ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
ON
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AFFECTING
ALASKA NATIVES
4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 100
Anchorage,
Alaska 99503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Witness List | Exhibit
List
| PDF Version
ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
HEARING
Nome, ALASKA
SEPTEMBER 21, 1992
Deposition Exhibit
#1 - Testimony of Nancy Mendenhall
Testimony of Nancy Mendenhall, the Director at
Northwest Campus, College of Rural Alaska, which is a part of
the University
of Alaska Fairbanks here at Nome, September 21, 1992.
Thank
you for the opportunity to testify to the Commission here today.
I am going to speak to you about some of my concerns
in
the area of rural adult education. Our campus serves the sixteen
communities of our region and, through audioconference links
with other rural campuses, also enrolls students throughout rural
Alaska. About 50% of our students are classified as vocational
students. From 55 to 60 percent of our students are Alaska Native;
and we are classified as a minority institution for purposes
of receiving grant funds.
To introduce myself a little more,
I have been working full-time at Northwest Campus since 1982,
as its director since 1988. Prior
to that I was in charge of training programs at the regional
health corporation, and was an Upward Bound director for UAF
for two years. I have also taught in schools and travelled as
a program coordinator to villages in our region. Today I am going
to confine myself to comments about adult education, both academic
and voc ed for rural Alaska Natives, and to the socio-economic
situation which our young adult students and potential students
face today. Most of my remarks will also be applicable to the
other rural campuses in Alaska.
Many decades of work have gone
into trying to develop a system of adult education for rural
Alaskans that is successful, and
surely by now we have enough experience to be able to say what
constitutes a viable program that will give us the results we
all want, and yet, with a few exceptions most of us are not satisfied
that we really are meeting the needs of rural Alaskans, are providing
the training that will allow them the choices they want. And
by that I mean the skills and understandings to be able to choose
to join the computer age as a productive member of the work force,
or to remain in their traditional community and pursue as much
as possible a traditional lifestyle, or a combination of both,
which is what so many young adults want.
My belief is that we
do know a great deal more about what constitutes a successful
program than we are actually putting into action
most of the time. Why? First, we must be blunt and recognize
that there are still many people who believe in assimilation
of ethnic and cultural minorities. If these so-called minorities
don't want to or can't join the great mythical American majority,
too bad for them, is the attitude. That goes double for people
who want to live isolated rural villages. Social Darwinism is
still alive in every state capital to some extent, enough to
influence the political process in Alaska for sure. And beyond
that there are always natural and social forces operating which
resist change, i.e. are invested in the status quo, whatever
it is. And of course, there is the big problem of committing
the resources required to make any change. The U.S. and Alaska
aren't all that rich today-- where will we reallocate the resources
from? Any kind of spending program becomes a political issue;
the issues which get the dollars reallocated to them are those
with powerful constituent groups and lobbies-Education is always
very political in our country, and inevitably will be in a democracy.
Right now, rural Alaska is politically not as strong as it was.
To build successful programs for Alaska Natives,
there are three general principles I think we must follow, none
of which are
new insights, but which somehow get overlooked too often:
--
First, the people for whom these programs are intended must have
identified the need, must want the programs, plan them and
direct them. They must be involved in every aspect. This is not
only ethical, it is realistic.
-- Second, all sectors important
to the success must recognize that the need is critical, that
the programs are important enough
to give their total commitment, that to ignore them will cost
everyone.
-- Third, the necessary resources must be directed
according to the plan. I want to talk about the last one in more
detail.
Too often, critics charge that we seem to think that all we need
is more money to solve our problems. Although this is not true,
the changes I will propose here today will all involve the commitment
of more, or better use of resources.
One could argue that there
are some changes that simply take insight and energy, are not
so much an issue of dollars. But
look at the realities. For example, one could argue that it costs
no more money to hire a good teacher than a bad one, or ill-prepared
one. Not true. To take care in the recruitment process takes
time. It may mean spending more money advertising more broadly.
It means being willing to readvertise and wait if you don't get
the applicant you want the first time. It could mean that you
recognize the importance of hiring Alaska Native teachers, so
important for positive rule models as well as their cultural
understandings; and if they are underprepared in some areas,
you are willing to put out extra dollars in in-services and mentorships
to get them up to speed. It means being willing to pay competitive
salaries so that you can keep good teachers, because quality
Native teachers are in high demand and can name their price.
They may not stay with you out of sheer dedication to the community
or the program. Even more basic, you will have a hard time hiring
Alaska Native teachers in Alaska today when too few are graduated,
and those that are have the choice of many good jobs, few as
rigorous as teaching public school, or teaching in our isolated
villages. You will need to support programs that attract village
residents who intend to stay to teach in villages. These are
not typical urban campus based programs. That was just one example.
If we want to change the situation for Alaska Native students
and the rural unemployed, more resources have to be directed
into viable programs.
I could go on, but part of my message is,
we won't get quality education for rural Alaskans until we are
willing to pay for
it. However, right now Alaska is not in the best shape economically
as everyone knows. We are looking at reduction, not expansion,
of some fairly good programs with measurable successes. The problem
of reducing resources is compounded in rural Alaska, where we
don't have the numbers in enrollments, and never will. Rural
Alaska cannot compete in the numbers game, and we are losing
ground in the competition with other powerful constituent groups
in Alaska. The recent legislative reapportionment will intensify
this. Also, the Alaskan citizenry as a whole, still living on
the fantasy of the “boom years”, do not accept that
to have services from the state they must pay for them. At Northwest
Campus, we have not yet been seriously threatened with closure,
despite the economic gloom, because there are many groups who
still feel an obligation to try to bring rural Alaska out of
its third world economy, and believe that locally available training
is part of the answer. But Northwest, and every other rural program,
is each year being gradually being cut further and further back
through inflation and outright reductions, so that speaking of
internal reallocation as a strategy for new initiatives is not
to be taken seriously.
One thing I want to stress here today
is that no positive changes in rural Native education for adults
of significant size, and
I stress the size factor, are going to happen in the next years
without increased attention from the federal level, The boom
state is a memory, and the economic environment which gave us
large advances-- first the state-operated schools, then the community
colleges, then the Molly Hootch village high schools-- is no
more. The urban sector is calling the shots. The economic and
social situation in rural Alaska for young adults is now getting
worse again. Why? The annual capital projects that injected cash
into weak village economies are a fraction of what they were.
The projects and programs that are the result of those wealthy
years now have to be maintained with shrinking dollars. Meanwhile,
the state has cut way back on revenue sharing to the small cities
and to special programs like community schools. That the blessing
of the land claims is a mixed one is now more clear as village
corporations have not been able to develop profitable enterprises
in most cases. The economy of Nome as a regional center has been
going down for years, with no basic industry but one gold mine
to draw on. Fisheries have not developed in most of the region,
nor has tourism come close to its potential.
Meanwhile the baby
boomer generation in the villages now has its own children going
into high school, and the birthrate remains
high. Every village is crowded with unemployed young adults who
want very much to become a respectable part of the socio-economy,
and who must have some cash to participate in the subsistence
economy of their village but have little opportunity. AFDC is
heavily utilized, and while it aids, also adds to the problem.
Young men, especially, have fewer viable roles to move into in
their communities.
Despite the fact that large numbers of young
people leave the village for urban centers, or are lost through
unnatural early
deaths, their numbers in the villages keep growing. The resulting
frustration and depression, and accompanying alcoholism, suicide,
homicide, and family deterioration are hugh problems despite
state, local and tribal efforts to turn these around. The report
from AFN in 1990 titled "A Call to Action" goes into
this phenomenon in detail. Another important recent document
is Harold Napolean's book, the Way of the Human Being. So, the
next key point I want to make today is that the Native young
adults of rural Alaska are in a crisis situation that is getting
worse, that Alaska does not seem to be able to devote adequate
resources to combat this, and that federal help is need to turn
this crisis around.
I want to emphasize that although we can
point to many failures in our years of effort in adult training
and education, we also
have a few notable successes. The trouble is, the socio-economic
problems in the rural regions are compounding faster than we
can alleviate them. This is partly because of false starts, partly
because of lack of resources, or unstable resources to do the
job that's needed, partly because of the complexity of the situation.
Our programs are generally not yet completely adapted to the
realities of life for village residents. The profile of a typical
Northwest village student is a far cry from the traditional urban
campus dorm resident. Our student is female, over thirty, head
of the household having one or more children, working part-time,
unable to easily leave for an urban or even regional campus,
low-income, having developmental courses to cover before she
can get into fully credited classes, having a strong motivation
for regular challenging employment, and in the case of the academic
student, fully expecting to spend over 10 years in the attaining
of a baccalaureate degree, as she will average between one and
two courses per term till she gets close to the finish, at which
point she will jump in all the way for nine to twelve credits.
During these years of study, she will experience all manner of
extended family responsibilities, crises, tragedies, and more
positive demands on her time and will develop incredible strengths.
Some of these students will also get considerable support from
family, but not all.
The more numerous vocational students are
much like the former, except that this group will contain more
men, and they will have
chosen programs which are more short term with more guaranteed
assurance of cash returns in the next time period of a few days
to several months. Since in all but one of off-highway system
regions, the University is the only institution available for
vocational programs, we must be able to answer to the needs of
both types of student, but usually do the vocational programs
in cooperation with other agencies or employers for better sharing
of resources. We have partially solved the problem of rural access
through audioconferenced classes, but these are not appropriate
for hands-on vocational training, and this is where most of our
students would choose to be. New child care block grants have
recently solved one of the largest problems -- that of child
care for students. Still, enrollment in available programs is
not what we'd like it to be. Why? For the above described student
to make the energy investment in a program, there has to be a
fairly solid assurance of a position hire at course completion.
Rural Alaska does not have those positions available except for
the fortunate few, and they must compete with outsiders who also
seek work here.
For significant change in our present situation,
more attractive incentives, such as easily developed OJT positions
and funded
mentorships for locals, must be made available, and for the private
sector too. Federally funded public works projects could take
the place of state projects which have dried up, and provide
training situations, work experience, community improvements,
and cash income. Furthermore, any training activity that is longer
than one week must recognize that the trainees are most likely
playing an important role in an extended family which must be
taken over by some else, or let go for a period. Though they
may have no wage income, they are part of an economy. A training
stipend, or opportunity to earn cash while in training, is essential,
and is also an important status indicator in our modern village
society, especially for the men. They are not part of the noble "starving
student” tradition, and are not going to be viewed that
way by their families. It is difficult for most of our students
to leave their communities for long. The longer and more demanding
the training program, the more important are the financial need
considerations. (The only time these have not been so important
has been in the teacher training program for those people who
were already employed at regular part-time jobs in the local
schools.) Yet today, very few funded programs include stipends.
I believe the best way to know the answers about
what is needed in training programs is to look at some specific
ones which we
all recognize as successful, and not the elements. For this,
I am going to list briefly the obvious strengths of the Community
Health Aide Training program, and conclusions can be drawn
from there as to how far we can go in emulating it. First, the
need
for these professional primary care providers is recognized
by each community where they are assigned, and the role is respected,
though often subjected to criticism. Second, the program is
on-going
(since the early 70's) and has stable funding (Public Health
Service supplemented by the state.) Third, the community is
involved in the planning for and evaluation of the program and
the health
aide, through the regional health corp board. The community
approves the selection of the health aide. Fourth, the health
aide is
hired before she is sent to training, and is on salary while
she is in training. Fifth, the longest period of time she is
away from home is three weeks. Sixth, the salaries are among
the best in each community. Seventh, the braining sessions
maintain a positive, strict training environment. And eighth,
the trainers
are well-respected by the students and care about their students
and their success, the course work being a contribution of
classroom and practicums.
This total collection of attributes
would be difficult to find in many other programs, but if we
want similar success, we
do have this chart to follow and can then ask ourselves,
how much
are we willing to commit to make other programs fit this
model as much as possible?
In conclusion, I believe that despite
our best efforts that we are falling behind in rural Alaska,
that the answers are
available
as to what needs to be done to remedy the situation for
Alaska Natives, but for many reasons, change adequate to make
a
real difference will be resisted. A very energetic battle
will have
to be fought to overcome this crisis. The University of
Alaska must play an important part in this, as must the state
government
and the private sector, but because of the particular economic
and political situation in which the state of Alaska now
finds itself, the federal government is going to have to
find appropriate
ways to increase its assistance which can gradually be
taken over by the state and the private sector and not lead to
more chronic dependency. I believe there are ways to do
that.
Thank
you for giving me this time to speak.
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every
attempt to keep the online document the same as the original,
including the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
