October 2013 Meeting Minutes

American Indian Education Oversight Committee Meeting

October 14, 2013

Present

Committee Members: Laura Lee George (Chair), Amber Machamer (Vice Chair), Rodney Lindsay, Kathleen Marshall, Rachel McBride, Deborah DeForge (10:21)

Members Present Via Teleconference: André Cramblit (Parliamentarian), Irma Amaro

Excused Absence: Russell “Butch” Murphy

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

Meeting convened at 10:00 a.m.

Laura Lee George—Asked for a motion to change the order of agenda items. Rodney Lindsay moved to approve the changes. Rachel McBride seconded. All in favor.

Item 2―Update from WestEd Update
Presented by Margit Burge, Program Associate, WestEd

Margit Burge distributed the following materials:

• List of three Webinars co-sponsored by the Region IX Equity Assistance Center (EAC) at WestEd
• Partial transcript of United States Department of Education (ED) Tribal Consultation and Listening Session (Public Meeting), Smith River, California, on August 15, 2013.
• Research Summary produced by the Region IX EAC at WestEd on the Racial School-Climate Gap. American Indian (and others of color) are having a different experience of school climate and the sense of safety, etc., compared to White students (they are not feeling as safe as White students).
• "Dear Colleague" letter from the ED regarding bullying, students with special needs, and multitiered efforts to address these issues.
• Copies of August and September 2013 newsletters from Region IX EAC at WestEd

Item 7― Progress on Assembly Bill 544 Eminence Credential: American Indian Languages
Presented by Kathleen Marshall, American Indian Education Oversight Committee (AIEOC) Member

• There are currently 19 teachers that now have this credential in California and Kathleen Marshall is one of them. It took about six months for her to get the credential, longer than the three months she had been told. Four teachers, including Kathleen, applied for this credential at the same time, but they did not all receive their credentials at same time, so there does not seem to be consistency with the process.

Item 1―CDE Updates
Presented by Judy Delgado, American Indian Education Consultant, CDE

• American Indian Early Childhood Education (AIECE) funding has come out of flexibility. There is no decision yet exactly how to allocate the funding.

Rachel McBride—Is the AIECE funding going to be put with the American Indian Education Center (AIEC) Program?

Judy Delgado—There is currently talk going on in the CDE, however, no decisions have been made.

• AIEC funding came out of flexibility on July 1, 2013. The CDE received 30 applications for this funding, and the applications were read the first week of September. Seven of the 30 applications received a high enough score to be funded. The remaining applicants were sent a letter and will be given an opportunity to reapply. The CDE anticipates reading these applications as quickly as possible and expediting the second round of reading, decisions, etc. 

Item 3―Public Comment

Laura Lee George—Are there public comments? Do we have a list of people who want to make public comments? (All public comments also need to be written on cards.) For public comments, each person will be allowed five minutes to speak, because the topic is of such importance.

• Public comments were made by the following individuals: Paula Starr, Southern California Indian Center, Inc.; Mary Trimble Norris, American Indian Child Resource Center; Sandra Hernandez, Kern Indian Education Center; Alexander Yazza, Owens Valley Career Development Center; Willie Carrillo, Tule River; Jennifer Ruiz; Cindy La Marr, Capitol Area Indian Resources, Inc.; Josie Talamantez, Connie Reitman, Inter-Tribal Council of California; Linda Shoshone; Ernie Salgado (letter from him received by and read aloud by Deborah DeForge) and Gabriel Vivas, Attorney, Capitol Area Indian Resources, Inc.
• Public comments were made about the following subjects:
  • The need of the children served by the AIECs to receive the educational services provided by the AIECs
  • The academic as well as cultural benefits the children receive from the educational services of the AIECs
  • The critical financial need of the AIECs to receive the grant application funding
  • The need to better understand the grant application process
  • The critical need of the AIECs for support from the state in the form of technical assistance as well as funding
  • The relationship between the AIEOC and the grant application process
  • The low number of AIECs that were granted funding after having submitted applications
  • The number of grant application readers that reviewed and scored each application
  • Questions about the education and cultural awareness qualifications of the grant application readers
  • The perception of unfairness in the idea that the AIECs that were not awarded funding are being required to reapply in order to have another opportunity to receive funding
  • The concept of “underground regulations” not specified or clearly specified in any official regulations
  • Problems with the process of creating the rules and regulations, and how that may relate to the rejection of most of the AIEC applications for grant funding
  • The perception by the tribes of a lack of support and concern by the CDE and the state for the tribes
  • The AIECs, and education of the children served by the AIECs

Judy Delgado—Provided the following clarifications:

• It is general practice at the CDE to have two readers review and score each grant application, using a scoring rubric. Usually, it is only when the scores of the two readers for a particular grant application are significantly far apart, that a third grant application reader is then assigned to review and score that same application. This was explained in the CDE Request for Applications (RFA) and in the training for preparing the application. The objective of this general CDE approach to reviewing and scoring grant applications is to support fairness and accuracy in the review and evaluation of each grant application.
• The readers selected for reviewing and scoring the AIEC grant applications had competency in education and American Indian education. The group of readers did not include CDE staff members Judy Delgado or Chavela Delp.
• "Monthly site visits" is incorrect information. The RFA states that monthly reports are to be submitted. It does not state that there will be monthly visits to each AIEC.

Gordon Jackson—The CDE’s Legal Office is reviewing letters regarding the grant application review process for the AIEC Program, and their review is not yet complete.

Laura Lee George—Do you know when that process will conclude?

Gordon Jackson—We are trying to be as expeditious as possible, and we are moving as quickly as possible.

Rod Lindsay—We do need to move as quickly as possible: many people are being impacted by this matter. I make a motion that we send an advisory to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) that the AIECs receive some funding immediately, for one year, at the 2012–13 rate of funding allocation.

Deborah DeForge—I second the motion.

Laura Lee George—Is there discussion on this?

Irma Amaro—States that the advisory not affect the AIECs that are funded, because there were fundable applications.

Deborah DeForge—The laws says that reports have to be completed and submitted. There is no timeline. There are 60 percent of reports that weren’t counted because the CDE lost the reports. AIECs are told at meetings that they are okay and then you get put on the “bad” list. Mr. Vivas submitted a letter with legal challenges. Can the AIEOC receive a copy of the letter that was submitted to the CDE?

Irma Amaro—It was stated in the RFA that a couple of years were not collected because the changing of Analysts. Chavela has sent e-mails when a report is late. We are all in this together; therefore, we should submit an advisory in a positive way. We should be asking for more money. We knew that we were going to be funded at a lower level because there isn’t enough money.

Deborah DeForge—If 77 percent of your class fails, then it’s the teacher.

Laura Lee George—Let’s get back to the motion. The motion is to send an advisory to the SSPI recommending that the 20 AIECs who did not meet the minimum scoring criteria on the RFA be funded immediately for one year the 2012-13 level without affecting the seven AIEC that have already been recommended for approval, and that the AIEOC be involved in reviewing RFAs before they are finalized in order to identify discrepancies.

Laura Lee George—Let’s take a vote. All in favor.

Deborah DeForge—Our function is to advise the SSPI. We cannot say, "You'll get your check in the mail tomorrow."

Laura Lee George—Are there any other public comments?

Josie Talamantez—I applaud you for making the motion that you just did—that you recommend that all applications be funded at the 2012-13 level.

Cindy La Marr—All AIECs should be funded at the same level because the process was flawed.

Laura Lee George—Does the AIEOC want to be involved in reviewing the applications that are submitted?

Amber Machamer—I make a motion that the AIEOC send an advisory to recommend to the SSPI that the CDE engage AIEOC members in the process of helping to draft and develop the wording for any future RFAs involving the AIECs.

Laura Lee George—In the past, the AIEOC was involved in helping to write legislation. Should we have some discussion on whether there’s any conflict of interest between AIEOC members helping to draft the RFA wording and being an applicant for funding?

Irma Amaro―We are not participating as members in the AIEOC just for ourselves or our own interests.

Deborah DeForge—Seconded the motion made by Amber Machamer that the AIEOC send an advisory to the SSPI to recommend that the CDE engage AIEOC members in the process of helping to draft and develop the wording for any future RFAs involving the AIECs.

Rachel McBride—The AIEOC members that are writing an application cannot be involved.

Irma Amaro—That is true.

Laura Lee George—Let’s take a vote. All in favor. One abstention by André Cramblit.

Laura Lee George—Is there any further discussion for Item 3, Public Comment?

Laura Lee George—Agenda Item 5 has been cancelled. Item 6 will be put on the agenda for the next AIEOC meeting.

Item 4—California Tribal College
Presenter: Marilyn Delgado, Interim Director of the California Tribal College, and Crystal Blue, California Tribal College Coordinator

• The California Tribal College (CTC) is being developed and run by tribes. The curriculum is focused on Native American studies and needs. Certificate programs are under development in partnership with California State University, San Marcos. The certificate programs will assist tribal members in understanding the governmental aspects of their tribal councils. Topics under discussion include California Indian Policies, Federal Indian Law, Roberts Rules of Order, Cultural Competency, and Cultural Monitoring.
• There are 37 tribal colleges and universities serving more than 27,000 Native Americans in 14 states in the U.S. and in Canada. However, there are currently no existing, functioning tribal colleges in California, and few of them serve multiple tribes like the CTC will do.
• For more information, please contact:

Crystal Blue
CTC Coordinator
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
P.O. Box 216, Brooks, CA 95606
E-mail: cblue@yochadehe-nsn.gov
Telephone: 530-796-3400
California Tribal College

Amber Machamer—Some of the issues I think you’ll see will be not so much in the way of curriculum issues, but issues about student population and services for that population.

Item 8―Committee Business

Laura Lee George—Asked for a motion to approve the July 15, 2013, AIEOC meeting minutes. Irma Amaro moved to approve the July 15, 2013, AIEOC meeting minutes with a correction to the spelling of Kathleen Marshall’s name. André Cramblit seconded. All in favor. 

Laura Lee George—The next meeting will be January 13, 2014, at the CDE.

Laura Lee George—Asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rachel McBride moved to adjourn the meeting. Kathleen Marshall seconded. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.