among Indian students;
Educational Personnel Development Projects to train individuals for careers in education, serving Indian students;
Indian Fellowship Program for Indian students in medicine, psychology, law, education, business administration, engineering, and natural resources;
Indian Education Technical Assistance Centers to provide training and technical assistance and to disseminate information on program planning, development, management, and evaluation; and
Indian Gifted and Talented Program for research and development activities related to the education of gifted and talented Indian students.

Subpart 2 awards included Planning, Pilot, and Demonstration Projects (12 awards to serve approximately 3,000 participants in FY 1993 and 8 awards to serve 1,821 participants in FY 1994); Educational Services Projects (20 awards to serve 4,200 participants in FY 1993 and 19 awards to serve 4,636 participants in FY 1994); and EPD (11 awards to serve 370 participants in FY 1993 and 14 awards to serve 500 participants in FY 1994). The grants supported a variety of activities, including preschool projects, curriculum development, dropout prevention, media/computer-assisted instruction, and alcohol and drug abuse prevention (III.4).

Subpart 2 also included the EPD and Indian Fellowship programs. EPD funding totaled $2,353,000 in FY 1993 and $3,024,000 in FY 1994; EPD grants ranged from $49,000 to $342,000. In addition, 123 new and continuation fellowships were awarded to Indian students in FY 1993 and 103 new and continuation fellowships were awarded in FY 1994. Indian Fellowship Program funding totaled $1,735,000 both years; fellowships awards ranged from $2,500 to $39,000 (III.4).

An evaluation of the Indian Education Technical Assistance Centers (IETACs) under the 1991-94 contracts assessed their effectiveness in providing assistance to LEAs, BIA schools, Indian-controlled schools, and others who had received or were eligible for Title V grants to serve the educational needs of Indian students. Service recipients rated the IETACs very favorably on accessibility, responsiveness, and the quality of their services. Most IETAC staff had completed undergraduate or graduate degrees in education or related fields, and most were American Indian. In addition to their knowledge and experience in education, IETAC staff believed that their American Indian identity and personal knowledge of American Indian cultures and languages was important in gaining acceptance and working successfully with many of their clients (III.5).

The study found that IETACs served their clients primarily through workshops and on-site visits, and through the use of telephone, FAX, and mail service. Although a majority of the survey respondents had access to televisions with video-cassette players, telephones with conference call capabilities, and computers with modems, there was little reported use of these technologies by IETACs in providing assistance, despite the difficulty of access in many remote, rural locations where Indian students are served (III.5).

The evaluation identified limitations in IETAC services, which seemed to be common to many of the Department's other types of technical asssistance centers under the ESEA legislation in effect at that time (III.5):

IETAC contracts with the Department limited the scope of services to providing assistance only upon request. Requests focused overwhelmingly on help in completing grant applications, complying with federal program requirements, and handling other managerial and administrative responsibilities, instead of addressing the substance of educational programs for Indian students.
IETACs' assistance generally was limited to a single workshop, on-site visit, or other contact with grantees, with little or no follow up, instead of more intensive, sustained assistance necessary to bring about improvements in education for Indian students.
Although the study found that IETACs communicated or coordinated somewhat among themselves and with other providers of technical assistance, assistance from the IETACs often operated in isolation from other programs in the schools. For example, although many Indian students also were eligible for services under the Chapter 1 Program for Educationally Disadvantaged Children, the study found little coordination with Title V. In addition, Title V programs were designed to be supplementary and often were not connected to the regular school program.

The evaluation of the EPD program examined projects in operation between FY 1987 and FY 1991. Funding for the EPD program averaged $2.25 million per year. Project grants ranged from approximately $50,000 to $280,000 per year. Most EPD projects prepared undergraduate students for positions as teachers of students in elementary and secondary schools, although some EPD projects also trained students for positions as K-12 teacher aides, college teachers, educational administrators, and educational researchers (III.2).

Most EPD projects supplemented the teacher training program offered to non-EPD students with additional fieldwork, internships, emphasis on Indian education, and/or emphasis on Indian culture and language to prepare participants to work with American Indian students. All projects provided some financial support to EPD students through stipends, tuition, allowances for dependents, money for books, travel funds, and/or research funds. The size of stipends and amount of other financial support provided varied by project. Most projects also provided academic counseling to EPD students (III.2).

Outcomes

The Department required IETACs to report regularly and in detail on their activities, but did not require IETACs to track the effects of their services on changes in clients' Title V grant projects nor on the quality of the educational programs serving Indian students. However, the contractual restriction that IETACs provide assistance only in response to requests severely limited the opportunities for IETACs to target their services and provide intensive assistance focused on improving educational programs for Indian students (III.5). The Department is drawing on findings from the study as it designs the new comprehensive regional assistance centers authorized in Title XIII of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.

Of EPD participants whose projects ended before 1991, a large majority (72 percent) attained their degrees. Most of these participants earned bachelor's (45 percent) or master's degrees (39 percent); the rest earned associate's degrees (6 percent), teaching credentials (6 percent), or doctorates (4 percent). A large majority (80 percent) of those who completed their degrees reported that they had subsequently worked in educational jobs where at least half the students served were American Indian, in K-12 schools, colleges, tribes, or other educational organizations (III.2).

The EPD study reported that some students lost financial support and were unable to complete their studies when the 3-year funding cycle ended. The evaluation report suggested reconsideration of the 3-year funding cycle for EPD grants, noting that many EPD grants fund 4-year academic programs. The report also noted that 23 percent of those participants surveyed who left EPD projects without completing their degree said they had dropped out because of personal financial pressures. The report suggested reconsideration of Federal regulations that limit the amount of student stipends to $600 per month and dependent allowances to $90 per month per dependent, limits which have not changed for more than 15 years despite increases in the cost of living (III.2).

A 1991 study of the Indian Fellowship Program found that 74 percent of the undergraduates and 80 percent of the graduate students were enrolled in good standing or had completed their programs. In addition, among employed fellowship recipients, about 60 percent were or had been employed within the Indian community (III.1).

III. Sources of Information

Study of the Indian Fellowship Program (Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates, Inc., 1991).
Evaluation of Educational Personnel Development Projects in Indian Education (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1994).
Indian Nations At Risk: An Educational Strategy for Action (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1991).
Program files.
Evaluation of the Indian Education Technical Assistance Centers (Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc., forthcoming in 1995).

IV. Planned Studies

None.

V. Contacts for Further Information

Program Operations:: Director, Office of Indian Education, (202) 260-3774
Program Studies:: Susan Ross, (202) 401-1958

-###-

[Indian Education--Financial Assistance to Local Education Agencies and Indian-Controlled Schools for the Education of Indian Children--Subpart 1]

[Special Programs for Indian Adults--Subpart 3]