February 2016 Meeting Minutes

American Indian Education Oversight Committee Meeting
February 26, 2016

Present

Committee Members Present: Irma Amaro (Chair), André Cramblit (Parliamentarian), Laura Lee George, Rodney Lindsay, Amber Machamer, Kathleen Marshall

Members Present Via Teleconference: Rachel McBride (Vice Chair), Deborah DeForge

Excused Absence: Russell “Butch” Murphy

California Department of Education (CDE) Staff Present: Gordon Jackson, Barbara Pomerantz, Judy Delgado, Chavela Delp

Guests: Coleen Bruno, Richard Steward, Elizabeth Valles, Mary Trimble Norris, Erick Aleman, James Marquez, Nicodemus Ford, Damian Wilson

Meeting convened at 10:00 a.m.

Irma Amaro—Asked for any changes to the agenda.

Kathleen Marshall—Sam Cohen could not be here today, but he did send a copy of Senate Bill 911 that I can pass out.

Irma Amaro—Asked for any other changes to the agenda.

Item 1—American Indian Education Center Program Sunset Elimination
Presented by Kathleen Marshall

Legislation that authorized the American Indian Education Center Program is scheduled to end on January 1, 2017. Legislation enacted in 2010 had authorized the program from 2012 through 2017. Senate Bill 911 requests that the sunset date of January 1, 2017, in the current legislation be removed.

The California Teachers Association, Native American/Alaska Native Caucus, and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians support this bill. We also have spoken to State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) Tom Torlakson to support this bill, and we are asking this committee to send their recommendation to support this bill.

Laura Lee George—Moved that the American Indian Education Oversight Committee (AIEOC) send a recommendation to support this bill. Rachel McBride seconded. All in favor.

Item 3—California Department of Education Updates
Presented by Gordon Jackson

The CDE is creating a new office that is dialed in to a concern that is critical to us. We will need to go through the Legislature for funding, but it is called the Diversity and Inclusion Office, where we take the time and energy and focus on doing specific things, like looking at specific technical assistance, and looking at specific resources for the students of color in the State of California. We have data that says there are populations of African American, Native American, Southeast Asian, and Latino students that are not doing well. 

We have talked about some of the funding that we have because there are AIECs that are no longer being funded. Ahmium has resigned from the program, and the Capitol Area Indian Resources, Inc. (CAIR) will not be renewed for fiscal year 2015–16. At the August 17, 2015, meeting, we asked what the best thing to do would be—to split the money equally, or open new centers? We had a very vibrant conversation and I very much appreciated your input. I made the determination system-wide that there are two significant holes which I feel are to our advantage to fill; this will include a Request for Applications (RFA). We are working with our Legal Office to determine how we can do that RFA for the remaining three years, so that we can target those specific areas, and enhance our system so that we are meeting the needs. I think that this is the best way for us to move forward and to communicate our intentions.

• We want to make sure the Cost of Living Adjustment gets out to the AIECs.
• We want to raise the minimum of funding to all the AIECs, up to $133,330, because they are at a level where they really can't do much.
• We want to open two new AIECs at the minimum of $133,330.

André Cramblit—Does 100 percent of that funding go out, and is none returned to the general fund?

Gordon Jackson—All the funding is being reallocated to go back out to the AIECs.

Irma Amaro—You were saying that these funds for the RFA are the Ahmium and CAIR’s funds and not the funds that were returned from the AIECs, correct?

Gordon Jackson—Yes, that is correct.

Irma Amaro—Are the existing AIECs able to apply for that funding, or are you just targeting a couple of areas for that funding?

Gordon Jackson—The intention is to have a map that shows our coverage areas. We want to target the areas that are no longer receiving services which are the Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, Viejas, Fresno, and Santa Clara areas.

In the reauthorization of the AIEC Program, currently the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians are working with Senator Hertzberg to remove the sunset date of the AIEC Program.

Assembly Bill 30, the California Racial Mascot Act, addresses the issue of school and athletic team names.

• The bill was chaptered in October 2015.
• Beginning January 1, 2017, all public schools are prohibited from using the terms “Red Skins” for school or athletic team names.

Amber Machamer—Any sense on how that will be enforced? Although this will be the law, you still have the culture there. So would there need to be some kind of training for the principals and for the communities?

Gordon Jackson—Through our monitoring and other ways of compliance we would have to make sure that this is added in, and make sure that it is well understood. We will make sure that within the system this is enforced. The CDE will be providing guidance on messaging, there will be reminders, and the CDE will provide technical assistance if needed, because this is not optional.

The AIEC Report to the Governor and the Legislature—Although it is not a requirement and it is not in the California Education Code (EC) that we bring this to the AIEOC, (because it is not something that you will approve or vote on), it would be remiss to not bring this to you so you have an opportunity to view it. There is nothing in here that is shocking or surprising to you, but I do think it is important that you have the opportunity to view it. I suggest that this be tabled until Judy gets here so that she can walk you through this report.

André Cramblit—In doing your site visits and monitoring, does the CDE have a procedure, process, or a form that you check off for what you are looking for?

Gordon Jackson—We do have guidance that we use to make sure that our monitoring is consistent. We go through a process of calibrating, and then go out to do that work. I’m not sure that you will ever see that list because it is for our purposes.

Irma Amaro—Asked for public comments.

Richard Steward, Chairman, Lake County Citizens Committee on Indian Education, Inc.—I like what you are doing as an advisory committee and I read that you represent us, but I have never been contacted by this Committee for any input. You have been passing motions, so do you speak on behalf of all of the AIECs?

Irma Amaro—We are in an advisory capacity; all we do is send advisories to the SSPI making recommendations.

Laura Lee George—The motion was to send an advisory to the SSPI to support the reauthorization bill. Regarding input, we have taken public input at the American Indian Education Conferences.

Irma Amaro—Asked for any other public comments.

Item 4—CORE
Presented by Annabelle Kleist, Chief of Staff

CORE is a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve student achievement by fostering highly productive, meaningful collaboration and learning between its nine member school districts: Fresno, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Sanger, and Santa Ana Unified. Together these districts serve more than one million students and their families. CORE Districts introduced their new School Quality Improvement Index in December 2015. The Index uses a new system of multiple measures to provide schools and teachers with more information and better information to improve student learning.

Irma Amaro—Asked for public comment on this presentation.

Item 2—Region IX Equity Assistance Center Update
Presented by Rose Owens-West and Nicodemus Ford, WestEd

Provided the School Environment Listening Sessions Final Report which can be found at https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/. Throughout the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) consultations with tribes and tribal communities, tribal leaders have urged the ED to gather information from Native youth about the quality of their school environments, and to take action to improve Native students’ school experience.

Provided the Family Listening Sessions Executive Summary.

AndréCramblit—Are there any changes to the Every Student Succeeds Act and how it is going to impact Title VI?

Rose Owens-West—I have done many comparisons, and the only change is that it has changed from Title VII to Title VI.

Judy Delgado—I came to the same conclusion. After you have read the report, maybe you can make some recommendations to the SSPI on supporting and disseminating this report.

AndréCramblit—Timewise, I think we should make this recommendation now because President Obama’s administration is rapidly dwindling.

Laura Lee George—I agree. I was a part of one of the listening sessions and I think that this information needs to be disseminated as soon as possible.

AndréCramblit—Made a motion to make a recommendation to the SSPI, to support the entire report and recommendations found in the School Environment Listening Sessions Final Report, and to disseminate it to Indian Country and all schools throughout California. Laura Lee George seconded. All in favor.

Irma Amaro—Asked for public comment on this presentation.

Item 3—California Department of Education Updates
Presented by Judy Delgado

Judy Delgado—AIEC Legislative Report was due January 1, 2016. However, we wanted to share the report with the AIEOC first. The data included in this report is data that I collected from the AIEC 2013–14 Mid-Year Reports. The Executive Summary shows that we have 92 percent of the AIECs reporting, and that all of the AIECs reported that they are doing programs designed for self-concept and academic achievement. Over 90 percent reported that they are providing programs to increase employment for American Indian adults, and all of the AIECs reported that they are providing services to help students who are struggling in school.

The beginning of the report looks at California data in regard to American Indian students living in poverty. The report shows that 14 percent of the AIECs are located in counties with poverty rates greater than 20 percent. I looked at grade three as a benchmark for predicting academic success in school, and how American Indian students are doing compared to white non-Hispanic students.

One of the things I found was similar to the issues that we have discussed regarding the counts of students within the reporting system. If a student selects two races, or if they select Hispanic, they are not counted as American Indian students. Therefore, the data is based on students who only identified as American Indian students. So the data does undercount our students.

Diploma counts within the reporting system were studied for national averages in comparison to the different ethnicities. I also looked at California graduation rates, and we are almost the lowest (third from the bottom) for years 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14. We went on to show the allocation of funds and the number of students served for grant year 2013–14. I was unable to get the 2014–15 data because of the time the report was due compared to the time the data was due.

Page nine shows the types of services offered and the number of students who are served during the regular school program, and Table 9 shows the types of services offered and number of students served during the summer program. Table 10 shows the percentage of students served by grade level using the AIEC 2014–15 Mid-Year Report. Table 11 shows the number of AIECs who are providing the services enumerated within EC sections 33380–33385.

What we found is that there are varying degrees of services provided in the AIECs and the number of students utilizing these resources varies greatly; it is not necessarily tied to the amount of funding that each AIEC receives. So an AIEC may have a low funding amount but a higher number of students served than an AIEC that may receive higher funding but have a lower number of students served. We haven’t collected data on how to explain that discrepancy, but it could be the types of services, or the intensity of services provided. The AIECs are serving approximately 4 percent of the American Indian student population in California.

It is clear that EC sections 33370 and 33380–33385 support continually funding previously funded AIECs as opposed to funding new AIECs. There is no funding to support the administration of the AIEC Program in the CDE and the support that the CDE provides for the administration is through the allocation of general funds.

We talked about state level monitoring. As a condition of funding, we are required to collect the data and present it in this report. We also are required to monitor through quarterly and annual reports, written communication, and on-site reviews. In conclusion, we feel that the AIECs have met their obligation to act as educational resource centers and provide quality academic and cultural services to the American Indian communities.

Some of our recommendations are similar to the recommendations that we had in the 2011 report, which include:

• We would like the AIEC Program to be reauthorized and expanded to meet the needs of all American Indian students in California, not just the 4 percent that are currently served.

• We would like to have the American Indian students counted better within the reporting system of the CDE so that the undercounting is not so prevalent.

• We would like more funds to expand services.

• We advocate to have more funds allocated so that an American Indian Education Unit be created within the CDE.

• We would like to collaborate with other agencies to see if we could gather more data that would help us in determining what other types of services are out there, what types of services can be developed, and the nonduplication of services.

I included a list of all the AIECs, and a list of all the agencies that the AIECs collaborate with.

Are there any questions?

Laura Lee George—On the counting of American Indian students that Rose Owens-West was talking about, is that part of this?

Judy Delgado—That does happen in California.

Laura Lee George—It is causing funding levels to be way lower than if we were able to count all American Indian students at all levels. This is an ongoing concern of mine. Can this be clearly stated somehow, that this is a problem that we need to work toward, having the accuracy reflected in the data?

Judy Delgado—So are you asking if we can include that in number two? There is a note on page four of the report that includes that information.

Amber Machamer—I like the idea of adding that as a specific recommendation. The data is there it just takes a special request to gather the information.

Laura Lee George—And since this is going to the Legislature, we want them to take it to the federal level.

Judy Delgado—I do not think that this issue is specific to the American Indian community. I think that any other community that gets thrown into two or more races is also undercounted, so it is not just an American Indian issue.

Amber Machamer—I think that we are not likely to overturn the federal rules, but we are likely to have some traction if we continually advocate for a different type of reporting system when the underlying data exists.

Judy Delgado—One of the things that we are limited on, in terms of collecting data, is that it has to be in law.

Irma Amaro—Everybody needs this information, it is just at a higher level to get that done.

André Cramblit—I just want to say that this is the first time that we have had a comprehensive report pushed forward, and I really appreciate the hard work that you did on this. I think it is very critical for us to prove that we are making an impact in our communities.

Rod Lindsay—I would like to echo André’s comment.

Irma Amaro—Asked for public comments on this report.

Mary Trimble Norris, Executive Director, American Indian Child Resource Center—Knowing how our information is used would be helpful to us in the field, to better prepare our information. We are an afterschool program so we only listed collaboration partners that help our staff with training, or those that we have a back-and-forth relationship with in terms of program. I see that other AIECs listed schools, so I wanted to know if there is still time to add to our list of collaboration partners because we also work with schools. I also have a question in terms of funding. In our RFAs, we are required to comply with federal audit guidelines, so I’m wondering why we have to follow the federal guidelines if this is state funding?

Judy Delgado—The requirements for the AIEC Program audit are enumerated in regulations and they include the Audited Final Revenue and Expenditure Report form. The audit information that is included in the application that refers to federal audit requirements is there to make sure that the AIECs comply in terms of the federal funding that an AIEC receives.

Mary Trimble Norris—In the state level of monitoring, right now what monitoring consists of is whether we have late documentation. But there is nothing that is qualitative. I think in going forward, we should incorporate some fair metrics because the report to the Legislature doesn’t show how good we are as programs, how we improve students and communities, or the parents’ engagement and attachment to schools. Those topics are not looked at. In conclusion, I think it is good to point out how the cultural enrichment is so integral into building resilience and pride in our students. It is possible to show the off-setting statistics about the effect of historical trauma on our students. We spend a lot of time creating a safe space for our students to come together and find other American Indian students with a similar background. There are a lot of resources available to some AIECs, but not others, like tribal-based AIECs have.

André Cramblit—Thank you Mary. Those are very important comments. This is the beginning and I would like to see quantitative and qualitative data. I would like to recommend to Judy that when you submit the report you add another page that has quotes from students and parents of the impact that the AIECs have had on them.

Richard Steward—I wish there was more communication between the AIEOC and the AIEC Directors.

Irma Amaro—I think we should add a page to the report about American Indian history.

Rod Lindsay—I would like to see more directors meetings.

Laura Lee George—As a public comment, I am on the Klamath/Trinity Unified School District Board and I would like to share one of the things that we are facing, which is black mold. We have had to shut down all the gyms in the district. We have had to shut down the cafeterias. We have students and staff who have been in these buildings for years, which are old. We have had to shut down more wings in our schools. We have seventh and eighth-graders in Hoopa who have had to go to the high school, where they had to make two classrooms out of the library. We have no choice but to close the facilities. We are scrambling to provide spaces for the students to get an education. We do not know the extent yet to how it has affected the students.

We do not know how we are going to fund the reimbursement to get the facilities repaired. Before we found the last round of mold, we were $17 million in the red. We are currently trying to get another bond passed. We have had to do certificates of participation, which means that we are borrowing against them. We have had excellent responses from the Office of Public School Construction and the State Architect’s Office with helping us; however, we do not know when and if the funding will come.

This is a district that has over 1,025 students, and 94 percent are American Indian. We have had excellent cooperation with the tribes. When looking at the test scores on DataQuest where 67 percent of the students are not proficient, it weighs heavily on our minds what effect this has had on our students. 

André Cramblit—Are you able to make 180 days of attendance with the closures?

Laura Lee George—We are trying to get special legislative action. Last year we had 175 days of attendance and 180 this year. We had to close an additional five days due to road closures. We have not received any notification back that the Legislature has approved it.

Irma Amaro—Asked to go back to Committee business. Asked for a motion to approve the August 17, 2015, meeting minutes.

Kathleen Marshall—Moved to approve the August 17, 2015, meeting minutes. Amber Machamer seconded. Rodney Lindsay, Laura Lee George, and Deborah DeForge abstained. André Cramblit, Rachel McBride, Amber Machamer, Kathleen Marshall, Irma Amaro all voted in favor.

Irma Amaro—Asked to look at calendars to schedule future meetings. May 13, 2016, August 12, 2016, and November 4, 2016.

Irma Amaro—Asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Laura Lee George moved to adjourn the meeting. Rodney Lindsay seconded. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.