**APRIL 20, 2000**

Mr. Kevin Gover

Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs

Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Mr. Joe Christie

Acting Director

Office of Indian Education Programs

Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Dear Mr. Gover and Mr. Christie:

The U.S. Department of Education\'s Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in Department of Interior education agencies
and schools in North Dakota during the weeks of August 3 and September
21, 1998; in New Mexico during the weeks of October 5, and December 7,
1998; and in South Dakota during the weeks of April 12 and May 17, 1999,
for the purpose of assessing compliance in the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and assisting the
Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
in developing strategies to improve results for children with
disabilities. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 (IDEA 97) focus on \"access to
services\" as well as \"improving results\" for infants, toddlers,
children and youth with disabilities. In the same way, OSEP\'s
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is designed to focus Federal
and local resources on improved results for American Indian children
with disabilities and their families through a working partnership among
OSEP, the BIA, local educational agencies, tribes and tribal
organizations, other private and Federal service providers, advocates,
and parents.

In conducting its review, OSEP applied the standards set forth in the
IDEA 1997 statute and the Part B regulations (34 CFR Part 300), in
effect at the time of the OSEP review. The Part B regulations in effect
in September 1998 were those published on September 29, 1992. All
citations to 34 CFR Part 300 in this report are to the regulations, as
published on that date. On March 12, 1999, the Department published new
final Part B regulations that became effective on May 11, 1999. In
planning and implementing improvement strategies to address the findings
in this report, the BIA should ensure that all improvement strategies
are consistent with the new final regulations.

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
collaboration between a Steering Committee of broad-based
constituencies, including representatives from the BIA and OSEP. The
Steering Committee assessed the effectiveness of BIA systems in ensuring
improved results for children with disabilities and protection of
individual rights. In addition, representatives from the initial
Steering Committee and the IDEA Advisory Board (State advisory panel)
formed a committee that has begun designing and coordinating
implementation of concrete steps for improvement. Please see the
Introduction to the Report for a more detailed description of this
process for the BIA, including representation on the improvement
planning committee.

OSEP's review placed a strong emphasis on those areas that are most
closely associated with positive results for children with disabilities.
In this review, OSEP clustered the Part B (services for children aged 3
through 21) requirements into four major areas: Parent Involvement, Free
Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
(including Early Childhood Transition), Secondary Transition, and
General Supervision. Components were identified by OSEP for each major
area as a basis to review the BIA\'s performance through examination of
system-wide and local indicators. As the Interior\'s Part B grant
recipient, the BIA is treated as a \"State educational agency\"
responsible for the general supervision of IDEA programs.

The enclosed Report addresses strengths noted in the BIA, areas that
require corrective action because they represent noncompliance with the
requirements of the IDEA, and technical assistance on improvement for
best practice. Enclosed you will find an Executive Summary of the
Report, an Introduction including background information, and a
description of issues and findings.

The BIA\'s Branch of Exceptional Education has indicated that this
Report will be shared with members of the Steering Committee, the
improvement planning committee, and the IDEA Advisory Board. OSEP will
work with your Branch of Exceptional Education and the improvement
planning committee to develop corrective actions and improvement
strategies to ensure improved results for children with disabilities.

Thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your staffs
during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Dr. Angelita
Felix, Mrs. Ann Leigh, Mr. Ken Whitehorn, agency Education Line
Officers, and Special Education Coordinators were responsive to OSEP\'s
requests for information. They provided access to necessary
documentation that enabled OSEP staff to work in partnership with the
Steering Committees to better understand the BIA\'s systems for
implementing the IDEA. An extraordinary effort was made by the Education
Line Officers, Special Education Coordinators, Tribal Education
Directors, their staff members, and other tribal community
representatives to arrange the public input process during the
Validation Planning week. As a result of their efforts, OSEP obtained
information from a large number of parents, advocates, service
providers, interested community members, school, and agency personnel,
and other agencies.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for children and youth with disabilities enrolled in elementary
and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by the
Secretary of the Interior. Since the enactment of the IDEA and its
predecessor, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, one of the
basic goals of the law, ensuring that children with disabilities are not
excluded from school, has largely been achieved. Now our goal is to
ensure that all children receive the education they need to stay in
school, graduate and move into higher education and/or employment. This
is our challenge.

While schools and agencies have made great progress, significant
challenges remain. The critical issue is to place greater emphasis on
attaining better results. To that end, we look forward to working with
you in partnership to continue to improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities.

> Sincerely,
>
> Kenneth R. Warlick
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosures

cc: Dr. Angelita Felix

**[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]{.underline}**

**[BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS MONITORING 1998-1999]{.underline}**

The attached report contains the results of the first two steps in
OSEP\'s Continuous Improvement Monitoring of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, in elementary and secondary
schools for Indian children operated or funded by the Secretary of the
Interior. The organizational structure and geographic distribution of
the BIA-operated or funded schools includes 23 area and agency offices
in 23 States. OSEP collected data from tribal communities located in
North Dakota during the weeks of August 3 and September 21, 1998; New
Mexico during the weeks of October 5 and December 7, 1998; and South
Dakota during the weeks of April 12 and May 17, 1999. The process is
designed to focus existing resources on improving results for children
and youth with disabilities and their families through enhanced
partnerships between the BIA, tribal entities, OSEP, parents, advocates,
and other agencies. The Validation Planning phase of the monitoring
process included the completion of a Self-Assessment and analysis of the
data, a series of public input meetings with guided discussions around
core areas of IDEA, and the organization of a Steering Committee that
provided further comments on the information. As part of the public
input process, OSEP and the BIA made efforts to include broad
representation from tribal communities in the locations visited and
provided discussion opportunities with OSEP staff at national
conferences of tribal school boards and educators. The Validation Data
Collection phase included interviews with parents, agency
administrators, local program and school administrators, service
providers, and teachers, and review of students' records. Information
obtained from these data sources was shared in meetings and
teleconferences with participants from the BIA Central Office, parents,
advocates, members of the Steering Committee, and representatives for
the Advisory Board.

The Report contains a detailed description of the process utilized to
collect data, and to determine strengths, areas of noncompliance with
IDEA, and suggestions for improvement in each of the core IDEA areas.

**Strengths**

-   Parental inclusion in system-wide policy making has increased, as
    seen in the composition of the Steering Committee and
    recently-appointed IDEA Advisory Board.

-   The dual function of some schools that serve the education needs of
    children and also serve as community centers.

-   BIA includes special education as an integral part of school reform
    efforts and each funded school submits this information with its
    Consolidated School Reform Plan.

-   Guidelines on content and student performance standards have been
    developed and disseminated for all students, including students with
    disabilities.

-   Adoption and implementation of culturally-relevant curriculum and
    instruction strategies is increasing in BIA-operated or funded
    schools and positive results were reported particularly for students
    with behavioral problems.

-   BIA uses information from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to identify
    actions to meet staff training needs.

-   \"User friendly\" materials for the IDEA Advisory Board have been
    developed as resources to increase general understanding the rights
    and responsibilities addressed by IDEA.

-   Materials have been created in "plain language" to assist
    translation to tribal languages.

-   Beginning in the 1998-99 school year, all Interior agencies develop
    and submit to the BIA their school improvement applications that
    must include how increased funding will be used to meet the needs of
    children and youth with disabilities, focusing on areas of IDEA that
    are linked to improved results.

**Areas of Noncompliance**

-   The system-wide service coordination plan required by Section
    611(i)(4) of IDEA does not exist.

-   Rather than placing students with disabilities in classes that
    represent the least restrictive environment based on their IEPs,
    many IEP teams are basing decisions to remove students from regular
    education classes solely on factors such as service availability or
    the need for modifications in the general curriculum. In addition,
    BIA did not ensure that the corrective actions for the funding
    formula were implemented in a manner to ensure that funding did not
    impact placement decisions.

-   Extended school year services are not available for all students who
    need those services in order to benefit from the provision of a free
    appropriate public education.

-   Children with disabilities are not allowed to participate in
    State-wide and district-wide assessment programs to the maximum
    extent appropriate.

-   Meeting notices and invitations to required IEP team participants do
    not always include that transition services are a purpose of the
    meetings or that the student and other agencies, when appropriate,
    may be invited. Students aged 16 and older (younger, if appropriate)
    and representatives of other agencies likely to pay for or provide
    services are not invited and often do not attend the meetings where
    transition services are discussed and decisions are made.

-   Transition service statements do not represent a coordinated set of
    activities for each student with a disability aged 16 years or older
    (younger, if appropriate), designed within an outcome-oriented
    process that promotes movement from school to post-school
    activities.

-   The complaint and due process hearing procedures that IDEA provide
    for parents were not carried out in manner that ensured the
    resolution of disputes in a timely manner.

-   BIA closed corrective action plans for agencies that OSEP visited in
    1994, but OSEP found that some of the same deficiencies that BIA
    identified remained during OSEP's recent review.

**[BIA Monitoring Report]{.underline}**

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

Introduction [1](#introduction)

Reserved Congressional Appropriations
[1](#reserved-congressional-appropriations)

Administrative Structure And Children Served
[2](#administrative-structure-and-children-served)

I. Part B: Parent Involvement [5](#i.-part-b-parent-involvement)

A. Strengths [6](#a.-strengths)

B. Suggestions For Improved Results For Children And Youth With
Disabilities
[6](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

II\. Part B: Free Appropriate Public Education In The Least Restrictive
Environment
[7](#ii.-part-b-free-appropriate-public-education-in-the-least-restrictive-environment)

A. Strengths [9](#a.-strengths-1)

B. Areas Of Noncompliance [10](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance)

III\. Part B: Secondary Transition
[14](#iii.-part-b-secondary-transition)

Areas Of Noncompliance [15](#areas-of-noncompliance)

IV\. Part B: General Supervision [18](#iv.-part-b-general-supervision)

A. Strengths [20](#a.-strengths-2)

B. Areas Of Noncompliance [20](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-1)

C. Suggestion For Improved Results For Children And Youth With
Disabilities
[22](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

# INTRODUCTION[^1]

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is a component of the U.S. Department
of Interior. The Office of Indian Education Programs administers the
BIA's education functions. Its responsibilities for education include
the development of policies and procedures, supervision of all program
activities, and the approval of appropriated funds for educational
programs including elementary and secondary schools, and residential
facilities funded through the Department of the Interior. Within this
Office is the Branch of Exceptional Education. The mission of the Branch
is "to ensure that Indian children with disabilities, aged 5 through 21
and who are enrolled in BIA-funded schools, have available to them a
free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment
in accordance with an individualized education program." BIA-funded
schools, field agencies and area offices are located in 23
States\--Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The BIA's education mission statement for all children includes that the
Office of Indian Education Programs "shall manifest consideration of the
whole person, taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical, and
cultural aspects of the person within a family and Tribal or Alaska
Village context." Factors that influence the effectiveness of the BIA\'s
work on behalf of all children include: wide diversity among Indian
tribes as cultural and governmental entities, balancing recognition of
government-to-government relationships with tribes and the BIA's trust
responsibility for the general supervision of its funded elementary and
secondary schools for Indian children within its jurisdiction,
geographical isolation for a substantial number of schools that impact
recruitment and retention of qualified school personnel, and economic
underdevelopment and unemployment rates that are substantially higher
for tribal communities than for the majority of America\'s population.

## Reserved Congressional Appropriations

## 

Section 611(c) and (I)(1) of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) requires that from the funds appropriated for any
fiscal year for the purpose of implementing the Grants to States
program, the Secretary of Education reserves 1.226 percent to provide
assistance to the Secretary of Interior (Interior). Eighty percent of
these funds are provided to the Secretary of the Interior "to meet the
need for assistance for the education of children with disabilities on
reservations aged five to 21, inclusive, enrolled in elementary and
secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by the
Secretary of the Interior." The BIA may use five percent of these funds,
or \$500,000, whichever is greater, for administrative costs of carrying
out the requirements of IDEA. See 34 CFR §300.262.

Twenty percent of these funds are provided to the Secretary of the
Interior to be distributed to tribes or tribal organizations or
consortia of these tribes or tribal organizations to provide for the
coordination of assistance for special education and related services
for children with disabilities aged three through five on reservations
served by elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated
or funded by the Department of the Interior. The funds received by
tribes or tribal organizations must be used to assist in child find,
screening, and other procedures for the early identification of
children, aged three through five, parent training and the provision of
direct services. [See]{.underline} 20 U.S.C. 1411(i)(3). None of these
funds may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for administrative
purposes, including child count and the provision of technical
assistance.

Section 643(b) of Part C of IDEA requires that 1.25 percent of the
aggregate amount available to States after the Secretary of Education
determines the amount of payment, to be made to the jurisdiction under
34 CFR 303.204 must be used to provide assistance to the Secretary of
the Interior. The funds must be distributed to tribes or tribal
organizations, or consortia of those entities, to provide for the
coordination of assistance in the provision of early intervention
services by the State to infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families on reservations served by elementary and secondary
schools for Indian children operated or funded by the Department of the
Interior. The funds must be used to provide (1) help to States in
identifying Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities, (2) parent
training, and (3) early intervention services. None of the early
intervention allocations can be used by the Secretary of the Interior
for administrative purposes, including child count, and the provision of
technical assistance.

## Administrative Structure and Children Served

Under the leadership of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the
Director for the BIA\'s Office of Indian Education Programs has
responsibility for management of education functions. Within the Office,
the Chief of the Branch of Exceptional Education guides administration
of programs and services for children with disabilities in BIA schools.
In each of the 23 area and agency locations, Education Line Officers
administer and supervise programs in the field. Each area office and
agency has a Special Education Coordinator to provide technical
assistance and local school monitoring. All Interior-funded schools,
whether operated by the BIA or by tribes under contracts or grants, are
held accountable for full implementation of IDEA.

In 1998-99, the BIA funded 22 schools with Family and Child Education
programs that served children aged birth to three in a home-based model
and children aged three through five in a center-based model. The
majority of infants, toddlers and children with disabilities from birth
through age five are served by the States in which the reservations are
located. Students and parents (or primary caregivers) were provided
services, training, and opportunities to receive adult literacy
services. During 1998-99, a total of 10,418 elementary and secondary
school students with disabilities ages five through 21 were served in
9,959 day schools and 459 residential schools operated or funded by the
BIA.

No data were reported by BIA regarding drop-out rates or completion
rates for children and youth with disabilities served by BIA-funded
schools.

Children attending schools on American Indian reservations participate
in the State-wide assessment programs that are mandated for all public
schools in the State where the reservation is located. No data were
reported by BIA regarding participation by children with disabilities in
these assessment programs.

**Validation Planning And Data Collection**

In preparation for the Validation Planning and Data Collection visits to
diverse tribal communities, OSEP recognized the need for increased staff
awareness of cultural values, and different histories and traditions
among the tribes**.** BIA staff offered to provide diversity training
sessions that introduced OSEP staff to basic information and heightened
cultural sensitivity.

OSEP reviewed a wide variety of written documentation in preparation for
the visits, such as BIA School Report Cards (1997-98); the BIA's IDEA
1997 Implementation Plan; BIA Placement Data; the BIA Self-Assessment;
BIA policies and procedures; and the 1994 OSEP monitoring report. The
1994 OSEP report identified deficiencies in the provision of a free
appropriate public education, provision of procedural safeguards,
individualized education programs (IEPs), placement in the least
restrictive environment (including the impact of the BIA's funding
mechanism), reevaluation, BIA monitoring of field agencies, and exercise
of its general supervisory responsibility.

OSEP also conducted teleconferences with directors of American Indian
Vocational Rehabilitation projects on five different reservations,
reviewed information collected through personal contact, and worked with
the BIA's 45-member Steering Committee. The Steering Committee included:
parents, teachers, administrators, related service providers, a
contractual monitoring consultant, State educational agency officials,
persons with disabilities, representatives from protection and advocacy,
tribal schools and school boards, tribal governments, and higher
education, and BIA staff. OSEP participated in four Steering Committee
meetings (face-to-face and teleconference) between July 1998 and August
1999.

Public input meetings were held in three States with parents, service
providers and administrators from a variety of reservations. Meetings
were held in North Dakota during the week of August 3, 1998, in New
Mexico during the week of October 5, 1998, and in South Dakota during
the week of April 21, 1999. Groups ranged in size from three to 80
participants. Discussions addressed child find and public awareness,
transition from early intervention services to Part B services at age
three, parent involvement in special education decision-making, free
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment,
secondary transition from school to post-school activities, and general
supervision by the BIA.

OSEP visited seven BIA-funded field agencies and eight schools for the
purpose of collecting data to validate information provided through the
planning process, including requirements under the Government
Performance Results Act and the new requirements under the IDEA
Amendments of 1997. The sites were located in North Dakota (Standing
Rock and Turtle Mountain Agencies), New Mexico (Southern Pueblo,
Northern Pueblo, and Eastern Navajo Agencies), and South Dakota (Pine
Ridge and Crow Creek Agencies).

As part of the data collection process, OSEP reviewed student records,
including IEPs, and policies and procedures. OSEP interviewed regular
education teachers who serve children with disabilities in their
classrooms, special education teachers, and related service providers
responsible for developing, reviewing, revising, and implementing IEPs,
parents, advocates, tribal education personnel, and BIA field agency
personnel. The individuals interviewed were selected by OSEP, in
cooperation and consultation with field agency and tribal education
officials.

**Improvement Planning:** In response to this report, BIA will develop
an action plan addressing areas requiring improvement as identified in
the report. On August 17-18, 1999, a 17-member committee, including
participants from the Steering Committee and the IDEA Advisory Board,
initiated work on areas of improvement. Subsequent meetings and
teleconferences were held in September, October, and November 1999.
Approximately 60 days after the issuance of this report, OSEP will work
with the BIA to finalize the improvement plan, including time lines for
completing strategies, and methods for evaluating the effectiveness of
the plan.

# I. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT

A purpose of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 is to expand and promote
opportunities for parents and school personnel to work in new
partnerships at the State and local levels. Parents must now have an
opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the
identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child,
and the provision of a free appropriate public education to their child.
Parental involvement has long been recognized as an important indicator
of a school's success and parent involvement has positive effects on
children's attitudes and social behavior. Partnerships positively impact
achievement, improve parents' attitudes toward the school, and benefit
school personnel as well.

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

**[OSEP Monitoring]{.underline}**: OSEP\'s 1994 monitoring report did
not identify any findings of noncompliance in this area.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}**: Section 6, \"Parent and Student\"
compared two years of *Parent Questionnaire of Special Education
Programs* survey data and concluded that respondents had greater
satisfaction levels in 1994 than in 1993. A *Parent Survey of Training
Needs* (December 1997) identified needs for training parents to help
their children in academic and social skill areas, and in improving
behavior. The BIA IDEA 1997 Implementation Plan \"Highlights\" (April
21,1998) also identified a need for parent training and informing
parents about their new role, as specified by the IDEA amendments, in
evaluation, eligibility, and placement decision-making.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}**: A focus question asked during
the public input and parent focus groups was: \"How does the school
involve you as a partner in decisions about your child\'s education?\"
Parents, advocates, and school personnel reported that opportunities for
"formal" training were often limited. They also reported that schools
did not always build adequate time into IEP meetings for parents to
understand meeting procedures, the special education concepts and
processes, and proposed or refused services for their children. They
said that parents who needed or preferred to receive information before
the meetings did not have this option. A result was that many parents
did not have adequate time to consider information presented at the
meetings. They felt pressured to simply "agree" and sign papers.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after reviewing information
obtained through the Self-Assessment and public input process, OSEP
identified the following concerns: (1) parents of children with
disabilities may not be involved in the secondary transition process;
(2) parents do not receive training; and (3) parents do not actively
participate in educational planning or special education
decision-making.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and BIA and local policies and procedures, and interviews of BIA
personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strengths and suggested areas for improvement.

## A. STRENGTHS

**1. [Parents Included in Policy Making]{.underline}**

BIA\'s IDEA Advisory Board includes representatives from tribal
education units, individual parents, and representatives of parent
advocacy organizations. The parent organizations help parents and family
members increase their roles in the education of their children with
special needs. Parents and tribal representatives also participated in
the IDEA Implementation Plan development, Steering Committee, and
improvement planning workgroups. The BIA\'s inclusive practices are
intended to increase meaningful dialogue and obtain valuable parent
input on key policy decisions influencing the education of all children,
including those with disabilities.

**2. [Schools Open to Parents and the Community ]{.underline}**

BIA-funded schools often have the dual functions in tribal communities
of education facilities and community centers. This is most apparent
where reservations are far from any sizable town and/or economic
underdevelopment is prevalent. A valued result for parents is the
opportunity to build trust and mutual respect as school personnel,
including those who are non-community members, interact with children
and their families in non-academic situations.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**1. [Increasing Opportunities for Coordinated Parent
Training]{.underline}**

School personnel, parents, and advocates in each of the seven agencies
visited by OSEP reported the need for more training on parental
involvement. Formal training on improving parental involvement had not
occurred for staff and information about IDEA was shared with parents
primarily through IEP meetings or one-on-one conversations.
Administrators and teachers in three agencies reported that parents are
often passive during the meetings - providing parental \"presence\"
rather than involvement. In one location, school personnel said that
poor attendance by parents discouraged them from planning additional
activities. Parents were not seen as empowered to effectively
participate in discussions nor to make meaningful contributions to their
children\'s education.

**2. [Increasing the Use of Qualified Tribal Language Interpreters and
Family Liaisons]{.underline}**

Public input participants reported that qualified personnel are not
always available to meet parents' communication needs. Language
interpreters can be important to ensure that parents have an adequate
opportunity to understand their rights, as well as the procedural
requirements of IDEA. Qualified translators are not always available
across all of the agencies. Parents and school personnel in three
agencies reported the use of parent liaisons and language interpreters.
They made home visits and bridged communication gaps between schools and
homes, especially in bilingual communities, and rural or isolated areas.

# II. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

The provision of a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment is the foundation of IDEA. The provisions of the
statute and regulations (evaluation, IEP, parent and student
involvement, transition, participation in State and district-wide
assessment, eligibility and placement decisions, service provision,
etc.) exist to achieve this single purpose. It means that children with
disabilities receive educational services at no cost to their parents,
and that the services provided meet their unique learning needs. These
services are provided, to the maximum extent appropriate with children
who do not have disabilities and, unless their IEP requires some other
arrangement, in the school they would attend if they did not have a
disability. Any removal of children with disabilities from the regular
educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The IDEA '97 Committee Reports of the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources and the House of Representatives Committee on Education
and the Workforce emphasized that too many students with disabilities
are failing courses and dropping out of school. Those Reports noted that
almost twice as many children with disabilities drop out as compared to
children without disabilities. They expressed a further concern about
the continued inappropriate placement of children from minority
backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency in special
education. The Committees stated their intention that "once a child has
been identified as being eligible for special education, the connection
between special education and related services and the child's
opportunity to experience and benefit from the general education
curriculum should be strengthened. The majority of children identified
as eligible for special education and related services are capable of
participating in the general education curriculum to varying degrees
with some adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to
ensure that children's special education and related services are in
addition to and are affected by the general education curriculum, not
separate from it."

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

**[OSEP Monitoring]{.underline}**: The 1994 monitoring report stated
that the BIA did not fully ensure that: (1) educational placements were
based on each student's IEP; (2) the notice to parents included all
required content; (3) placements were in the least restrictive
environment; (4) extended school year services were considered and
provided, if necessary, to ensure that a student received a free
appropriate public education, and that no student was excluded from such
consideration based on category of disability; (5) three-year
reevaluations were conducted without delay; and (6) students with
disabilities received the kind and amount of related services that were
required to assist the child to benefit from special education and were
provided special education and related services for the period of time
required by their IEPs.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}**: In Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Free
Appropriate Public Education; Evaluation; IEP; and Least Restrictive
Environment), the BIA *IDEA 1997 Implementation Plan \"Highlights\"*
identified needs for: improving child-find strategies and linkages
between the many birth through five programs and BIA-funded schools;
informing parents and school personnel about the evaluation process;
training materials; and conducting inservice training on the eligibility
determination process.

The 19th and 20th Annual Reports to Congress (1996 and 1997) identified
the number and percent of 6 - 21 year old students with disabilities
placed in different BIA-funded school environments. The 1996 overall
placement rates were reported as 0.71 percent in separate facilities,
13.88 percent in separate class, 57.99 percent in resource rooms, and
27.38 percent in regular classes. The 1997 overall placement rates were
0.98 percent in separate facilities, 12.87 percent in separate class,
44.4 percent in resource rooms, and 41.5 percent in regular classes.
Thus, placement in regular classes increased by 50 percent, placement in
resource rooms decreased by more than 20 percent, and separate class
placements decreased by one percent. Placements in separate facilities,
however, increased by more than 30 percent.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** One of the four focus questions
asked during the public input meetings was: \"Do students with
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment that promotes a high quality education and
prepares them for employment and independent living after they exit
school?\" Responses included the need for: training on participation in
local and Statewide assessment programs; provision of extended school
year must be clarified; consistent interpretations of the BIA funding
formula to avoid limiting placements in regular classes; improved
services to facilitate transition from school to post-school activities;
and regular education teacher training and better support to increase
participation in their classes and improve access to the general
curriculum. The public also reported that regular education teachers
sometimes refused to implement modifications stated in IEPs and were
then able to have students with disabilities removed to a resource room.

After reviewing available information, OSEP investigated the following
concerns/issues: (1) whether a lack of qualified evaluators and
providers exists, especially for low incidence populations and in rural
areas; (2) whether children with disabilities receive a free appropriate
public education, including, when appropriate, functional behavior
assessments and behavior management plans; (3) whether extended school
year services are considered and, when determined necessary, provided in
accordance with an appropriate IEP; and (5) whether placements are made
in accordance with the child's IEP and in the least restrictive
environment for each child.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and BIA and local policies and procedures, and interviews of BIA
personnel, local program administrators, teachers, related service
providers, students, and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strengths, areas of noncompliance and areas for improvement.

## A. STRENGTHS 

**1. [Special Education Included in School Reform and Schoolwide
Plans]{.underline}**

A philosophy of inclusive education in BIA-funded schools dates back to
its initial school reform efforts with Effective Schools programs of
1988. A plan was recently adopted which is designed to further integrate
regular and special education as a unified system through the funding
and staffing of regional BIA technical assistance and training centers.
Effective implementation of this plan may strengthen schoolwide programs
and improve collaboration among the BIA, tribal communities, and tribal
and State education units.

**2. [Guidelines on Content and Student Performance Standards for All
Students ]{.underline}**

The BIA disseminated comprehensive guidance in August 1997 and October
1998 that identified content standard and assessment options and student
proficiency levels, and described multiple measures that must be used.
BIA-funded schools can choose to use: (1) the content standards and
State and district-wide assessment programs of the State in which
schools are located; or (2) national content standards or locally
developed content standards and the BIA assessment system. The guidance
highlights using authentic assessments (e.g., portfolios, checklists,
projects) to benefit all children, ongoing training and communication
among teachers acquiring new skills, and student performance data to
help teachers refine and improve their teaching practices.

**3. [Support for Culturally-Relevant Curriculum and
Instruction]{.underline}**

The BIA set a goal that one-hundred percent of its funded schools will
adopt challenging content standards that include Indian culture and
languages and submit these standards to BIA in their Consolidated Plans
by May of 2000. This increased adoption of instructional approaches that
recognize differences in student learning styles, rates of learning and
holistic methods of teaching is expected to impact all children and can
lead to improved social and educational results. For example, school
personnel and parents reported positive changes for some students with
emotional or behavioral problems in schools that already involve tribal
elders, parents, and other tribal community member as resources and role
models in their inclusive education efforts.

**4. [Use of Youth Behavior and Staff Training Survey
Data]{.underline}**

Since 1994, the BIA has used data from the Indian Health Services
\"Youth Risk Behavior\" survey. The BIA's strategic plan includes goals
and indicators to address issues based on the survey data that impact
students with disabilities. The plan also includes strategies to
increase school attendance, lower dropout rates, and reduce incidents of
behaviors leading to school administrative actions such as suspensions
and expulsions. In addition, based on needs assessments of Education
Line Officer and Special Education Coordinators, the BIA developed and
initiated model training on behavioral assessments, behavior management,
and appropriate handling of discipline situations.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [Coordination of Services]{.underline}**

Section 611(i)(4) of IDEA requires the Secretary of the Interior to
develop and implement a plan for the coordination of services for all
Indian children with disabilities covered under IDEA residing on
reservations. This plan must provide for the coordination of services
benefiting children with disabilities from whatever source, including
tribes, the Indian Health Service, other BIA divisions, and other
Federal agencies. In developing the required service coordination plan,
there must be consultation with all interested and involved parties. The
coordination plan must be based on the needs of the children and the
system best suited for meeting those needs and may involve the
establishment of cooperative agreements among the BIA, other Federal
agencies, and other entities.

OSEP determined that the BIA has not developed and implemented the
required system-wide service coordination plan. BIA staff confirmed that
no plan for system-wide coordination of service had been developed.
State personnel confirmed that coordination with BIA did not occur. The
following information demonstrates the need for a service coordination
plan.

Parents, advocates, and BIA staff also told OSEP that communication does
not always occur between the State and BIA-funded and operated agencies
that need to cooperate to ensure the smooth and effective transition for
young children with disabilities entering BIA-operated or funded
schools. This results in denial and delay of services.

Parents, advocates, as well as personnel in local public educational
agency, preschool, and tribal early intervention programs in five
agencies reported problems primarily with child find and service delays
that result from the lack of appropriate communication among early
intervention service providers, schools and families. They also told
OSEP that many young children were kept at home without any service
provision from ages three through five. In addition, the lack of
coordination results in many children being enrolled in kindergarten at
age five without school personnel learning about their special education
and related service needs until the middle of the school year.

Parents, teachers, and administrators in these five agencies reported
limited communication and collaboration among school staff and other
entities needed for the provision of appropriate services. They told
OSEP that beyond Indian Health Services, few agency or school agreements
were effectively implemented with other entities. For example,
administrators and teachers in two agencies told OSEP that the Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation has little involvement with students who
reside on reservations.

Administrators for American Indian Rehabilitation projects on
reservations told OSEP that staff at BIA-funded schools did not always
cooperate by providing student information when project staff requested
referrals or that information provided was sometimes outdated (e.g.,
eligibility evaluation data). In one of these locations, the
administrators said that they were aware of youth and families who
needed services that the project could provide, but that school staff
was not helping them to gain access. OSEP was also told that a school
administrator unilaterally decided that no students needed the project's
services or linkages.

**2. [Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment with Appropriate
Supports]{.underline}**

Section 612(a)(5)(A) of IDEA and 34 CFR §300.550(b) requires that, to
the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated
with children who are not disabled. Removal of children with
disabilities from the regular education environment may occur only when
the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot
be achieved satisfactorily. In addition, 34 CFR §300.552(a)(2) requires
that the educational placement of each child with a disability is based
on his or her IEP.

Section §612(a)(5)(B) of IDEA requires that if the State, in this case
the BIA, uses a funding mechanism by which it distributes funds on the
basis of the type of setting in which a child is served, the funding
mechanism may not result in placements that violate the least
restrictive environment requirements and that if the BIA\'s policies and
procedures do not ensure compliance, the funding mechanism must be
revised as soon as feasible to ensure that it does not result in such
placements.

OSEP determined that the BIA did not ensure that each child\'s placement
decision was determined on the basis of individual student needs

BIA did not ensure effective implementation of the 1994 corrective
action plan. BIA was required to: \"identify the extent to which the
funding formula results in students not being served in the least
restrictive environment (e.g., regular class with supplementary aids and
services), and establish procedures to eliminate, or otherwise address
systemic barriers to serving students in the least restrictive
environment.\" BIA's Indian School Equalization Program calculates per
pupil allocations and uses weighted factors for counting students in the
kindergarten through grade 12 for basic education programs. Children
eligible for special education and related services receive additional
weights and funding based on whether they are assigned service levels
that are \"high\" (15 hours or more special education per week) or
\"moderate\" (less than 15 hours special education per week).

BIA guidelines to field agencies also assign high and moderate service
levels to specific types of disabilities by identifying which disability
categories can be designated for high or moderate service levels. The
Self-Assessment indicated that the guidelines state: \"All High Service
Level students may be eligible for Exceptional Child Residential (ECR).
Only student with the following Moderate Service Levels may be
considered: Orthopedically Impaired, Other Health Impaired, Emotionally
Disturbed, Mentally retarded, Multi-Disabled, Autistic, Traumatic Brain
Injury.\" Although BIA issued a 1996 memorandum informing the field that
students no longer needed to be removed to a special education class in
order to receive services, IEP teams must still use the system of
assigning moderate or high service levels.

Perceptions about the impact of the funding formula on placement
decisions were varied. Administrators in three agencies hesitated to
identify the funding mechanism as a greater barrier to regular class
placements than the need for more qualified paraprofessionals. They felt
that if more staff were available, more students would be placed in a
regular class. However, two of these administrators confirmed that
service level, along with disability category, continued to drive
placements for some students, especially those with mental retardation,
and emotional disturbance, and some with learning disabilities, or
orthopedic impairments. Administrators in two agencies reported that:
most often the high service levels are interpreted to mean that students
will be placed outside the regular class to receive services; services
are primarily provided in a self-contained or resource room classes
based also on the type of disability; few students with high service
levels are served through "an inclusive program" in regular education
classes; and changing some parents' beliefs to get them to agree with
serving high and moderate service level students in regular classes is
difficult.

Parents, administrators, and teachers in six agencies told OSEP that
regular education teachers need support to assist them in meeting the
needs of children with disabilities in their classrooms. Administrators
and teachers in these six agencies reported that educating children with
disabilities in general education classes is not considered because of
personnel shortages and training needs. Teachers in all six agencies
reported that parents whose children are already in segregated
placements are given their choice of segregated placements, despite IEP
teams\' determinations that, with the necessary supports, students could
be educated in regular education classes.

**3. [Availability and Provision of Extended School Year
Services]{.underline}**

Section 612(a)(1) of IDEA and 34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free
appropriate public education be made available to all children with
disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR §300.8, now 34 CFR §300.13, requires
that services be provided in accordance with an appropriate IEP.

OSEP determined that extended school year services are not available for
all children with disabilities who need such services in order to
receive a free appropriate public education in BIA-funded schools.

In five agencies, administrators confirmed reports by parents and
teachers that IEP teams did not determine whether students with
disabilities need extended school year services as part of a free
appropriate public education. Voluntary summer school attendance was the
only option available for some students with disabilities who
demonstrated the need for extended school year services. In these cases,
voluntary summer school programs did not include special education and
related services to address individual IEP goals and objectives. OSEP
was also told that philosophical differences, as well as the need to
balance school recommendations with what tribes and families value for
their children, influence extended school year services decisions. For
example, in two agencies, the desire not to "single out students with
disabilities in a negative way" resulted in offering voluntary
participation in summer school programs rather than the provision of
extended school year services, regardless of individual student need.

Administrators and teachers in three of the agencies reported that
extended school year services were also not available for other reasons
that included: "a little summer school" is offered during June, but "in
July they need to play;" school administrators override IEP team
decisions for the provision of extended school year services without
allowing the teams to make the final decision; transportation funds and
staff were unavailable; and students are referred to larger public
school districts likely to have services, but parents must provide
transportation. Teachers and

administrators in all of the agencies visited by OSEP also reported that
additional clarification and training on extended school year service
was needed.

**4. [Participation in State and District-wide
Assessments]{.underline}**

Section 612(a)(17) of IDEA requires that children with disabilities be
included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with
appropriate accommodations, where necessary. Section 614(d)(1)(A)(v)
requires that the IEP include a statement of any individual
modifications in the administration of State or district-wide
assessments of student achievement that are needed in order for the
child to participate in such assessments and if the IEP team determines
that the child will not participate in a particular State or
district-wide assessment of student achievement (or part of such an
assessment), a statement of why that assessment is not appropriate for
that child and how the child will be assessed. Children attending
schools on American Indian reservations participate in the State-wide
assessment programs that are mandated for all public schools in the
State where the reservation is located. If children attend BIA-funded
schools that participate in the BIA assessment programs, children with
disabilities must participated in those assessment programs. OSEP
reviewed 21 IEPs that were developed, reviewed, or revised after July 1,
1998 in five of the seven agencies visited. Although the BIA
disseminated comprehensive information about the IDEA requirements for
participation in Statewide assessment, accommodations, and modifications
in its [Goals 2000/Improving America\'s Schools Act
Bulletin]{.underline} (February/March, 1998), only five IEPs, in one of
the five agencies, included all of the IDEA requirements. There was no
information about participation in assessment programs in 11 IEPs of
children with disabilities who could participate in assessments across
the five agencies nor about individual accommodations or modifications
in assessment administration in four of the IEPs, although teachers
reported that the students needed the same accommodations used in their
daily instruction. Three IEPs contained vague statements about
accommodations. Examples include: "as needed;" and "\_\_\_\_ may ask for
help from resource room teacher."

An administrator in one of the agencies reported that some students were
excluded from the assessment program and that more exclusions could be
expected, particularly where assistive technology is used for
instruction, but not allowed for standardized testing or where children
have reading problems and the test cannot be read to them. A teacher in
another agency described unilateral decision-making: "If students are
very low functioning academically, I will not have them participate
based on the type of test." Two teachers and an administrator from two
different agencies reported having limited awareness of the new
requirements on assessments. Two administrators in a different agency
told OSEP that school personnel were not yet "at a place of
understanding about assessment and how to make the accommodations and
modifications for children; some schools are including assessment, some
are struggling." They also stated that the BIA was developing guideline
and that training would occur when those guidelines are available.

# III. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION

The National Longitudinal Transition Study states that the rate of
competitive employment for youth with disabilities out of school for
three to five years was 57 percent, compared to an employment rate of 69
percent for youth in the general population. The Study identifies
several factors that were associated with post-school success in
obtaining employment and earning higher wages for youth with
disabilities. These include completing high school, spending more time
in regular education, and taking vocational education in secondary
school. The Study also shows that post-school success is associated with
youth who had a transition plan in high school that specifies an
outcome, such as employment, as a goal. The secondary transition
requirements of IDEA focus on the active involvement of students in
transition planning, consideration of students' preferences and
interests by the IEP team, and the reflection, in the IEP, of a
coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process which
promotes movement from school to post-school activities. Through parent
and student involvement, along with the involvement of all agencies that
can provide transition services, student needs can be appropriately
identified and services provided that best meet those needs.

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

**[OSEP Monitoring]{.underline}:** The 1994 monitoring report stated
that the BIA had an incomplete method for monitoring the requirements
for transition services statements for each student aged 16 and older
(younger, if appropriate).

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** Section 5, *"IEP"* included limited
information on transition services. *IDEA 1997 Highlights* reported
staff needs, including development and revision of forms, information
dissemination and training on the requirements which begin at age 14.
The self-assessment data collection team included a note on "Transition
Activities Age 14-21" that stated: "The data collection team feels there
is much more happening in this area (transition services) than what has
been received to date and perhaps we need to survey the high schools to
provide more information."

**[BIA Monitoring]{.underline}**: A summary of 1994-98 monitoring
reported "systemic areas" of noncompliance with transition services
requirements (20% or more of the sampled student records did not comply
with Part B). Areas of noncompliance included: (1) students and other
agency representatives did not attend transition service IEP meetings
and meeting notices did not invite the student and other agencies when
needed; (2) IEPs did not include a statement of needed transition
services for students aged 16 and older (younger, if appropriate); and
(3) needed areas of community experience, employment, post-school
living, daily living skills and functional vocational education were not
addressed.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}**: A focus question asked during
the public input meetings was: \"Do students with disabilities, ages 14
and older, receive instruction and coordinated services that facilitate
transition from school to work or from school to post-secondary
education?\" Responses identified barriers to transition services such
as geographic isolation, high unemployment, and limited economic
development; limited service coordination and

communication between schools and other agencies; and the need for
ongoing training on outcome-oriented transition services.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after reviewing information
obtained through the Self-Assessment and public input process, OSEP
investigated reports that: (1) agency linkages are not facilitated; (2)
appropriate transition goals, services and activities are not addressed
in IEPs; (3) students are not informed at age 17 of rights and
responsibilities that will become theirs upon turning age 18; and (4)
opportunities for agency involvement, community experiences, and the
development of independent living skills are insufficient.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following areas
of noncompliance and suggestions for improved results for children.

## AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [Meeting Notice and Invitations to Required
Participants]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.345(b)(2) requires that when transition is a purpose of an
IEP meeting, the meeting notice must include transition as a purpose,
state that the agency will invite the student, and identify any other
agency that will be invited to send a representative. In addition, 34
CFR §300.344(c) requires that, if a purpose of the meeting is the
consideration of transition services for a student, the public agency
shall invite the student and a representative of any other agency that
is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services. If the student does not attend, the public agency must take
other steps to ensure that the student\'s preferences and interests are
considered. If an agency invited to send a representative to a meeting
does not do so, the public agency must take other steps to obtain the
agency\'s participation in the planning of any transition services.

OSEP found that BIA did not consistently ensure that parents receive
notice, including required content, of meetings where secondary
transition service planning was a purpose. Administrators of three
agencies confirmed that, for students whose files OSEP reviewed, parents
did not receive the required notice. Parents were not always notified
that the student or any other agency representatives would be invited.
Students did not always attend and other agencies rarely attended these
IEP meetings. There was no indication that students' preferences and
interests were considered when they did not attend the meetings.

OSEP reviewed 16 records in four agencies for students, ages 16 years or
older, for whom transition services was a purpose of the meeting. Half
of the meeting notices did not state that the student would be invited.
Administrators and school personnel in two agencies said that staff
encouraged students to attend meetings, but many do not wish to
participate. School personnel in only three agencies reported that they
use alternative methods of obtaining information on students' present
interests and preferences and use it when students do not attend
meetings.

Forty-four percent of meeting notices reviewed did not include that
other agencies were invited. In three of the agencies, IEP meeting
summaries supported school personnel reports that students needed
linkages with other agencies likely to be responsible for paying for or
providing needed transition services. Administrators in three agencies
told OSEP that other agency participation in meetings on transition
services was a challenge and led to not inviting them. Administrators
for the other two agencies reported that the State Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation was understaffed and therefore, was unable to
serve all of the State\'s clients who needed service. Another
administrator reported that activities are carried out with other
agencies that are not always a part of the IEP process, such as contacts
with local colleges and universities, social service agencies, or
private industry. Agency and school staff in five of the agencies that
were visited by OSEP reported that secondary transition service was an
area that needed additional training. BIA staff agreed with these
findings.

**2. [Transition Services Statement]{.underline}**

Section 614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(I) of IDEA requires that the IEP for each
student, beginning at age 14 and updated annually, include a statement
of the transition service needs of the child under the applicable
components of the child's IEP that focuses on the child's course of
study (such as participation in advance placement courses or a
vocational education program). Section 614(d)(1)(A)(viii)(II) of IDEA
requires that the IEP for each student 16 years and older (younger if
appropriate) include a statement of the needed transition services
including, when appropriate, a statement of the interagency
responsibilities or any need linkages. Under Section 602(3)(c),
transition service means a coordinated set of activities, designed
within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement from school
to post-school activities. The transition services must be based on the
individual student\'s needs, taking into account the student\'s
preferences and interests and includes instruction, related services,
community experiences, development of employment and other post-school
adult living objectives, and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living
skills and functional vocational evaluation.

As stated earlier, transition planning is a collaborative process
requiring the efforts of parents, student, school staff and, when an
appropriate other agencies. In three agencies where OSEP reviewed
transition service information, the transition services statements for
students age 16 years and older were absent or vague, if included. No
other parts of the students\' records, including their IEPs included
evidence that coordinated outcome oriented transition strategies or
activities had been developed and provided. Examples from IEPs reviewed
are included below.

\"work experience if it can be arranged through school; refer to
school-to-work program.\" The student\'s records, including the IEP,
contained no goals/objectives or services linked to this \"work
experience.\" The student\'s IEP included \"Adult Services\" as one of
the student\'s needs, although no adult service providers were invited
and there was no evidence of any other efforts to involve other service
providers.

\"\_\_\_\_is thinking about going to Job Corps when \[s/he\] graduates
to study welding/carpentry." The student\'s records, including the IEP,
contained no goals/objectives or services linked to either welding or
carpentry. There were no identified linkages to further training in
either area nor were adult service providers related to these areas
invited to the IEP meeting.

\"\_\_\_\_will look into the Job Corps program to see if it is something
\[s/he\] would be interested in." The student\'s records, including the
IEP, contained no goals/objectives or services linked to Job Corps
training nor was there any indication that attempts were made to link
the student to the Job Corps program.

# IV. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION

IDEA assigns responsibility to State education agencies for ensuring
that its requirements are met and that all educational programs for
children with disabilities, including all such programs administered by
any other State or local agency, are under the general supervision of
individuals in the State who are responsible for educational programs
for children with disabilities and that these programs meet the
educational standards of the State educational agency. State support and
involvement at the local level are critical to the successful
implementation of the provisions of IDEA. To carry out their
responsibilities, States provide dispute resolution mechanisms
(mediation, complaint resolution and due process), monitor the
implementation of State and Federal statutes and regulations, establish
standards for personnel development and certification as well as
educational programs, and provide technical assistance and training
across the State. Effective general supervision promotes positive
student outcomes by promoting appropriate educational services to
children with disabilities, ensuring the successful and timely
correction of identified deficiencies, and providing personnel who work
with children with disabilities the knowledge, skills and abilities
necessary to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

**[OSEP Monitoring]{.underline}**: The 1994 monitoring report stated
that BIA did not meet its responsibilities to: (1) exercise its general
supervisory authority over programs providing special education and
related services to students with disabilities in schools that were
funded by the BIA and operated by the tribes under a contract or grant
agreement; (2) determine compliance of all BIA-funded schools and
agencies in meeting the IDEA requirements and ensure effective
implementation of its revised monitoring procedures, including adequate
methods to identify and correct deficiencies through monitoring; (3)
ensure that educational placement decisions for children with
disabilities were not impacted by the funding formula and that the
BIA\'s funding formula was not a major barrier to serving students with
disabilities in inclusive regular education classes; (4) ensure that
public agencies provided notice to parents which includes a full
explanation of procedural safeguards available to parents, and that
parents were provided the full explanation as written notice prior to
each circumstance of agency proposal or refusal to initiate or change
the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or
the provision a free appropriate public education to the child; (5)
ensure that the notice was provided in the parents' native languages,
steps were taken to translate the notice to ensure that parents
understood its content, and that public agencies kept written records of
these steps; and (6) ensure that the BIA's due process regulations
included a provision providing a party aggrieved by the decision in a
hearing the right to bring a civil action under IDEA

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** Section 6, \"Parent and Student,\" of
the Parent Survey of Training Needs (December 1997), included the need
for \"an updated procedural safeguards document, all materials developed
in clear language using a step-by-step approach that includes mediation,
due process hearings, and complaints procedures."

A task force developed and submitted revised funding mechanism proposals
to the Tribal Consultation process (April-May 1998). None of the
proposals was selected. The groups also met with nationally recognized
experts on school funding mechanisms for technical assistance (November
1998 and January 1999). In addition, the Branch of Exceptional Education
provided written reminders to Special Education Coordinators that stated
that \"eligibility and educational placement must be determined on the
basis of individual needs, not the Indian Student Equalization
guidelines\" (1998-99 school year).

BIA revised its internal system for tracking complaints in 1999.
Strategies include documenting complaints received and investigative
actions step-by-step, using a consistent reporting format, and where
appropriate, conducting a follow-up to the written reports, including
further review of local systems and supports in place to remedy the
situation that prompted the complaint. The revised Notice of Procedural
Safeguards identifies the BIA Central Office as the recipient of written
complaints and as one of three places for filing a written request for a
due process hearing.

The Self-assessment stated that written agreements for staff training,
diagnostic or direct services to children are being implemented at the
local and regional level that involve area offices and agencies and
other entities, including: Minneapolis Area Office, Eastern Navajo
Agency, Cheyenne River Agency, Portland Area, Oklahoma Area, and Turtle
Mountain Agency.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}**: Two of the focus questions asked
during the public input sessions for Part B were: \"Does the State
exercise effective general supervision of the implementation of IDEA?
Does this occur through the development and utilization of tools,
mechanisms and activities that result in all eligible students having an
opportunity to receive a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment?\" Parents and advocates identified the lack of
enforcement and follow-up to ensure that deficiencies identified through
monitoring, complaints and due process hearings were corrected. Concerns
were also raised about inconsistent policies and procedures for
implementing IDEA provisions that resulted in service denial or delays
for children and youth with disabilities in some BIA-operated and tribal
operated schools.

After reviewing the 1994 OSEP monitoring report, the Self-Assessment and
information from the public input process, OSEP investigated: (1)
whether monitoring results in systemic changes and improvement in
results for children with disabilities; (2) whether enforcement actions
are taken, when appropriate, and whether such actions result in systemic
changes; (3) whether disputes mechanisms (complaint investigation and
due process procedures) result in the timely resolution of disputes; (4)
whether BIA provides appropriate service coordination required under
IDEA; and (5) whether the BIA funding mechanism is placement-neutral.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected and analyzed information from the review of
children's records and BIA and local policies and procedures, and
interviews of BIA personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and
parents.

OSEP collected, reviewed and analyzed the data from all sources on
general supervision and identified the following strengths, areas of
noncompliance and suggested area for improvement.

## A. STRENGTHS

**1. [IDEA Advisory Board Handbook, Resource Manual, and Pocket
Guide]{.underline}**

With technical assistance from the Mountain Plains Regional Resource
Center and BIA Advisory Board representatives, the BIA developed a
\"user friendly\" handbook and resource manual for Board members. The
materials will be useful for Board members\' understanding of the Office
of Indian Education Programs\' vision, mission and goals, as well as
Congressional intent for the Board\'s role in the education of American
Indian children with disabilities under IDEA. In addition, they
developed a quick reference pocket guide to inform the public about the
recently appointed board.

**2. [Materials for Tribal Language Translations]{.underline}**

BIA has collaborated with the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center
to develop materials for parents on IDEA in clear language, rather than
professional jargon. Materials include "Parent's Guide to the Special
Education Process" and "Parent Rights for Special Education: Notice of
Procedural Safeguards." The intent is to provide culturally sensitive
information that bilingual interpreters can translate more appropriately
to unwritten tribal languages. This will be more meaningful to parents
whose primary or preferred language is other than English. Continued
expansion of this strategy is planned in order to reach additional
individuals who may speak one of 250 tribal languages as their primary
mode of communication.

**3. [School Improvement Applications]{.underline}**

The increased IDEA funding appropriated for the 1998-99 school year was
distributed by the BIA to its funded schools based on school improvement
applications submitted by each agency's Education Line Officers. The
procedure required each field agency to base information on agency-wide
needs assessment, school report card results, and input from local
shareholders. The funds were used to address local priorities for
systemic change to improve services, including areas such as assistive
technology devices and services, early intervention activities (e.g.,
family resource centers, parent/community workshops), and training for
general and special education to meet the needs of all students.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**2. [Resolution of Disputes: Complaint Procedures and Due Process
Hearings]{.underline}**

Section 615(f)(1) of IDEA provides that a parent or public educational
agency may initiate a hearing in matters pertaining to proposals or
refusals to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or
educational placement of a child or the provision of a free appropriate
public education. In addition, 34 CFR §§300.660-300.662 require that
each State educational agency shall adopt written procedures for
resolving any complaint that includes a statement that a public agency
has violated a requirement of IDEA Part B, and the facts on which the
statement is based.

OSEP found that BIA did not ensure the timely resolution of disputes
through the implementation of due process and complaint resolution
procedures.

OSEP received letters of concern from parent advocates and information
through the public input process indicating that due process hearings
requested through local schools were not provided and that complaints
filed with the BIA's Central Office were not always investigated in a
timely manner.

BIA procedures provide for complaints or requests for due process
hearings to be submitted to either the BIA Central Office or to the
local schools who are then required to forward them to the BIA Central
Office. BIA staff told OSEP that complaints or requests for due process
hearings received by tribal-operated schools are not always reported to
the BIA. Parents and advocates reported that they are not informed that
they can file complaints or requests for due process hearings directly
with the Central Office of the BIA and BIA confirmed that staff
shortages have prevented them from ensuring that parents are informed
either through mailings or other contacts. BIA staff also reported that
they are unable to resolve complaints within 60 days due to staff
shortages.

**3. [BIA Monitoring to Ensure Consistent Implementation of Part B
Requirements]{.underline}**

Section 612(a)(11) of IDEA requires the BIA to ensure that the
requirements of IDEA are carried out and that each educational program
for children with disabilities is under its general supervision and
meets the education standards of the BIA. This includes the BIA\'s
system for monitoring, including the enforcement of appropriate
corrective actions to ensure effective implementation of all IDEA
provisions.

OSEP determined that BIA did not ensure correction of all deficiencies
identified in OSEP\'s 1994 monitoring report and in the 1995, 1996, and
1997 BIA reports of monitoring of agencies conducted by the contracted
monitoring team.

In 1994, OSEP required BIA to revise its funding mechanism to ensure
that its impact on placement decisions was eliminated. No change has
been made since that time and the BIA\'s monitoring procedures do not
include a method to determine the impact of the funding mechanism on
placement decisions. BIA concurred in OSEP's determination that failure
to resolve the funding issue has resulted in the inappropriate removal
of some students from regular education classes to more restrictive
environments.

BIA revised its monitoring procedures after the 1994 OSEP visit.
Although the monitoring contractors used the revised monitoring
procedures from 1995, the BIA did not ensure the correction of
identified noncompliance.

Recent monitoring reports for five of the seven agencies OSEP visited
included deficiencies that OSEP identified during the current data
collection. Examples include the provision of extended school year
services, secondary transition, and placement in the least restrictive
environment.

OSEP also determined that BIA does not have an effective method to
ensure that the 23 area and agency offices have written policies and
procedures comply with IDEA requirements. As a result, OSEP determined
that information disseminated to schools and used for daily operations
was not consistent with all Federal requirements. Information on the
review of agency policies and procedure was not included as part of
BIA's monitoring procedures.

## C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**[Supervisory Responsibilities Impacted by Central Office
Staffing]{.underline}**

Significant turnover and delays in filling positions have negatively
impacted BIA's efforts to fulfill general supervisory responsibilities
under IDEA. The Washington, DC office has two full-time staff members,
and there is one full-time staff member in the Albuquerque office.
Efforts to carry out the general supervisory requirements included
bringing in a college intern, Special Education Coordinators from field
agencies and the staff member from the BIA's Albuquerque, New Mexico
Office. These persons have been assigned at various times to work on
temporary assignments to assist in the implementation of general
supervisory responsibilities.

As documented in previous monitoring reports and described in this
report, several continuing noncompliance areas are linked to the BIA's
exercise of its supervisory authority. The hiring of sufficient BIA
supervisory staff with knowledge, skills, and abilities in the areas of
focus for this report can improve results for children with
disabilities. OSEP was told that the Office of Indian Education Programs
is restructuring its administrative organization to place supervisory
and technical assistance personnel in strategic regional locations.
Positive changes that address these needs, including full staffing of
positions needed within the Branch of Exceptional Education can build
the capacity necessary to implement supervisory responsibilities for the
education of children with disabilities served in BIA-funded schools.

[^1]: Information about the BIA administrative structure and functions
    in this section is based upon

    data provided by the BIA through its self-assessment and other
    documentation.