Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)

**Scope of Review:** A team from the U.S. Department of Education's (ED)
Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office
monitored the BIE in three phases during the fall of 2007 -- a team went
to visit the Pine Ridge Education Line Office (ELO) in South Dakota in
October, another to the Hopi ELO, Arizona in November, and another the
Southern Pueblo ELO, New Mexico in December, as well as the BIE central
administrative offices. This was a comprehensive review of BIE's
administration of the Title I, Part A program authorized by the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

In conducting this comprehensive review, the ED team carried out a
number of major activities. In reviewing the Part A program, the ED team
conducted an analysis of State assessments and State Accountability
System Plans, reviewed the effectiveness of the instructional
improvement and instructional support measures established by the BIE to
benefit ELOs and schools, and reviewed compliance with fiscal and
administrative oversight requirements of the State educational agency
(SEA). During the onsite weeks, the ED team visited the three ELOs and
interviewed administrative staff, visited three schools that have been
identified for improvement, and conducted parent meetings. The ED team
then interviewed BIE personnel to confirm data collected in each of the
three monitoring indicator areas.

**Previous Audit Findings:** None to report.

**Previous Monitoring Findings:** ED last monitored the BIE in September
of 2005, and identified the following compliance issues for the Title I,
Part A program: assessments, local educational agencies (LEA) and SEA
report cards, audits, SEA monitoring and allocations. The BIE
subsequently provided ED with documentation sufficient to address each
area of noncompliance.

**[Overarching Requirement -- SEA Monitoring]{.underline}**

A State's ability to fully and effectively implement the requirements of
NCLB is directly related to the extent to which it is able to regularly
monitor its LEAs and provide quality technical assistance based on
identified needs. This principle applies across all Federal programs
under NCLB.

Federal law does not specify the particular method or frequency with
which States must monitor their grantees, and States have a great deal
of flexibility in designing their monitoring systems. Whatever process
is used, it is expected that States have mechanisms in place sufficient
to ensure that States are able to collect and review critical
implementation data with the frequency and intensity required to ensure
effective (and fully compliant) programs under NCLB. Such a process
should promote quality instruction and lead to achievement of the
proficient or advanced level on State standards by all students.

**Status:**

**[Finding]{.underline}**: The BIE\'s procedures for monitoring its ELOs
and schools for compliance with Title I of the ESEA were insufficient to
ensure that all areas of noncompliance were identified and corrected in
a timely manner. As a result of the onsite review, the ED team
identified a number of compliance issues (set forth in this report) that
were not identified nor corrected through BIE's monitoring process;
therefore, ED concludes that the BIE's monitoring procedures are
insufficient to ensure full compliance.

[Citation]{.underline}: Section 80.40 of the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) - Grantees must monitor grant
and subgrant activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal
requirements.

Section 9304 (a) of the ESEA requires that the SEA must ensure that (1)
programs authorized under ESEA are administered in accordance with all
applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications; and
(2) the State will use fiscal control and funds accounting procedures
that will ensure the proper disbursement of and accounting for Federal
funds.

[Further action required]{.underline}: The BIE must revise its current
monitoring procedures to ensure that they: 1) include a procedure or
process to collect information and make compliance determinations
regarding [all]{.underline} Title I program requirements; and 2) are
sufficient to ensure that all instances of noncompliance with Title I
program requirements are identified and corrected in a timely manner.

Title I, Part A

**Summary of Monitoring Indicators**

+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| **M       |                                  |                 |    |
| onitoring |                                  |                 |    |
| Area 1,   |                                  |                 |    |
| Title I,  |                                  |                 |    |
| Part A:   |                                  |                 |    |
| Account   |                                  |                 |    |
| ability** |                                  |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| **        | **Description**                  | **Status**      | #  |
| Indicator |                                  |                 | Pa |
| Number**  |                                  |                 | ge |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| 1.1       | SEA has an approved system of    | Recommendation  | #  |
|           | academic content standards,      |                 |  4 |
|           | academic achievement standards   |                 |    |
|           | and assessments (including       |                 |    |
|           | alternate assessments) for all   |                 |    |
|           | required subjects and grades, or |                 |    |
|           | has an approved timeline for     |                 |    |
|           | developing them.                 |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| 1.2       | The SEA has implemented all      | Finding         | #  |
|           | required components as           |                 |  4 |
|           | identified in its accountability |                 |    |
|           | workbook.                        |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| 1.3       | The SEA has published an annual  | Finding         | #  |
|           | report card as required and an   |                 |  6 |
|           | Annual Report to the Secretary.  |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| 1.4       | The SEA has ensured that LEAs    | Finding         | #  |
|           | have published annual report     |                 |  7 |
|           | cards as required.               |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| 1.5       | The SEA indicates how funds      | Met             | #  |
|           | received under Grants for State  |                 |  N |
|           | Assessments and related          | Requirement     | /A |
|           | activities (Section 6111) will   |                 |    |
|           | be or have been used to meet the |                 |    |
|           | 2005-06 and 2007-08 assessment   |                 |    |
|           | requirements of NCLB.            |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+
| 1.6       | The SEA ensures that LEAs meet   | Met             | #  |
|           | all requirements for identifying |                 |  N |
|           | and assessing the academic       | Requirement     | /A |
|           | achievement of limited English   |                 |    |
|           | proficient students.             |                 |    |
+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------------+----+

**Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability**

**Indicator 1.1.6 -- SEA has an approved system of academic content
standards, academic achievement standards and assessments (including
alternate assessments) for all required subjects and grades, or has an
approved timeline for developing them.**

**[Recommendation:]{.underline}** ED has approved the BIE's use of State
content standards, achievement standards and assessments in each of the
23 States in which the BIE schools are located. In each state,
assessment results are sent directly to the LEA/school and the
LEA/school enters the results into the BIE data system, separating the
general and alternate assessment results. The current method of
recording student assessment results can lead to substantial data errors
in three ways: 1) The absence of a data systems manual is a source of
potential error because each individual who enters data may have a
different understanding of key terms and data entry procedures; 2) Each
student has a Native American Student Identification System (NASIS)
identification number and may also have a different State identification
number, another source of potential error; and any data errors (test
results or demographics) must be negotiated with the contractor through
the SEA. There is no evidence of established procedures to prevent or
correct assessment errors. The review team recommends that BIE take
immediate steps to ensure the accuracy of student demographic and
assessment data throughout the system. This may be accomplished in many
ways but a critical first step is the creation, dissemination and use of
a data systems manual to support the accurate recording of assessment
results at the local level. The BIE should also audit the accuracy of
demographic data and use results to improve the data management system.

**Indicator 1.2: The SEA has implemented all required components as
identified in its accountability workbook.**

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The procedures used by the BIE to calculate
adequate yearly progress (AYP) do not ensure valid and reliable
accountability determinations within States or for BIE results across
States. The BIE has an approved accountability workbook that permits the
use of 23 different AYP systems to determine the accountability status
of BIE LEA/schools. One person at the BIE calculates AYP for every
LEA/school using the accountability system for the State in which the
LEA/school is located as described in the State's accountability
workbook. There is no formal procedure to ensure that the various State
workbooks posted online are up to date or that the BIE AYP calculations
are consistent with the procedures used by the state.

Specific concerns about the quality of accountability data include:

-   Limited English proficient (LEP)/former LEP: The BIE says they have
    advised schools that they can code individual students as limited
    English proficient (LEP) or former LEP but there is no written data
    manual that defines these terms. There is also no procedure to check
    the accuracy of data entered in the NASIS system.

-   Students with disabilities (SWD)/former SWD: The BIE says they have
    advised schools that they can code individual students as SWD or
    former SWD but there is no written data manual that defines these
    terms. There is also no procedure to check the accuracy of data
    entered in the NASIS system.

-   Participation rate: BIE says that it uses the AYP calculations of
    each State, but it appears that it uses its own definition for
    participation rate. The BIE Excel database calculates participation
    rate as the number tested divided by the number enrolled at the
    start of the test window. However, BIE acknowledges that the actual
    formula varies from State to State.

-   Full academic year (FAY): BIE collects this data but it is not clear
    whether it based AYP on the various State definitions of FAY. BIE
    reported that in at least one State (AZ) Native American students
    would be virtually all excluded because the State definition of FAY
    is established from the first week of school, which is prior to the
    arrival of students. This is not consistent with the wording in the
    approved AZ accountability workbook.

-   AYP for very small schools: The BIE accountability workbook says
    that to determine AYP for very small schools, it uses a portfolio
    procedure. When asked to explain how results from a State review for
    small schools or alternative high schools are incorporated into
    accountability determinations, staff could not describe the
    procedure.

-   Graduation rate: System-wide, the BIE is not able to calculate a
    four-year graduation rate. LEA/Schools are instructed to use the
    appropriate State calculations but many are unlikely to have the
    data needed.

-   Appeals: Procedures are not uniform across States and are not under
    BIE control. In one State (WA) schools convinced the State that they
    had no accountability history prior to 2005-06 and should be treated
    as new schools. In others, the school challenged the BIE determined
    accountability status because results from the State did not agree.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Determining the validity of AYP determinations: The BIE has an
    approved process that assigns accountability status to all
    LEA/schools based on AYP. Since the process varies across States,
    the meaning of LEA/school status also varies from State to State
    within the BIE system. Therefore, individual schools within the
    group of schools in corrective action are likely to have very
    different needs based solely on the differences in State AYP
    calculation rules.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1111(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA requires that
adequate yearly progress be defined by the State in a manner that is
statistically valid and reliable.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must standardize data
collection procedures. Full implementation of the NASIS data management
system may substantially address this problem; however, the accuracy of
data within the NASIS system will require the creation and universal use
of a data manual, appropriate ongoing training for local data entry
personnel, and some form of systematic audit to confirm the accuracy of
data used for AYP calculations, including all items listed above. The
BIE must provide ED with a description of the procedures it will adopt
to address this requirement and a timeline for implementation.

The BIE must also establish procedures to verify the annual
accountability determinations for LEA/schools. This might take the form
of verification of selected LEA/school AYP calculations by the State in
which a school is located, or independent calculation of AYP by an
external consultant using the same procedures as BIE. The BIE must
provide ED with a description of the procedures to be used as well as
confirmation that agreements or contracts have been established to
support this activity.

**Indicator 1.3: The SEA has published an annual report card as required
and an annual report to the Secretary.**

**[Finding (1):]{.underline}** The BIE has failed to publish an annual
report card in a timely manner. The most recent Bureau-Wide Annual
Report Card available on the BIE website is

2004-05 at <http://www.oiep.bia.edu/bie/reportcards.cfm>

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1111(h)(1)(A) of the ESEA requires that
"a State that receives assistance under this part shall prepare and
disseminate an annual State report card."

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide the
Department with the 2006-07 report card and evidence that it has been
made available to parents and the public. The BIE must also provide the
Department with the 2007-08 report card and post the results on its
website as soon as it is available.

**[Finding (2):]{.underline}** The most recent Bureau-Wide Annual Report
Card available lacks several required data elements:

-   The "All Students" data displayed is for all students enrolled in
    the school (including grades not tested), rather than all students
    in the grades tested. This leads to confusion because the numbers
    for "All Students" tested in each content area do not match.

-   The Report Card does include 2-year trend data for each subject, but
    not for each grade.

-   The Report Card cannot display a comparison of student performance
    with the target AMO because 23 different State values would be
    required.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA requires that
the annual State report card include: information in the aggregate, on
student achievement at each proficiency level on the State academic
assessments (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability
status, migrant status, English proficiency status, and status as
economically disadvantaged); a comparison between the actual achievement
levels of each group of students and the State's annual measurable
objectives; the percentage of students not tested (disaggregated); the
most recent two-year trend in each subject and grade assessed; aggregate
information on other indicators used by the State for AYP; graduation
rates; information on the performance of LEAs on AYP, including the
number and names of schools identified for improvement; and professional
qualifications of teachers, the percentage of those teaching with
emergency credentials, the percentage of classes not taught by highly
qualified teachers in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty
compared to low-poverty schools.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide a copy of
the most recent State report card that includes all required elements
and must post the document on its website.

**Indicator 1.4: The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual
report cards as required**

**[Finding (1):]{.underline}** Report cards for the BIE LEA/schools are
missing the same required data elements as listed in 1.3.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1111(h)(2)(B) of the ESEA requires
annual LEA report cards that include all of the information required in
the State report card plus how long schools identified for improvement
have been so identified, and information that shows assessment results
for students in the LEA/school compared to the State as a whole.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide examples of
current LEA report cards that include all required data elements.

**[Finding (2):]{.underline}** The BIE provides no guidance to local
LEA/schools regarding the distribution of the LEA/school report card to
parents. No explanatory text is provided to accompany the LEA/school
reports.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1111(h)(2)(E) of the ESEA requires the
LEA to publicly disseminate the information in the report card "to all
parents of students attending those schools in an understandable and
uniform format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language
that the parents can understand."

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide a
description of how it will monitor LEA/school distribution of the
2007-08 LEA Report Cards accompanied by appropriate explanatory
information to parents.

+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| ##         |                                     |            |     |
| Monitoring |                                     |            |     |
|  Area 2, T |                                     |            |     |
| itle I, Pa |                                     |            |     |
| rt A: Prog |                                     |            |     |
| ram Improv |                                     |            |     |
| ement, Par |                                     |            |     |
| ental Invo |                                     |            |     |
| lvement, a |                                     |            |     |
| nd Options |                                     |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| **I        | ## Description                      | ## Status  | #   |
| ndicator** |                                     |            | # P |
|            | ##                                  |            | age |
| **Number** |                                     |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA designs and implements      | Met        | N/A |
| 2.1        | procedures that ensure the hiring   | Re         |     |
|            | and retention of qualified          | quirements |     |
|            | paraprofessionals and ensure that   |            |     |
|            | parents are informed of educator    |            |     |
|            | credentials as required.            |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA has established a statewide | Finding    | 9   |
| 2.2        | system of support that provides, or |            |     |
|            | provides for, technical assistance  |            |     |
|            | to LEAs and schools as required.    |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA ensures that the LEA and    | Findings   | 9   |
| 2.3        | schools meet parental involvement   |            |     |
|            | requirements.                       |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA ensures that schools and    | Finding    | 11  |
| 2.4        | LEAs identified for improvement,    |            |     |
|            | corrective action, or restructuring |            |     |
|            | have met the requirements of being  |            |     |
|            | so identified.                      |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA ensures that requirements   | N/A        | N/A |
| 2.5        | for public school choice are met.   |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA ensures that requirements   | N/A        | N/A |
| 2.6        | for the provision of supplemental   |            |     |
|            | educational services (SES) are met. |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA ensures that LEAs and       | Finding    | 13  |
| 2.7        | schools develop schoolwide programs |            |     |
|            | that use the flexibility provided   |            |     |
|            | to them by law to improve the       |            |     |
|            | academic achievement of all         |            |     |
|            | students in the school.             |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+
| Indicator  | The SEA ensures that LEA targeted   | N/A        | N/A |
| 2.8        | assistance programs meet all        |            |     |
|            | requirements.                       |            |     |
+------------+-------------------------------------+------------+-----+

# Monitoring Area 2: Program Improvement, Parental Involvement, and Options

## Indicator 2.2 - The SEA has established a statewide system of support that provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required.

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The BIE has not fully implemented a Statewide
System of Support that specifically addresses and provides ongoing and
sustained support to BIE Title I schools in corrective action and/or
restructuring. The BIE is in the process of implementing a system for
assisting schools in restructuring through teams led by the three
Associate Deputy Directors, but that system is currently not being fully
implemented. The BIE is also developing a strategy to provide assistance
to schools in corrective action using funds available through section
1003(g) of the ESEA.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1117(a) of the ESEA requires that each
State shall establish a statewide system of intensive and sustained
support and improvement for local educational agencies and schools
receiving funds under this part. In carrying out this requirement, the
State shall first provide support and assistance to local educational
agencies with schools subject to corrective action under section 1116,
second provide support and assistance to other local educational
agencies with schools identified as in need of improvement under section
1116(b), and third provide support and assistance to other local
educational agencies and schools participating under this part that need
that support and assistance in order to achieve the purpose of this part
(section 1117(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the ESEA).

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide ED with
documentation that it has established and is maintaining a statewide
system of support and improvement consistent with the requirements in
section 1117 of the ESEA. The BIE must specify the services and the
professional development and technical assistance it will provide to its
ELOs and schools and a timeline for implementing its completed statewide
system of support.

**Indicator 2.3 - The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental
involvement requirements.**

**[Finding (1):]{.underline}** The BIE failed to ensure that parental
involvement policies were developed, implemented and annually evaluated
in all of its schools or that the policies that were in place included
all of the required elements.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1118(b)(1) of the ESEA requires that
each school served under this part shall jointly develop with, and
distribute to, parents of participating children a written parental
involvement policy, agreed on by such parents, that shall describe the
means for carrying out the requirements of subsections (c) through (f).
Section 1118(a)(2)(E) of the ESEA further requires each local
educational agency to conduct, with the involvement of parents, an
annual evaluation of the content and effectiveness of the parental
involvement policy in improving the academic quality of the schools
served under this part.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide
documentation to ED that it has provided guidance and technical
assistance to its schools regarding the requirements to develop,
distribute, and evaluate parental involvement policies. The BIE must
submit to ED copies of documents and/or workshop materials it uses in
providing this guidance and technical assistance.

**[Finding (2):]{.underline}** The BIE failed to ensure that parental
notification letters included the required components and that parents
of children attending schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring were notified in a timely manner. For example, because San
Felipe and Isleta schools in New Mexico had not received their AYP
determinations for the 2007-2008 school year at the time of the ED visit
in December, parents had not been notified of the schools' current
school improvement status.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires that
each local educational agency shall promptly provide to a parent or
parents of each child enrolled in an elementary school or a secondary
school identified for school improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring:

(A) An explanation of what the identification means,

(B) The reasons for the identification,

(C) An explanation of what the identified school is doing to address the
    problem of low achievement,

(D) An explanation of what the local educational agency or State
    educational agency is doing to help the school address the
    achievement problem, and

(E) An explanation of how parents can become involved in addressing the
    academic issues that caused the school to be identified for school
    improvement.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide ED with
documentation of the guidance and technical assistance it provides to
its schools regarding the information that must be included in
notification letters as well as the requirement to provide this
information in a timely manner. The BIE must submit to ED copies of the
documents and materials it uses in providing this guidance and technical
assistance.

**[Finding (3):]{.underline}** The BIE failed to ensure that its schools
conducted the annual Title I meeting required by statute. For example,
the principal at Isleta School indicated that the annual meeting had not
been held for the 2007-2008 school year.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1118(c)(1) of the ESEA requires each
school receiving Title I, Part A funds to convene an annual meeting, at
a convenient time, to which all participating parents shall be invited
and encouraged to attend, to inform parents of their school's
participation in Title I and to explain the requirements of Title I and
the right of the parents to be involved.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide ED with
documentation that it has provided guidance and technical assistance to
schools on the requirement to conduct the annual meeting and submit to
ED copies of the documents and materials it uses in providing this
guidance and technical assistance.

**[Finding (4):]{.underline}** The BIE failed to ensure that schools
completed the required annual evaluation of the content and
effectiveness of their parental involvement policy and parental
involvement activities. There was no evidence in some of the schools
visited that the annual evaluation of parental activities was being
completed as required. For example, staff at Havasupai, San Felipe, and
Isleta could not articulate that the required annual evaluations were
completed or how these were used to improve parental involvement.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1118(a)(E) of the ESEA requires each
school receiving Title I,

Part A funds to complete an annual evaluation of the content and
effectiveness of its parental involvement policy and to use the findings
of this evaluation to design strategies for more effective parental
involvement and to revise, if necessary, the school's parental
involvement policy.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide ED with
documentation that it has provided guidance and technical assistance to
schools on the requirement to conduct the annual evaluation of those
schools' parental involvement policy and parental involvement activities
and submit to ED copies of the documents and materials it uses in
providing this guidance and technical assistance.

**[Finding (5):]{.underline}** In some of the schools visited, there was
no documentation that parents understood how they could become involved
in addressing the academic issues that led to their school being
identified as a school in improvement. For example, at Havasupai School
the Tribal Council and parents indicated that they had not been informed
of what the BIE is doing to help them address the problem of low
achievement.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1118(c) of the ESEA requires each school
and local educational agency receiving Title I, Part A funds to provide
assistance to parents of children in understanding such topics as the
State's academic content standards and State student academic
achievement standards, State and local academic assessments, the
requirements of Title I, Part A, and how to monitor a child's progress
and work with educators to improve the achievement of their children.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide ED with
documentation that it has provided guidance and technical assistance to
schools on the requirement to involve parents in the education of their
child and submit to ED copies of the documents and materials it uses in
providing this guidance and technical assistance.

**Indicator 2.4 - The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the
requirements of being so identified.**

**[Finding:]{.underline}** The BIE did not ensure that school
improvement plans developed by schools in improvement contained all of
the required elements. For example, the most current school improvement
plan for Havasupai School, which was dated May 30, 2006, did not
directly address the academic achievement problem that caused the school
to be identified. The plan also did not incorporate strategies that
promote high quality professional development or incorporate a teacher
mentoring program. Further, many of the school improvement plans
reviewed by the ED team often lacked clear direction, goals, objectives,
and strategies to address the specific issues that led to the school
being identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
For example, the professional development plans reviewed for Pine Ridge
and American Horse listed a variety of training and workshop activities
that did not clearly align with the reasons the schools had been
identified for school improvement. Many of the professional development
activities at Pine Ridge related to credit accrual for teachers and to
one-time workshop events that did not appear to support the school's
corrective action plan or lead to sustaining school improvement over
time.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1116(b)(3) of the ESEA requires that
each school identified for improvement, no later than three months after
being so identified, develop or revise a school plan, in consultation
with parents, school staff, the LEA serving the school, and outside
experts, for approval by the LEA. The plan shall:

-   Include strategies based on scientifically based research,

-   Adopt policies and practices concerning the school's core academic
    subjects that have the greatest likelihood of ensuring that all
    groups of students specified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA
    and enrolled in the school will meet the State academic assessment
    described in section 1111(b)(3) not later than 12 years after the
    end of the 2001-02 school year;

-   Provide an assurance that the school will spend not less than ten
    percent of the funds made available to the school under section 1113
    of the ESEA for each fiscal year that the school is in school
    improvement status for the purpose of providing to the school's
    teachers and principal high-quality professional development;

-   Specify how the professional development funds specified in the
    previous bullet will be used to remove the school from school
    improvement status;

-   Establish specific annual, measurable objectives for continuous and
    substantial progress by each group of students specified in section
    1111(b)(2)(C)(v) to ensure that all groups of students will meet the
    State academic assessment described in section 1111(b)(3);

-   Describe how the school will provide written notice about the
    identification to parents of each student enrolled in such school,
    in a format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that the
    parents can understand;

-   Specify the responsibilities of the school, the LEA, and the SEA
    serving the school under the plan, including the technical
    assistance to be provided by the LEA, and the LEA's responsibilities
    under section 1120A of the ESEA;

-   Include strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the
    school;

-   Incorporate, as appropriate, activities before school, after school,
    during the summer, and during any extension of the school year; and

-   Incorporate a teacher-mentoring program.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide
documentation to ED that it has provided guidance and technical
assistance to its Title I schools in improvement on the requirements for
developing and implementing school improvement plans, including the
inclusion of all required elements. BIE must also provide ED with a copy
of the materials it uses in providing this guidance and technical
assistance.

**Indicator 2.7 - The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop
schoolwide programs that use the flexibility provided to them by law to
improve the academic achievement of all students in the school**.

**[Finding:]{.underline}** There was no evidence in some of the schools
visited by the ED team that the required annual review of schoolwide
plans was conducted as required and that plans were revised as needed
based on the review.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 200.26(c)(1) of the Title I regulations
requires that schoolwide programs be evaluated on an annual basis. This
includes an evaluation of the implementation of, and the results
achieved by, the schoolwide program, using data from the State's annual
assessment and other indicators of academic achievement.

[Further action required:]{.underline} The BIE must provide ED
documentation that it has provided guidance and technical assistance to
its Title I schoolwide schools on the requirement to annually evaluate
the schoolwide program. The BIE must provide ED with copies of any
documents and other materials it uses in providing this guidance and
technical assistance.

**[Recommendation:]{.underline}** The ED team made three observations
based on school visits and interviews with parents and school staff in
the schools visited:

-   Based on the parent meetings conducted by the ED team, it appears
    that parents were not always clear about the purpose of a schoolwide
    program or how they as parents could be involved in the planning,
    implementation, and evaluation of the schoolwide program.

-   The intersection/relationship between the schoolwide plans and the
    school improvement plans was not always clear and that the school
    improvement strategies discussed in the school improvement plans
    were also integrated into the schoolwide plans.

-   Principals interviewed by the ED team could not consistently explain
    the intent and purposes of schoolwide program schools and what it
    meant to operate a schoolwide program.

ED recommends that the BIE provide as a part of its training for school
staff training that addresses these three issues. Addressing these
issues will strengthen the schoolwide programs offered in BIE schools.

+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| **Mo     |                                         |          |     |
| nitoring |                                         |          |     |
| Area 3,  |                                         |          |     |
| Title I, |                                         |          |     |
| Part A:  |                                         |          |     |
| F        |                                         |          |     |
| iduciary |                                         |          |     |
| Re       |                                         |          |     |
| sponsibi |                                         |          |     |
| lities** |                                         |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| **I      | # Description                           | **       | **  |
| ndicator |                                         | Status** | Pag |
| Number** |                                         |          | e** |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.1      | SEA complies with---                    | #        | ### |
|          |                                         | #######  | ### |
|          | -   The procedures for adjusting        | Met Requ | ##  |
|          |     ED-determined allocations outlined  | irements | N/A |
|          |     in sections 200.70 -- 200.75 of the |          |     |
|          |     regulations.                        |          |     |
|          |                                         |          |     |
|          | -   The procedures for reserving funds  |          |     |
|          |     for school improvement, State       |          |     |
|          |     administration, and (where          |          |     |
|          |     applicable) the State Academic      |          |     |
|          |     Achievement Awards program.         |          |     |
|          |                                         |          |     |
|          | -   The reallocation and carryover      |          |     |
|          |     provisions in section 1126(c) and   |          |     |
|          |     1127 of Title I statute.            |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.2      | SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with   | Met      | ### |
|          | the provision for submitting an annual  | Requ     | ### |
|          | application to the SEA and revising LEA | irements | ##  |
|          | plans as necessary to reflect           |          | N/A |
|          | substantial changes in the direction of |          |     |
|          | the program.                            |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.3      | SEA ensures that all its LEAs comply    | #        | ### |
|          | with the requirements in section 1113   | #######  | ### |
|          | of the Title I Statute and sections     |          | ##  |
|          | 200.77 and 200.78 of the regulations    | #        |     |
|          | with regard to (1) Reserving funds for  | #######  | ##  |
|          | the various set-asides either required  | Findings | ### |
|          | or allowed under the statute, and (2)   |          | ### |
|          | Allocating funds to eligible school     |          |  15 |
|          | attendance areas or schools in rank     |          |     |
|          | order of poverty based on the number of |          |     |
|          | children from low-income families who   |          |     |
|          | reside in an eligible attendance area.  |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.4      | -   SEA complies with the maintenance   | #        |     |
|          |     of effort (MOE) provisions of Title | #######  |     |
|          |     I.                                  |          |     |
|          |                                         | #######  |     |
|          | -   SEA ensures that its LEAs comply    | # Not ap |     |
|          |     with the comparability provisions   | plicable |     |
|          |     of Title I.                         |          |     |
|          |                                         |          |     |
|          | -   SEA ensures that Title I funds are  |          |     |
|          |     used only to supplement or increase |          |     |
|          |     non-Federal sources used for the    |          |     |
|          |     education of participating children |          |     |
|          |     and do not supplant funds from      |          |     |
|          |     non-Federal sources.                |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.5      | SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with   | Finding  | 16  |
|          | all the auditee responsibilities        |          |     |
|          | specified in Subpart C, section 300(a)  |          |     |
|          | through (f) of OMB Circular A-133.      |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.6      | SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with   | #######  |     |
|          | requirements regarding services to      | # Not ap |     |
|          | eligible private school children, their | plicable |     |
|          | teachers and families.                  |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.7      | SEA complies with the requirement for   | Finding  | ##  |
|          | implementing a system for ensuring      |          | ### |
|          | prompt resolution of complaints.        |          | ### |
|          |                                         |          |  16 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+
| 3.8      | SEA complies with the requirement to    | #######  |     |
|          | establish a Committee of Practitioners  | # Not ap |     |
|          | and involves the committee in           | plicable |     |
|          | decision-making as required.            |          |     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------+----------+-----+

**Indicator 3.3 -- Within District Allocation Procedures**

**[Finding (1)]{.underline}:** Staff from the schools reviewed in Pine
Ridge and in the Hopi ELO were unable to provide any information
regarding their current allocation, required reservations, expenditures
or budgets.

[Citation:]{.underline} Section 1111 (d)(1) of the ESEA requires that
each LEA plan shall be developed in consultation with teachers,
principals, administrators, and other appropriate school personnel, and
with parents of children in schools served by Title I.

[Further action required]{.underline}: The BIE must provide evidence
that all principals of Title I schools are informed of the annual LEA
plan especially pertinent information as the schools' allocation, any
required school reservations and periodic budget status reports.

**[Finding (2)]{.underline}:** The BIE did not ensure that its schools
identified for improvement reserved the required ten percent of the
Title I allocation for professional development designed to address the
reasons why the school is in improvement. The Pine Ridge School, which
has been identified for improvement, has not reserved ten percent from
its Title allocation. The ED team reviewed the Title I budget and the
expenditures for professional development. The expenditure sheet
reviewed showed \$301,830.03 expended in 2006-2007 for professional
development, but 100 percent of that amount was charged to object 97920
(Title II, Part A) and not to Title I, Part A.

[Citation]{.underline}: Section 1116 (b)(3) (A)(iii) of the ESEA states
that each school identified for improvement shall, not later than three
months after being identified, develop or revise a school plan, in
consultation with parents, school staff, the district, and outside
experts, for approval by the district. The school plan shall cover a
two-year period and provide an assurance that the school will spend not
less than ten percent of the funds made available to the school under
section 1113 for each fiscal year that the school is in improvement
status for the purposes of providing to the school's teachers and
principal high quality professional development.

[Further action required]{.underline}: The BIE must provide evidence
that all schools identified for improvement this current school year are
reserving and spending at least ten percent of the school's Title I
allocation for professional development for teachers and the principal.

**Indicator 3.5 -- Audits**

**[Finding]{.underline}**: The three schools reviewed by the ED team
could not provide copies of the most recent A-133 single audit reports,
nor could they provide any information as to whether there were any
findings regarding the administration of the Title I program in the
schools.

[Citation]{.underline}: Section 80.26(b)(3) of the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires that "State and
local governments . . . that provide Federal awards to a subgrantee,
which expends \$300,000 or more (or other amount as specified by OMB) in
Federal awards in a fiscal year, . . . Ensure that appropriate
corrective action is taken within six months after receipt of the audit
report in instances of noncompliance with Federal laws and regulations."
OMB Circular A-133, Subpart D, Section 400(d)(5) requires a pass-through
entity to ". . . ensure that the subrecipient takes appropriate and
timely corrective action." In accordance with the requirement under
Subpart D, Section 400(d)(2) of the Circular, a pass-through entity
shall "Advise subrecipients of requirements imposed on them by Federal
laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements
as well as any supplemental requirements imposed by the pass-through
entity."

[Further action required]{.underline}: The BIE must document written
procedures defining the form and content for corrective action plans
that address findings in audits and monitoring reviews. The guidance
must address requirements for formulating, monitoring, and completing
timely corrective action steps and establishing individual
accountability for the completion of each step. At a minimum, the
corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s)
planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of
each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each
step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The BIE must
provide ED with a copy of the subject procedures.

**Indicator 3.7 -- Complaint procedures**

**[Finding]{.underline}**: The BIE has not ensured that all of its ELOs
and schools have in place complaint procedures that meet NCLB
requirements. While the Pine Ridge and American Horse schools had
complaint procedures in place, neither procedure met the requirements in
section 9304(a)(3)(C) of the ESEA. Neither set of procedures specified
that these were applicable to complaints alleging violations of law in
the administration of the Title I, Part A program.

[Citation]{.underline}: Subpart F\--Complaint Procedures (CFR, Title 34)
requires an SEA to adopt complaint procedures. Section 299.10 (a) states
that an SEA must adopt written procedures, consistent with State law,
for - (1) Receiving and resolving any complaint from an organization or
individual that the SEA or an agency or consortium of agencies is
violating a Federal statute or regulation that applies to an applicable
program listed in paragraph (b) of this section; (2) Reviewing an appeal
from a decision of an agency or consortium of agencies with respect to a
complaint; and (3) Conducting an independent on-site investigation of a
complaint if the SEA determines that an on-site investigation is
necessary.

[Further action required]{.underline}: The BIE must review its guidance
to BIE-funded schools to ensure the elements required by NCLB for formal
complaint procedures are reconciled with requirements for BIA-funded
schools.  Some of those interviewed at ELOs and BIE- funded schools
referred to an informal procedure with no tracking and no protocols
while others referenced local practices that led to full documentation
of the process. The BIE must ensure that all recipients of Title I, Part
A funds have a formal written complaint procedure that is available to
teachers, parents and other organizations. In addition, BIE must submit
the complaint procedure to ED that it will use at the State level and
that incorporates the applicable items required in CFR, Title 34.