DMS

REPORT

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 

STATE BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION

DATE OCTOBER 23, 2019 

IDEA PART B 

CONTENTS

LETTER .............................................................................................................................................. 1

ENCLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 3

DMS NOTICE ................................................................................................................................... 27

OSEP SAN FELIPE LETTER .............................................................................................................. 30

BIE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 33
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

LETTER

Honorable Tony L. Dearman

Director 

Bureau of Indian Education

1849 C Street NW

MS-3609-MIB

Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Director Dearman:

The purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of the results of the differentiated monitoring and 

support (DMS) activities conducted by the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) during an on-site visit to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) the week of March 25, 

2019, and three schools on March 29, April 9, and April 11, 2019. In addition to OSEP and Risk 

Management Services (RMS) staff, participants during the visits included staff from the BIE, the National 

Center for Systemic Improvement, the IDEA Data Center, and the National Technical Assistance Center 

on Transition.

1

As part of the DMS process, OSEP conducts an organizational assessment (OA) of factors to identify 

States’ progress in meeting performance standards and complying with the requirements of Part B of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations, the Education 

Department General Administrative Regulations and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (OMB Uniform Guidance). OSEP uses the 

information from the OA and an Engagement Decision Tree to make decisions about how it will engage 

with States over the course of the Federal fiscal year (FFY). The FFY 2018 DMS areas were: 1) Results; 

2) Compliance; 3) State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP); and 4) Fiscal.

On October 23, 2018, OSEP sent the BIE’s DMS notice to Jeffrey Hamley and Donald Griffin. That 

notice provided a level of engagement of universal, targeted, or intensive for each of the four areas OSEP 

identified for DMS. The levels of engagement in the notice were based on a snapshot of the most recently 

available data in the corresponding four areas. The notice also identified the monitoring and support 

activities that would be carried out to address the factors contributing to the elevated need for monitoring 

and support in each of the areas that were identified for intensive engagement. We have attached a copy 

of the DMS notice for your convenience.

The enclosure describes the: 1) Background; 2) Monitoring2 for each DMS area; 3) Summary; and 4) 

OSEP’s conclusion including Next Steps and Required Actions. If OSEP is issuing findings of 

noncompliance with the IDEA requirements, you will find specific details pertaining to the finding of 

noncompliance, along with the respective citation(s); and the corrective action required to address the 

identified finding of noncompliance. 

1 All three centers are OSEP-funded technical assistance providers. 2 Monitoring is broadly defined as including activities examining both compliance and performance issues and encompasses 

traditional monitoring reviews and technical assistance activities. This is consistent with the OMB Uniform Guidance. See 2 

C.F.R. §200.331(d) and (e).
Page 2 — Honorable Tony L. Dearman

We appreciate your efforts to improve results for children with disabilities. If you have any questions, 

please contact Jennifer Wolfsheimer, your OSEP State Lead, at 202-245-6090. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Laurie VanderPloeg

Director

Office of Special Education Programs 

cc: Donald Griffin, State Director of Special Education

Jeffrey Hamley, Ed.D, Associate Deputy Director

Division of Performance & Accountability

Enclosure: 

DMS Notice

OSEP San Felipe Letter

BIE FFY 2019 Specific Conditions
ENCLOSURE

Background 

OSEP’s Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) system is a component of Results Driven 

Accountability. DMS is designed to identify potential grantee risk to the U.S. Department of 

Education (Department) and to assist OSEP in effectively using its resources to monitor grantees. 

DMS addresses State-specific and Entity-specific needs in the areas of Results, Compliance, 

State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), and Fiscal systems by differentiating levels and types 

of monitoring and support based on each State’s and Entity’s unique strengths, progress, and 

challenges in each area.3

During the DMS Visit, OSEP reviewed the BIE’s Results, Compliance, and SSIP systems. In 

reviewing the BIE’s systems for Results, Compliance, and SSIP, OSEP:

• Reviewed the BIE’s systems for collecting and reporting data the BIE submitted for 

selected indicators in the BIE’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 State Performance Plan 

(SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)4

 under Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

• Reviewed the following– 

o The BIE’s previous SPP/APRs, including its SSIP submissions 

o The BIE’s FFY 2018 annual application for funds under Part B of the IDEA 

o Information on the BIE’s website related to the IDEA 

o Other pertinent information related to the BIE’s efforts to improve results for 

children with disabilities

• Gathered additional information through interviews with– 

o The BIE Director of Special Education 

o The BIE personnel responsible for implementing the Results, Compliance, and 

SSIP systems

o Leadership and staff from three BIE-funded schools 

During the visit, OSEP did not examine the area of Fiscal systems, in which the BIE received a 

“Level of Engagement” of “Universal.” However, OSEP will continue to work with the BIE on 

all of the areas identified in the DMS notice during regular phone calls and virtual engagement. 

3 For more information on OSEP’s monitoring procedures, measurement categories and ratings, see the DMS notice provided as 

Attachment 1. 4 The FFY 2016 SPP/APR was the most recent SPP/APR submission at the time of the monitoring visit.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 4

OSEP will also provide universal technical assistance through nation-wide calls, webinars and 

documents posted on our websites.

Under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(1)(A) of the IDEA, the Secretary of Education provides funds to the 

Secretary of the Interior for the education of children with disabilities on reservations ages 5 

through 21 enrolled in elementary schools and secondary schools for Indian children operated or 

funded by the Secretary of the Interior. 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A) specifies that in order to be 

eligible for funds under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(1)(A), the Department of the Interior must meet the 

appropriate requirements, as determined by the Secretary of Education, 20 U.S.C. 1412

(including monitoring and evaluation activities) and 20 U.S.C. 1413 that apply generally to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs), respectively. Accordingly, 

IDEA Part B regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.707 through 300.716 establish the requirements 

that apply to the BIE and BIE-funded schools and, except as specifically identified, have the BIE 

and BIE-funded schools assume responsibilities and programmatic requirements of an SEA and 

LEA, respectively.

BIE Organizational Structure

Based on the information reviewed, it is the Department’s understanding that, currently, the BIE 

funds two different types of schools: 1) BIE-operated schools; and 2) tribally-controlled schools 

(funded by both grants and contracts). While at one time BIE-operated schools comprised the 

majority of BIE-funded schools, currently approximately 130 of 183, or two-thirds of the BIEfunded schools, are tribally-controlled.

BIE also reported that, partially as a result of this trend, in 2014, the agency began an 

organizational restructuring designed to “improve[ ] service by meeting the different needs of 

federally operated schools and grant schools” and to “put[ ] resources and support closer to 

schools”.

5 Under the current structure, the BIE is led by the Director of the BIE, who is 

supported by four Associate Deputy Directors (ADDs). Three of the ADDs oversee groups of the 

BIE-funded schools: 1) an ADD for tribally-controlled schools; 2) an ADD for BIE-Operated 

schools; and 3) an ADD for Navajo schools.6

The fourth ADD oversees the Division of Performance and Accountability (DPA). DPA 

administers the Federal programs supported by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and 

IDEA formula grants from the U.S. Department of Education. The DPA functions as the State 

educational agency (SEA) for the BIE, but direct oversight of schools is provided by the three 

other ADDs. As a result, DPA is dependent upon the ADDs for tribally-controlled schools, BIEoperated schools, and Navajo schools to ensure proper implementation of the provisions of IDEA 

and any corrective actions required to address identified noncompliance under the IDEA for 

those entities.

5 See www.bie.edu/BFRI/index.htm. 6 The Navajo schools include both tribally-controlled and BIE-operated schools.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 5

In addition, the ADDs for tribally-controlled schools, BIE-operated schools, and Navajo schools 

each oversee Educational Resource Centers (ERCs), which are regional centers designed to 

provide technical assistance, support and oversight of all of the BIE-funded schools. OSEP noted 

that both because direct authority over the schools is in the hands of the ADDs and its ERCs, and 

because of the limitations in both the authority, and the number, of staff in DPA, effective 

corrections of monitoring findings under, and the provision of technical assistance related to,

IDEA is primarily dependent upon the cooperation of the ADDs and the ERCs. OSEP discussed 

this observation with the Director of the BIE, DPA staff, representatives of the ADDs and ERCs 

and school staff. In all cases, there was general agreement that schools, and the children and 

families that they serve, would be the ultimate beneficiaries of more clearly defined roles and 

responsibilities, increased communication, and greater collaboration.

Lastly, as reported, the BIE currently sends all documents (including IDEA-related monitoring 

reports) through the Department of the Interior’s document tracking system (DTS). As described 

in detail later in this letter, this review system has proven to be a barrier to the BIE fulfilling its 

general supervision responsibilities due to substantial delays with obtaining clearance.

Compliance

DMS Compliance Overview

In the 2018 DMS notice, OSEP identified the BIE as needing intensive support in the area of 

compliance due to the following complex challenges reflected in its FFY 2016 IDEA Part B 

SPP/APR data: 

1. Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation was 83.45%; 

2. Indicator 13: Secondary Transition was 14.98%; 

3. Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data was 84.35%; and 

4. Longstanding Noncompliance (Special Conditions existed for three or more years).

The BIE Compliance System 

During the visit, OSEP, the Department’s Risk Management Services (RMS), the BIE staff, and 

representatives from OSEP-funded technical assistance centers discussed the following areas in 

detail:

1. the BIE’s general supervision responsibilities under the IDEA; 

2. the BIE’s data system; 

3. timely initial evaluations, including evaluations for needed related services, and the 

provision of those related services, in BIE-funded schools; 

4. compliance with secondary transition requirements; and 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 6

5. the BIE’s dispute resolution system.

General Supervision

During the visit, the discussion regarding the BIE’s general supervision responsibilities focused 

on: 

1. the BIE’s policies and procedures related to the IDEA; 

2. the BIE’s monitoring system; 

3. the BIE’s issuing of local school determinations; and 

4. the BIE’s public reporting of local school performance reports.

First, in 2011, the BIE posted on its website draft policies and procedures that mirrored the 

Federal IDEA regulations addressing the obligation to have in effect policies and procedures that 

meet the requirements of IDEA. 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A) and 1412(a) and 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.708(a). However, the BIE has since pulled these policies and procedures off its website.

The BIE currently does not have final policies and procedures related to implementation of the 

IDEA. Further, during discussions OSEP held at the three BIE-funded schools, school 

administrators and staff articulated the need for clarity regarding the BIE’s policies and 

procedures for the implementation of the IDEA7

. In the absence of guidance, BIE-funded 

schools reported the need for clarity on the IDEA-related requirements they must follow, which 

generally impact the provision of services for children with disabilities enrolled in those schools.

For example, during the monitoring visit, OSEP also discussed with the BIE the use of Response 

to Intervention (RTI) prior to administering an initial evaluation. The BIE stated that it leaves 

decisions about the use of RTI to school-level staff. During OSEP’s visits with the three BIEfunded schools, the school staff explained that when a child is struggling in school, the child is 

referred to the child study team to discuss individual concerns, review the relevant data and, 

unless the school has received from the parent a written request for an evaluation, interventions 

are tried for a period ranging from 45 days to three months. After the RTI period is completed, 

school staff then decides whether to conduct an evaluation. 

No intervention process, including RTI, may be used to delay or deny the provision of a full and 

individual evaluation that meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304–300.311 to a child 

7 In the absence of final policies and procedures, some BIE-funded schools have been implementing certain IDEA-related 

requirements based on the policies and procedures of the State in which they are located. While this is not impermissible if it

were consistent with the BIE’s final policies and procedures, the BIE has not indicated it has given schools this option. Under 

the IDEA, States have flexibility to define their own requirements in certain areas (e.g., the timeline for an initial evaluation 

(20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)(C)(i)(I)) and the timeline for presenting a due process complaint (20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(6)(B)). Without 

decisions by the BIE on how that flexibility is to be exercised, BIE-funded schools cannot demonstrate compliance, and 

parents of children with disabilities lack the information required to ensure their child receives FAPE, enforce their rights, and 

fully participate in the process under IDEA, which, in turn, impacts the BIE’s general supervision system. 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 7 

suspected of having a disability under 34 C.F.R. § 300.8. The initial evaluation must be 

conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation or within the BIEestablished timeframe. 20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)(C)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c). The statutory and 

regulatory exceptions to this requirement do not include the use of RTI strategies. 20 U.S.C. 

1414(a)(1)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(d). It would be inconsistent with the evaluation 

provisions at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.301 through 300.111 for an initial evaluation to be delayed on the 

basis that a child has not participated in an RTI framework. See also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.309(c) and 

300.311(a)(7)(ii)(C); Analysis of Comments and Changes to 2006 IDEA Part B regulations, 71 

Fed. Reg. 46540, 46658 (Aug. 14, 2006); OSEP Memorandum 11-07, A Response to 

Intervention (RTI) Process Cannot Be Used to Delay-Deny an Evaluation for Eligibility under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), issued January 21, 20118

; and OSEP 

Questions and Answers on RTI and Early Intervening Services (EIS), January 2007.9

 As noted above, this 

demonstrates one of the impacts of not having final policies and procedures in place. Based on OSEP’s 

monitoring visits, BIE-funded schools lack policies and procedures on the timeframe for completing 

initial evaluations and the relationship between RTI and evaluations pursuant to the IDEA.

Second, the BIE has a four-year monitoring cycle that is based on a risk matrix. The BIE uses a school’s 

level of risk to determine whether the school will receive only a desk audit or on-site monitoring review10. 

The risk matrix divides all the BIE-funded schools into quintiles; schools rated in the first quintile receive 

an on-site visit. The BIE conducts 15 on-site monitoring visits each year. The second quintile is 

comprised of about 20 schools subject to desk audits. Through these monitoring activities, the BIE 

identifies noncompliance but has been unable to issue written findings of noncompliance because the 

letters are awaiting clearance in the Department of the Interior’s Document Tracking System (DTS). The 

BIE informed OSEP that it has been unable to issue written findings of noncompliance to schools in the 

last two years. In lieu of a formal letter, the BIE conducts telephone calls to inform each school of the 

identified noncompliance and required corrective actions. 

The BIE reported that it tracks the correction of noncompliance on a spreadsheet used for internal 

purposes. BIE-funded schools use the Fiscal Accountability Action Plan (FAAP) to track and submit 

documentation of progress towards the correction of both fiscal and programmatic findings. The FAAP is 

required of all schools with identified fiscal noncompliance. As a final step, after a school has corrected 

the noncompliance, the school submits evidence of correction through Native Star, the BIE’s tool for 

tracking continuous school improvement. Staff at the three schools visited by OSEP stated that the BIE 

did not provide technical assistance or guidance on how to correct the identified noncompliance. Further, 

staff at these schools reported that, once they provided the BIE with the required information on 

correction of noncompliance, school staff did not receive feedback from the BIE indicating that the 

noncompliance has been resolved. During the monitoring visit, the BIE acknowledged that, just as it is

8 A copy of OSEP Memo11-07 may be viewed at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-

07rtimemo.pdf. 9 A copy of OSEP Questions and Answers on RTI and EIS (January 2007) may be viewed at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/07-

0021.RTI_.pdf. 10 The BIE’s on-site monitoring reviews include both a document review and on-site interviews.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 8

unable to issue written findings, it has also been unable to issue close-out letters to resolve the findings of 

noncompliance.

During the discussion, the BIE also explained that it has trouble ensuring students with disabilities take 

the correct assessment. The BIE further elaborated on the concern by explaining that although it is able to 

access IEPs in NASIS to determine what type of assessment each student is required to take, there is 

currently no method to determine if the student actually took the assessment required by the student’s 

IEP. The BIE stated that, in some instances, it knows that the assessment administered to the student does 

not match the assessment required by the student’s IEP. The BIE stated that when the agency becomes 

aware of this issue, it provides technical assistance to the school to ensure the correct assessment is 

administered to the student in the following year. The BIE explained that once consensus on 

recommendations for a proposed rule to replace the existing assessment system is reached through the 

negotiated rulemaking process, the BIE will have a more effective way to ensure that children with 

disabilities in BIE-funded schools are administered assessments in accordance with their IEPs. However, 

the BIE must also have a mechanism to issue written findings in instances where it has acknowledged 

noncompliance.

Third, while on-site, the BIE informed OSEP that, for the past two years, it has not issued local 

determinations in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A) and 1416(a) and 34 C.F.R.

§§ 300.600(a)(2), 300.708(d), and 300.716. The BIE stated that it is waiting for the amended

2016 determinations to clear DTS before it can issue determinations for 2017 and 2018. Further,

the BIE noted that it does not consider IDEA-related audit findings when making local 

determinations. Finally, unlike the BIE’s issuing of findings of noncompliance, the BIE has not 

communicated, either formally or informally, to individual schools about their determinations.

The BIE staff informed OSEP that it is working to get templates for monitoring reports and local 

determinations approved through the DTS process, and that once a template is approved, the BIE

could issue individual reports or determinations directly to schools without being subjected to 

internal clearance at the Department of the Interior. 

Lastly, the BIE acknowledged that it does not comply with the requirement to report annually to 

the public on the performance of each BIE-funded school on the targets in the BIE's performance 

plan as required by 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A) and 1416(b)(2)(C) and 34 C.F.R.

§§ 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A), 300.708(d), and 300.716. OSEP notes that the most recent local

performance reports the BIE has made publicly available are for FFY 2013, and the BIE has not 

publicly reported on the FFY 2014, FFY 2015, and FFY 2016 performance of BIE-funded 

schools. The BIE’s efforts to bring the publicly available local performance reports up to date

include working with the IDEA Data Center (IDC) to calculate and post updated local 

performance reports. However, the BIE was not able to clarify the current status of the data 

calculations needed to complete the local performance reports or of the clearance of those reports 

through DTS. 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 9

Data 

OSEP notes that the BIE is continuing to make progress in improving data collection and 

reporting. It appears that the BIE’s data related to special education is at the forefront of these 

data improvements, especially in the area of assessments. Specifically, the Chief Academic 

Office – which houses the Native American Student Information System (NASIS), the BIE’s 

data collection system – is working closely with the individual schools’ special education 

departments to ensure that the special education data is as accurate as possible. Further, the BIE, 

with the assistance of the IDC, has developed data collection protocols, which will standardize

the collection of all applicable special education data. Protocols have been, or are being,

developed for all the required IDEA Section 616 and Section 618 data collections. The BIE has 

also created a Data Governance Board, which will oversee the collection of data at the BIE.

Donald Griffin, BIE’s Director of Special Education, has a seat on the Data Governance Board.

Once the process for collecting and reporting data is finalized, the BIE will begin work with its 

schools to encourage the use of data to support decision making and improvement activities.

Child Find, Timely Initial Evaluations, and Provision of Related Services

During the visit, the BIE explained that each BIE-funded school uses the evaluation criteria 

established by the State where it is located, and that each school has its own process for hiring 

educational psychologists to complete timely evaluations. The BIE also informed OSEP that it

uses the 60-day timeline that its schools must comply with for completing initial evaluations 

consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.301(c)(1)(i) and 300.716. However, some BIE-funded schools 

are following the timeline established by the State where they are located for completing initial

evaluations, which is permitted only if the BIE allows BIE-funded schools to use the Stateestablished timeline under 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c)(1)(ii). As an example, some BIE-funded 

schools located in Michigan use the State-established timeline of 45 business days for 

completing initial evaluations, which is inconsistent with, and generally longer than, the BIE’s 

timeline of 60 calendar days.

The BIE further explained that it uses the same process to collect data regarding initial 

evaluations from all BIE-funded schools. The schools upload parental consent forms and the 

dates that the evaluations were completed into NASIS. If, upon initial review, the documents are 

not uploaded, the BIE reaches out to the school to inform it of the requirements. The BIE 

reviews the uploaded data and, if there are concerns, submits a form to the school requesting

more information. Once the complete data submission is reviewed, the BIE determines if the 

school met the 60-day timeline for completing initial evaluations. If the school does not meet the 

timeline, the BIE will inform the school via email of the requirement to correct the 

noncompliance. The ADD in charge of overseeing the school receives a copy of the required 

actions to correct the noncompliance. The school is then required to develop a plan to address the 

noncompliance. ERCs are responsible for reviewing these plans.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 10 

One reported barrier to the ability of several BIE-funded schools to conduct timely initial 

evaluations has been the lack of related service providers or other qualified personnel who can 

assess the child’s need for related services. For BIE-operated schools, the acquisitions process 

for approving and awarding contracts is handled by the contracting office in the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), not the BIE. According to Tony Dearman, the BIE Director, the acquisitions 

process will be transferred to a new BIE office by 2020. In the meantime, the BIA’s contracting 

office has had a continuous backlog, which, in it at least one case, resulted in a delay of over one 

year in awarding a contract that covered the hiring of all related service providers for a group of 

seven BIE-operated schools. In February 2018, OSEP became aware that San Felipe Pueblo 

Elementary School was not providing related services and timely initial evaluations due to a 

lapse in contract approval, which impacted six additional BIE-operated schools covered by the 

same contract. OSEP issued a letter on August 8, 2018 (see Attachment 2) regarding the 

identified noncompliance and requiring the BIE to report quarterly on actions it has taken to 

address the disruption in related services and timely initial evaluations. Although the BIE has 

reported verbally that services have been restored in San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School, the 

BIE, to date, has not completed the additional corrective actions and has not submitted any of the 

responses required by the corrective actions. In July 2019, OSEP incorporated those corrective 

actions into the Specific Conditions (see Attachment 3) on the BIE’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B 

grant award, which require the BIE to report on the status of the corrective actions in each 

quarterly progress report it submits under the 2019-2020 Corrective Action Plan (specifically, 

Milestones C.9.1.1, C.9.2.1., C.9.3.1., and C.9.4.1). 

During the monitoring visit, the BIE provided no documentation demonstrating either 

compliance or noncompliance by BIE-funded schools with the requirement to conduct timely 

initial evaluations. Although the three BIE-funded schools OSEP visited provided evidence that 

they were completing timely initial evaluations, OSEP is unable to determine whether other BIEfunded schools are in compliance, given the BIE has not submitted any of the responses required 

by the corrective actions in OSEP’s August 8, 2018, letter regarding the disruption of related 

services and timely initial evaluations at San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School. OSEP also notes 

that the BIE’s ability to effectively monitor for compliance with the requirement for timely initial 

evaluations may be affected by the reported use by BIE-funded schools of different timelines 

(i.e., some schools are following the State-established timeline for completing initial evaluations, 

whereas other schools are following the BIE-established timeline). 

With respect to the provision of related services, the information reported by the three BIEfunded schools during the monitoring visit indicated a systemic problem with the availability of 

related service providers to provide the related services in accordance with a child’s 

individualized education program (IEP). All of the BIE-funded schools that OSEP visited have at 

one time had a lapse in related service providers, which resulted in the failure to provide the 

related services required to ensure a free appropriate public education (FAPE). See 20 U.S.C. 

1401(9) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.17. One of the schools reported that it had not had a physical 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 11

therapist this year and did not have a school counselor last year, although such staff were

required in order to provide services in accordance with students’ IEPs. The second school

reported difficulty in the past with retaining school psychologists. The third school reported that 

it currently has all necessary related service providers, but has had difficulties maintaining 

contracts for related service providers in previous school years. The failure to provide services 

necessary to implement a child’s IEP is a violation of the fundamental IDEA requirement to 

make available FAPE to all children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a). It is also a violation of 

the requirement in 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c)(2) to ensure that, “[a]s soon as possible following 

development of the IEP, special education and related services are made available to the child in 

accordance with the child’s IEP.” 

Secondary Transition

The BIE has established a robust monitoring system with regard to compliance with the 

secondary transition requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b), as reported under IDEA Part B SPP/APR Compliance Indicator 

13. The BIE currently monitors for compliance with secondary transition requirements by 

pulling a random sample of IEPs across the 60 BIE-funded high schools and using a checklist to 

review the IEPs for compliance with secondary transition requirements. The BIE conducts both 

desk audits and on-site monitoring to determine schools’ compliance under Indicator 13.

However, the BIE is unable to issue written letters of findings of noncompliance because the 

letters are awaiting clearance in the DTS. As stated previously, the BIE informed OSEP that it 

has been unable to issue written notifications of findings in the last two years. In lieu of a written

letter, the BIE informs the schools by phone of the findings of noncompliance and the corrective 

actions required to resolve the findings. 

The BIE has taken aggressive steps to increase professional development with regard to 

compliance with the secondary transition requirements specified in Indicator 13 of the IDEA Part 

B SPP/APR. One such step is the development of a needs assessment based on an analysis of 

Indicator 13 components in IEPs for the BIE-funded schools. The BIE discussed providing 

professional development to increase age-appropriate transition goals. In addition, the BIE has 

assigned a staff person to specifically review IEPs from the 60 BIE-funded high schools and 

provide technical assistance regarding the importance of compliance with secondary transition 

requirements within an IEP. During the visits at the three BIE-funded schools, school staff 

indicated to OSEP that the BIE’s emphasis on compliance under Indicator 13 has had a 

significant impact on improving data for Indicator 13 in each of those schools. Although the 

BIE’s FFY 2016 SPP/APR data for Indicator 13 reflected a very low level of compliance, the 

BIE has been able to show that, after the schools completed the corrective actions required by the 

BIE’s monitoring reviews, the schools were at a very high level of compliance under Indicator 

13. OSEP is hopeful that this improvement will be reflected in the BIE’s future SPP/APR data.

OSEP’s interviews with the staff from each of the three schools confirmed that there has been an 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 12

increased focus by the BIE on schools’ compliance under Indicator 13. However, as described by 

school staff, the technical assistance they have received thus far from the BIE has not focused on 

the development of meaningful secondary transition goals that have a specific impact on the 

student to meet the student’s unique transition needs.

State Complaints and Due Process Complaints

Under Part B of the IDEA, the BIE must have procedures and practices that are reasonably 

designed to effectively implement the requirements on: 

1. the State complaint procedures in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153; 

2. the due process complaint and due process hearing procedures in 20 U.S.C. 1415 and 34 

C.F.R. §§ 300.507 through 300.518; and 

3. the expedited due process hearing procedures in 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3) and 

4. and 34 C.F.R. § 300.532, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.716.

See also OSEP Memorandum 13-08, Dispute Resolution Procedures under Part B of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, issued July 23, 2013.

During the visit, the BIE shared its efforts to implement procedures to ensure compliance with 

State complaint requirements contained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) and (b). Specifically, the BIE 

has made procedural changes that seem likely to improve the BIE’s efforts to ensure that State 

complaints are resolved within the 60-day timeline or an appropriately extended timeline due to 

the exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint or because the parent (or 

individual or organization, as appropriate) and the public agency agree to extend the time to 

engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State, 

consistent with 34 CFR §§ 300.152(a) and (b) and 300.716. The BIE informed OSEP that there 

are currently two complaints that have not been resolved within the 60-day timeline or a properly 

extended timeline. The BIE explained that it has a new contracting process to assign an 

investigator to a State complaint, which allows the BIE to send the State complaint to the 

investigator without needing to make a request for proposals every time the BIE receives a State 

complaint.

During OSEP’s on-site visit, the BIE discussed its policies and procedures related to due process 

hearing requests. The BIE explained that once it receives a due process hearing request, the 

request is scanned and sent to the Department of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals 

where it is assigned to an administration law judge (ALJ). The school is then called to schedule a 

resolution meeting. However, the BIE depends on the ALJ to ensure that the resolution meeting

is carried out in accordance with the IDEA. The BIE informed OSEP that it has no systematic 

way to monitor whether the school has offered or conducted a resolution meeting. Further, the 

BIE noted that ALJs have extended both the 15-day timeline for convening a resolution meeting 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 13 

and the 30-day timeline for resolving a due process complaint before a due process hearing may 

occur, beyond the exceptions and adjustments permitted by the IDEA and its implementing 

regulations. Under 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a), an LEA must 

convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process 

complaint, and prior to the initiation of a due process hearing under 34 C.F.R. § 300.511. The 

only exceptions to this requirement are in 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(i) and 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.510(a)(3), which permit the resolution meeting to not be held if the parent and the LEA 

agree in writing to waive the meeting or the parties agree to use the mediation process described 

in 34 C.F.R. § 300.506. In addition, under 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.510(b)(1), if an LEA has not resolved the due process complaint to the satisfaction of the 

parent within 30 days of the receipt of the due process complaint, the due process hearing may 

occur. Adjustments to the 30-day resolution period can be made under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c) 

only if: 1) both parties agree in writing to waive the resolution meeting; 2) after either the 

mediation or resolution meeting starts, but before the end of the 30-day period, the parties agree 

in writing that no agreement is possible; or 3) both parties agree in writing to continue the 

mediation at the end of the 30-day resolution period, but later, the parent or public agency 

withdraws from the mediation process. 

Further, the BIE informed OSEP that it does not have written policies and procedures to ensure 

that BIE carries out its general supervision responsibilities as an SEA to ensure that due process 

hearings are carried out in accordance with IDEA requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1415 and 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.500, 300.507 through 300.518, and 300.716. Specifically, the BIE staff acknowledged 

that it has no mechanism to track compliance with the 45-day due process hearing timeline and 

to ensure that extensions of the 45-day due process hearing timeline are granted only at the 

request of a party, consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b) and (c), 300.515(a), and 300.716. A 

hearing officer may not unilaterally extend this timeline. 

Also, the BIE informed OSEP that it has no policies or procedures to ensure that expedited due 

process hearings are carried out in accordance with the requirements of Part B of the IDEA. 

Specifically, the BIE does not have procedures in place to ensure that: (1) expedited due process 

hearings are conducted within 20 school days of the date the due process complaint requesting 

the hearing is filed, and (2) a hearing officer makes a determination within 10 school days after 

the hearing, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3) and (4) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532(c)(2) and 

300.716. Under 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532(a) and 300.716, the parent of a 

child with a disability who disagrees with any decision regarding placement under §§ 300.530 

and 300.531, or the manifestation determination under § 300.530(e), or a BIE-funded school that 

believes that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in 

injury to the child or others, may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. The hearing is 

requested by filing a complaint pursuant to §§ 300.507 and 300.508(a) and (b). Under 20 U.S.C. 

1415(f)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532(c)(1) and 300.716, whenever a hearing is requested 

under § 300.532(a), the parents or the BIE-funded school involved in the dispute must have an 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 14

opportunity for an impartial due process hearing consistent with the requirements of §§ 300.507, 

300.508(a) through (c), and §§ 300.510 through 300.514, except as provided in § 300.532(c)(2) 

through (4). Under 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3) and (4) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532(c)(2) and 300.716, 

the BIE or BIE-funded school is responsible for arranging the expedited due process hearing, 

which must occur within 20 school days of the date the due process complaint requesting the 

hearing is filed; and the hearing officer must make a determination within 10 school days after 

the hearing. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(3), a resolution meeting must occur within seven days 

of receiving notice of the due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the 

meeting or to use mediation. Under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532(c)(4) and 300.716, the BIE may 

establish different procedural rules for expedited due process hearings than it has established for 

other due process hearings, but, except for the timelines as modified in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(3) 

(governing the resolution process), the BIE must ensure that the requirements in §§ 300.510 

through 300.514 are met.

Findings:

Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with BIE personnel, as 

described above, OSEP concludes the following.

1. The BIE has not established its final policies and procedures related to implementation of 

Part B of the IDEA. Therefore, the BIE does not have policies and procedures in effect 

that meet the requirements of the IDEA, as required by 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A) and 

1412(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.708(a). To ensure effective monitoring and supervision, the 

final policies and procedures must address the circumstances, if any, wherein a BIEfunded school is permitted to follow the policies and procedures established by the State 

in which the school is located.

2. The BIE does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure 

that the BIE issues written notice of findings of noncompliance and ensure that the 

noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after 

the BIE’s identification of the noncompliance. Specifically, although the BIE informed 

OSEP that it works with the schools to correct any noncompliance identified, the BIE 

does not have a functional mechanism for issuing written notice of the noncompliance,

and ensuring the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than 

one year after the BIE’s identification of the noncompliance. In order to effectively 

monitor implementation of Part B of the IDEA, the BIE must issue written notice of 

noncompliance it identifies in BIE-funded schools and ensure that the noncompliance is 

corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the BIE’s 

identification of the noncompliance, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2), 1412(a)(11), 

1416, and 1232d(b)(3)(E); and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600(e), 300.708, and 300.716.

See also OSEP’s Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Identification and Correction of 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 15

Noncompliance and Reporting on Correction in the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual 

Performance Report (APR), dated September 3, 2008, and OSEP Memorandum 09-02, 

issued October 17, 2008. In addition, given that BIE-funded schools have reported the 

BIE does not provide feedback on the sufficiency of their actions to correct findings of 

noncompliance, OSEP strongly recommends that the BIE provide timely notifications to 

each school with findings as to the sufficiency of its corrective actions in demonstrating 

correction of noncompliance identified by the BIE.

3. The BIE has failed to make annual local determinations in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 

1411(h)(2)(A) and 1416(a) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(a)(2), 300.708(d), and 300.716. 

The BIE must make determinations annually about the performance of each BIE-funded 

school using the categories in 34 C.F.R. § 300.603(b)(1). Further, when making annual 

determinations on the performance of the BIE-funded schools, the BIE must consider the 

results of any school-specific audit findings, as required in 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.602. See also Question C-9 of OSEP’s Questions and Answers on 

Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement (revised June 2009)11.

4. The BIE does not have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to ensure it

reports to the public on the performance of each of the BIE-funded schools no later than 

120 days after the submission of its SPP/APR, as required by 34 C.F.R.

§§ 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A), 300.708(d), and 300.716.

5. The BIE does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to 

identify noncompliance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a) and (c). Specifically, the BIE has no 

functional mechanism for monitoring whether BIE-funded schools have contracted with 

related service providers to implement a child’s IEP as required under 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.323(a) and (c) and as required under 20 U.S.C. 1412(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.101 to 

make FAPE available to children with disabilities. To effectively monitor the 

implementation of Part B of the IDEA, as required by 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A), 

1412(a)(11), 1416, and 1232d(b)(3)(E), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600, 300.708, and 

300.716, the BIE must have procedures for monitoring for compliance with all Part B 

requirements, including the IEP-related requirements at 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a) and (c).

6. The BIE is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities to 

ensure the implementation of certain IDEA requirements related to dispute resolution, 

consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A), 1412(a)(11), 1415, 1416(a), and 

1232d(b)(3)(E), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.500, 300.507 through 300.518, 300.532,

300.600(a) and (d)(2), 300.708(a), and 300.716. Specifically:

11 A copy of OSEP’s Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement may be viewed at: 

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/08-0101_Monitoring_FINAL_June_2009.pdf.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 16 

a. The BIE does not have a mechanism for tracking the resolution process for due 

process complaints to determine compliance with: (i) the 15-day timeline for 

convening a resolution meeting, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a); (ii) the 30-day timeline for resolving a due process 

complaint before a due process hearing may occur, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 

1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)(1) and (c) and 300.716; and (iii)

the 45-day timeline for due process hearings if the school does not resolve the due 

process complaint to the satisfaction of the parent, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 

1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(c), 300.515(a), and 300.716; 

b. The BIE has no mechanism to ensure that extensions of the 45-day due process 

hearing timeline are granted only at the request of a party, consistent with 34 

C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b) and (c) and 300.716. 

c. The BIE has not ensured that due process complaints filed pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 

1415(k)(3) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) are treated in an expedited manner. 

Specifically, the BIE does not have procedures in place to ensure that expedited 

due process hearings are conducted within 20 school days of the date the 

complaint requesting the hearing is filed, and that a hearing officer makes a 

determination within 10 school days after the hearing, in accordance with 34 

C.F.R. §§ 300.532(c)(2) and 300.716. 

7. The BIE has not submitted any of the reports on the status of the corrective actions OSEP 

imposed in its August 8, 2018, letter, which required the BIE to take a set of actions and 

report quarterly to OSEP on these actions related to the failure to provide related services 

and timely evaluations in San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and six other BIE-funded 

schools. To date, the BIE has not provided any of the reports required on the status of the 

corrective actions. As stated in the August 8, 2018, letter, the failure to provide services 

in accordance with a child’s IEP is a violation of the fundamental IDEA requirement to 

make FAPE available to all eligible children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. 1411(a)(1). It is 

also a violation of the requirement in 34 CFR § 300.323(c)(2) to ensure that, “[a]s soon as 

possible following development of the IEP, special education and related services are 

made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP.” In addition, under 34 

CFR § 300.301(c)(1), initial evaluations must be conducted within 60 days of receiving 

parental consent for the evaluation. The BIE, which is required to exercise the general 

supervisory responsibility of an SEA under IDEA Part B, is responsible for ensuring that 

BIE-funded schools meet their affirmative obligation to identify, locate and evaluate all 

children with disabilities in accordance with IDEA requirements, and for ensuring that 

FAPE is made available to all eligible children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools. 

20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A), 1412(a)(1), 1412(a)(3), and 1412(a)(11); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.111, 

300.301(c)(1), 300.600, 300.708(a) and 300.716. 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 17

Required Actions/Next Steps

1. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the BIE must provide documentation of the 

proposed plan and timeline that ensure the adoption of final policies and procedures 

within one year of the date of this report, related to implementation of Part B of the IDEA

that meet the requirements under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2)(A) and 1412(a) and 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.708(a).

2. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, to the extent possible, prior to the publication 

of final policies and procedures, the BIE must provide notice to BIE-funded schools 

regarding any requirements that give flexibility to BIE-funded schools to follow the 

timeline established by the State where they are located instead of the timeline 

established by the BIE.

3. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the BIE must provide documentation that:

a. The BIE has taken the necessary steps to ensure it provides written findings of 

noncompliance it identifies in BIE-funded schools as soon as possible after the 

BIE concludes that a school has noncompliance, generally in less than three 

months from discovery; and

b. The BIE has taken the necessary steps to ensure that noncompliance identified in 

BIE-funded schools is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one 

year after identification of the noncompliance, including, as appropriate,

notification to schools when the finding has not been corrected.

4. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the BIE must provide a timeline for issuing

annual determinations on the performance of all BIE-funded schools, which includes any 

school-specific audit findings, and uncorrected noncompliance from any source, 

consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1416(a) and (e).

5. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the BIE must provide documentation that it 

will be reporting to the public on the performance of each BIE-funded school on the 

targets in the BIE’s performance plan for FFY 2014, FFY 2015, FFY 2016, and FFY 

2017 no later than 120 days following the BIE’s submission of the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, 

due on February 3, 2020, and in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A), 

300.708(d), and 300.716.

6. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the BIE must provide revised monitoring 

procedures that include identifying noncompliance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a) and (c). 

These procedures must require the BIE to issue written findings of noncompliance when 

data and information collected demonstrate that a BIE-funded school is in noncompliance 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 18

with providing related service providers to implement a child’s IEP as required under 34 

C.F.R. § 300.323(a) and (c) and as required under 20 U.S.C. 1412(a) and 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.101 to make FAPE available to children with disabilities. 

7. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the BIE must provide written documentation 

that it has revised and implemented its dispute resolution procedures and practices to 

ensure that: 

a. The BIE has a mechanism for tracking the resolution process for due process 

complaints to determine compliance with: (i) the 15-day timeline for convening a 

resolution meeting, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.510(a); (ii) the 30-day timeline for resolving a due process complaint before 

a due process hearing may occur, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) and 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)(1) and (c) and 300.716; and (iii) the 45-day timeline for 

due process hearings if the school does not resolve the due process complaint to 

the satisfaction of the parent, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) and 34 

C.F.R. §§ 300.510(c), 300.515(a), and 300.716;

b. The BIE has a mechanism to ensure that extensions of the 45-day due process

hearing timeline are granted only at the request of a party, consistent with 34 

C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b) and (c) and 300.716; and

c. The BIE has established procedures to ensure that hearings on due process 

complaints filed pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(3) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a)

are conducted within 20 school days of the date the complaint requesting the 

hearing is filed, and that a hearing officer makes a determination within 10 school 

days after the hearing, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532(c)(2) and 

300.716.

8. The BIE must submit reports on the status of the corrective actions OSEP imposed in its 

August 8, 2018, letter regarding the failure to provide related services and timely initial 

evaluations in San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and six other BIE-funded schools.

As required in the Specific Conditions on the BIE’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B grant award, 

the BIE must report on the status of the corrective actions in each quarterly progress 

report it submits under the 2019-2020 Corrective Action Plan (specifically, Milestones 

C.9.1.1, C.9.2.1., C.9.3.1., and C.9.4.1) by the due dates specified in the Specific 

Conditions (i.e., October 31, 2019, January 31, 2020, April 30, 2020, and July 31, 2020).
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 19

Results

DMS Results Overview

The BIE was identified as needing intensive support in the area of results due to the following 

complex challenges reflected in its FFY 2016 IDEA Part B SPP/APR: 

1. Reading Assessment Elements – the data reporting the average percentage of 3rd through 

8th grade children with disabilities participating in regular Statewide assessments was not 

valid and reliable; 

2. Math Assessment Elements – the data reporting the average percentage of 3rd through 

8th grade children with disabilities participating in regular Statewide assessments was not 

valid and reliable; 

3. Percentage of children with disabilities who dropped out over the previous three years; 

and 

4. Percentage of children with disabilities who graduated with a regular high school diploma 

over the previous 3 years.

OSEP met with the BIE staff and representatives from OSEP-funded TA centers supporting the 

BIE’s efforts to improve data quality for graduation and dropout rates, as well as to improve 

reading and math assessment participation.

BIE Results Discussion

During the visit, the BIE discussed its current improvement strategies, as well as the progress 

and effectiveness of activities underway in the BIE to improve outcomes for children with 

disabilities in the areas of graduation, dropout, and reading and math assessment participation. 

The first results topic addressed at the on-site visit was the graduation and dropout rates of 

students with disabilities in BIE-funded schools. The BIE informed OSEP that there has been an 

increased focus within the BIE on increasing graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates for all 

students. As part of the BIE’s strategic plan (Bureau of Indian Education, Strategic Direction2018-2023), the agency is addressing graduation and dropout rates across the BIE. Currently, the 

BIE’s improvement activities targeting the graduation and dropout rates of students with 

disabilities in BIE-funded schools are provided in the form of technical assistance webinars to 

the schools. Further, BIE-funded schools conduct a comprehensive needs assessment as part of 

the Title I schoolwide improvement plan to address improvement activities aimed at increasing 

graduations and reducing dropouts of children with disabilities. The BIE is now looking into 

adding graduation and dropout rates of children with disabilities as one of the factors considered 

in the annual IDEA Part B determination process for its schools. By adding these areas into the 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 20 

determination process, the BIE expects to increase the attention each school gives to graduation 

and dropout rates of children with disabilities and help improve these results. 

The second results topic addressed at the on-site visit was the data quality for reading and math 

assessment participation for students with disabilities across the BIE-funded schools. The BIE 

discussed both the challenges it faces and the improvement activities underway regarding data 

quality for reading and math assessment participation for students with disabilities. One unique 

challenge the BIE encounters with assessment data is that it collects data across 23 States and 

each State has a different assessment; thus, there is not a single measurement tool for the 

assessment data. The BIE explained that its schools receive instruction from individual States

regarding assessment data and that the BIE has a limited role outside of the assessment data it 

collects from the schools. To this end, the BIE has an elaborate data collection process in order 

to report the assessment data in the IDEA Part B SPP/APR. BIE-funded schools in most of the 

23 States send PDF versions of the assessment data to the BIE. The BIE then takes these 

submissions and puts them into an Excel spreadsheet, which the BIE then enters into NASIS and 

reports in the IDEA Part B SPP/APR. Currently, the BIE is working with the IDC to develop a 

data collection protocol for assessment information, which will be the standard operating 

procedure for collecting all applicable assessment data. Further, the BIE is currently in the 

process of finalizing a proposed rule that will define BIE’s standards, assessments, and 

accountability system under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as 

amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This will replace BIE’s existing Statedependent assessment system under the No Child Left Behind Act in order to develop an 

assessment system that is consistent with Section 1111 of the ESEA, for schools funded by the 

BIE on a national, regional, or tribal basis, as appropriate, taking into account the unique needs 

of the schools. Depending upon how the BIE designs its future system under ESEA, this could 

assist with the data collection and data quality stemming from the results of its assessments by 

designing a less onerous system without compromising the need for challenging academic 

standards and aligned assessments. Improved and more timely data would, in turn, assist BIE 

with meeting requirements of other Department-funded programs that utilize such data. 

Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with BIE and local school 

personnel, as described above, OSEP concludes that the BIE’s effort to create a library of data 

collection protocols will assist in data collection and improve the quality of graduation and 

dropout data, as well as the data for reading and math assessment participation. 

Next Steps

OSEP is looking forward to further discussions with the BIE regarding its efforts to improve data 

quality and outcomes for students with disabilities in the areas of graduation and dropout, as well 

as reading and math assessment participation. 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 21

SSIP

DMS SSIP Overview

The BIE was identified as needing intensive support in the area of the SSIP due to the following 

complex challenges to implementation of the SSIP including: 

1. Infrastructure changes to support SSIP initiatives; 

2. Stakeholder Engagement; 

3. Evidence-based practices; and 

4. Progress toward achieving the State-identified Measurable Result (SIMR).

BIE SSIP Discussion

The BIE was identified for intensive engagement with regard to the SSIP due to the following 

factors: Infrastructure changes to support SSIP initiatives; Stakeholder Engagement; Evidencebased practices; and Progress toward achieving the SIMR.

The BIE’s SIMR is to increase the number of youth engaged (i.e., enrolled in higher education 

and/or competitively employed) one year out of high school. In the FFY 2016 IDEA Part B 

SPP/APR, which OSEP used to determine the DMS levels of engagement, the BIE reported data

for its SIMR at 65%, below both the baseline data of 72.60% and the FFY 2016 target of 70%.12

Under 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(B)(i) and 34 CFR § 300.601(b)(1), each State, including the BIE 

(see 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.708(d) and 300.716), must collect valid and reliable information as needed 

to report annually to the Secretary on the indicators established by the Secretary for the State 

performance plans. As part of Phase III of the SSIP, the BIE must, consistent with its evaluation 

plan described in Phase II, assess and report on its progress implementing the SSIP. As part of its 

evaluation of its SSIP, the BIE must summarize the infrastructure improvement strategies that 

were implemented, and the short-term outcomes achieved. The BIE must describe the next steps 

for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during 

the next fiscal year. The BIE must also summarize the specific evidence-based practices that 

were implemented and the strategies or activities that supported their selection and ensured their 

use with fidelity. The BIE must also describe any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) 

that was collected to support the on-going use of the evidence-based practices and inform 

decision-making for the next year of SSIP implementation.

In an effort to achieve this SIMR, the BIE has implemented a tiered system of support for 60 

BIE-funded schools with secondary programs, utilizing its strong partnerships with the National 

Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI), IDC, and National Technical Assistance Center on 

12 In the FFY 2017 IDEA Part B SPP/APR, the BIE reported data for its SIMR at 63%.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 22

Transition (NTACT) to build the capacity of schools and improve post-school outcomes for 

students with disabilities.

Infrastructure Improvement

The BIE has made progress implementing its infrastructure improvement activities. While 

staffing vacancies continue to present challenges in making progress towards the SIMR, the BIE 

has aligned the SSIP work with the agency’s strategic plan. Goal four of the BIE’s strategic plan 

is college and career readiness, which aligns with the BIE’s theory of action strands and 

activities to improve post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. To reduce duplication 

of efforts, the BIE has merged some milestones from the SSIP and the BIE’s strategic plan. 

These milestones include: 

1. expanding student learning for post-school outcomes; 

2. increasing career readiness from middle school all the way up to high school; and 

3. developing a questionnaire to be used as a needs assessment.

By aligning the BIE’s strategic plan work and activities designed to make progress in achieving 

the SIMR, the BIE is taking steps to improve post-school outcomes for all students in the BIEfunded schools. OSEP notes that in the BIE’s FFY 2018 SSIP submission, due on February 3, 

2020, the BIE should explain the alignment of these milestone activities and provide a 

connection to the SSIP’s theory of action.

Theory of Action

In order to achieve the SIMR, the BIE developed a theory of action that divides action steps into 

three major strands: 

1. Marketing the Value of Education: Importance of Students Staying in School; 

2. Professional Development; and 

3. Data-based Decision-Making Processes.

The BIE noted in the theory of action that each activity will have some impact on a component 

of post-school outcomes, while the entirety of the activities will result in overall improvement in 

post-school outcomes by the completion of the SSIP. During the visit, the BIE explained the 

extensive focus it has placed on improving compliance with Secondary Transition (IDEA Part B 

SPP/APR Indicator 13), and the development of a data collection protocol for Postsecondary 

Education and Training (IDEA Part B SPP/APR Indicator 14).

The BIE has taken many steps to increase professional development under Indicator 13, which 

measures compliance with secondary transition requirements. One such step was the 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 23 

development of a needs assessment based on analysis of components related to Indicator 13 in 

IEPs for children with disabilities in the 60 BIE-funded schools. The BIE discussed providing 

professional development to increase age-appropriate transition goals. In addition, the BIE has 

assigned a staff person to specifically review IEPs from the 60 BIE-funded high schools and 

provide technical assistance regarding the importance of secondary transition and compliance 

with secondary transition requirements within an IEP. During the visits at three of the 60 BIEfunded high schools, staff indicated to OSEP that the emphasis on Indicator 13 has had a 

significant impact on improving the data for Indicator 13, but not necessarily on the childspecific outcomes. Specifically, the technical assistance provided thus far from the BIE has not 

focused on making meaningful secondary transition goals. In addition, school staff reported that 

they received little technical assistance or support in efforts to improve graduation rates, reduce 

dropout rates, and other areas related to successful secondary transition and post-school 

outcomes. 

With regard to Indicator 14, the BIE, in collaboration with NTACT, has developed a survey that 

all 60 of the BIE-funded high schools are using to interview children with disabilities one year 

after leaving the school. Further, the IDC has assisted the BIE with the development of a data 

collection protocol for Indicator 14, Postsecondary Education and Training. These ongoing 

activities are aimed at improving postsecondary education and training data collection and 

quality. Through the BIE’s emphasis on Postsecondary Education and Training outcomes for 

students with disabilities, the BIE is beginning to see that individual schools are making 

connections with the tribal colleges and involving their State and/or the Tribal Vocational 

Rehabilitation agency. However, the BIE would like to see an increase in the collaboration and 

networking with State and local vocational rehabilitation programs. 

Further, during the visit, the BIE highlighted best practices that it would like to share during 

future professional development activities with all the BIE-funded schools including: 

networking, community resources mapping, inclusion of State and/or Tribal Vocational 

Rehabilitation agency, and embracing a peer-to-peer mentoring model. The BIE described plans

to hold four capacity-building regional trainings: two for tribally-controlled schools; one for the 

BIE-operated schools; and one for Navajo Schools. 

The activities the BIE has completed to date appear to be drawn from the theory of action strand 

regarding professional development that focuses on improving transition planning and services. 

OSEP recommends that the BIE consider expanding the scope of the activities to encompass best 

practices in improving graduation and dropout rates, and other related results areas.

Coherent Improvement Strategies

The BIE identified three coherent improvement strategies in the SSIP: 

1. Marketing the Value of Education: Importance of Students Staying in School; 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 24

2. Professional Development; and 

3. Data-based Decision-Making Processes. 

During the monitoring visit, the BIE noted that it is marketing the value of staying in school by 

highlighting the value in the webinars and presentations conducted with schools and through

collaboration with the BIE Education Resource Centers (ERCs). However, the BIE was not able 

to clearly identify the intended outcome, how it was measuring progress, and how it was 

collecting data for this coherent improvement strategy. As one example of the impact of this 

work, the BIE described how students in one school developed a shop and presented on the 

importance of staying in school at a conference. 

However, in addition to using anecdotal information (such as the one described above) to 

evaluate the efficacy of BIE’s activities, it is important to also focus on interim measures of 

progress when implementing and describing the activities addressing the three coherent 

improvement strategies. As noted in the Part B Measurement Table for Indicator 17, in Phase III 

of the SSIP, States must provide “data and analysis on the extent to which the State has made 

progress toward and/or met the State-established short-term and long-term objectives for 

implementation of the SSIP and its progress in achieving the State-identified Measurable Result 

for Children with Disabilities.” To accomplish this, States may describe any additional data (e.g., 

progress monitoring data) that was collected to support the on-going use of the evidence-based 

practices and inform decision-making for the next year of SSIP implementation. The BIE should 

identify clear interim measures of progress for each coherent improvement strategy and each 

evidence-based practice. This will help determine whether interventions are yielding the desired 

results and enable the BIE to course-correct in a timely manner when it determines that its 

activities are not leading to the desired result.

Evidence-Based Practices

The BIE informed OSEP that it provides technical assistance to schools through monthly 

webinars and phone calls, as needed, regarding conducting, and submitting the data collected 

from, the Postsecondary Education and Training survey. These tools are designed to improve the 

quantity and quality of the data. While on-site, there were also extensive discussions regarding 

the BIE’s provision of three levels of technical assistance to the 60 BIE-funded schools with 

secondary programs, as part of its SSIP evidence-based practices. The BIE explained that the 

three levels of technical assistance are universal support to all 60 BIE-funded high schools, 

targeted support to two schools, and intensive support to one identified school.

Universal technical assistance to all 60 BIE-funded high schools on improving post-school 

outcomes includes:

1. monthly technical assistance calls; 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 25

2. access to Obaverse — an online resource for high schools regarding data collection and 

analysis; 

3. specific information about the rigor of Indicator 13 data collection; and 

4. dissemination of extensive guidance documents aimed at addressing the SIMR. 

The universal technical assistance has increased the BIE’s communication with BIE-funded high 

schools in 20 States. The BIE has observed that the schools that have accessed resources through 

universal technical assistance are increasing the number of their Indicator 14 interviews and are 

slowly beginning to see an increase in the quality of the secondary transition goals on the IEPs.

The development of Obaverse, a repository of resources for improving post-school outcomes for 

students, is a strength in the provision of universal technical assistance. The BIE could optimize 

these resources by:

1. tracking which schools are using the available resources and how they are using the 

available resources; 

2. following up with the schools to evaluate the usefulness of the tools and consider 

improvements based on schools’ feedback; and 

3. providing more intentional guidance and direction to schools on the use of these 

resources, and following up and making adjustments based on data collected.

The BIE is currently providing targeted technical assistance to two schools. This includes more 

guidance from the University of Kansas Transition Coalition as well as a 12-week self-study 

activity designed to support schools in identifying specific short-term goals based on needs and 

developing a plan of action to address them. Based on the SSIP report and OSEP’s conversations 

with the BIE representatives, it is unclear how the two schools were selected for targeted

technical assistance; how students with disabilities are specifically supported through the 

targeted technical assistance in these schools; and what information or data collected as a result 

of these activities will be used to scale-up strategies to additional BIE-funded schools.

Further, the BIE provides intensive technical assistance to one school, which has included 

multiple on-site visits from OSEP-funded technical assistance providers, and resulted in an 

improved relationship with the local vocational rehabilitation agency, as well as improved 

quality of secondary transition data in IEPs for students with disabilities at the school. It is 

unclear how students with disabilities are specifically impacted through the intensive technical 

assistance provided to this school. OSEP notes that the one school that was selected for intensive 

technical assistance volunteered to work with the BIE to improve post-school outcomes, rather 

than being identified through a particular needs assessment.

The BIE did not clearly articulate the intended outcomes, goals, and purpose of specific activities 

at both the targeted and intensive levels of technical assistance. Specifically, the BIE did not 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 26 

clearly describe the overall goal of the tiered levels of support are and how it will result in 

substantial improvements for all the BIE-funded schools. It is essential for the BIE to clearly 

outline the distinctions in what is provided in the targeted and intensive tiers of support, and their 

respective intended outcomes. This would be helpful in determining progress for each school 

involved. Further, the BIE’s SSIP should connect the tiered support with the three coherent 

improvement strategies and report progress on the activities conducted. This will help the BIE 

and other stakeholders directly link the evidence-based practices and coherent improvement 

strategies that resulted in desired outcomes and could inform scale-up and sustainability efforts. 

Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with the BIE personnel, as 

described above, OSEP concludes that the BIE’s SSIP has had a significant impact on improving 

the data for Indicator 13, but that activities designed to have an impact on child-specific 

outcomes are still in the development stage.

Required Actions/Next Steps

In its FFY 2018 IDEA Part B SPP/APR submission due February 3, 2020, as required by the 

measurement for Part B SPP/APR Indicator 17, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(B)(i) and 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b)(1), 300.708(d), and 300.716, the BIE must: 

1. Explicitly align the milestones from the SSIP and the BIE’s strategic plan, and provide a 

connection to the BIE’s theory of action in the SSIP; 

2. Clearly outline the distinctions between the intended outcomes of each tier of support; 

3. Identify clear interim measures of progress for each coherent improvement strategy and 

each evidence-based practice; and

4. Clearly and strategically connect evidence-based practices and coherent improvement 

strategies and any reported progress to the activities conducted. 

The BIE and OSEP will discuss the BIE’s progress towards achieving these steps during monthly 

TA calls.
DMS NOTICE

Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement Decisions:

Bureau of Indian Education

2018-2019

This year we have selected four States or entities for on-site visits as part of OSEP’s Differentiated 

Monitoring and Support (DMS) system. These selections were based on the relative number of intensive 

and targeted levels of engagement for each State. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) has been selected 

for an on-site visit. 

OSEP’s Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) system is a component of Results Driven 

Accountability. DMS is designed to identify potential grantee risk to the Department and to assist OSEP 

in effectively using its resources to monitor grantees. DMS addresses State-specific and Entity-specific 

needs in the areas of results, compliance, State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), and fiscal by 

differentiating levels and types of monitoring and support based on each State’s and Entity’s unique 

strengths, progress, and challenges in each area.

DMS is a multi-tiered model for monitoring and providing support based on the principle that supports 

are first provided at a core or universal level to effectively address the needs of all States and Entities. 

Targeted monitoring and support is generally based on OSEP’s identification of common needs among 

multiple States and Entities. Intensive monitoring and support is reserved for those States and Entities 

with the most intense or complex challenges to implementation. 

OSEP has assessed States’ and Entities’ progress in meeting performance standards and compliance with 

the legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. This information was used to help OSEP make decisions about a 

State’s or an Entity's levels of engagement for monitoring and support. 

The charts below specify the Bureau of Indian Education’s (BIE’s) level of engagement in each area – 

results, compliance, fiscal and SSIP.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 28 

Results | Level of Engagement: Intensive 

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

Reading Assessment Elements 

• Average Percentage of 3rd through 8th

Grade Children with Disabilities 

Participating in Regular Statewide 

Assessments: Not Valid and Reliable.

Math Assessment Elements 

• Average Percentage of 3rd through 8th

Grade Children with Disabilities 

Participating in Regular Statewide 

Assessments: Not Valid and Reliable.

Exiting Data Elements 

• Percentage of Children with Disabilities 

who Dropped Out Over Previous 3 Years: 

40% 

• Percentage of Children with Disabilities 

who Graduated with a Regular High 

School Diploma over Previous 3 years.

OSEP continues to make information and 

technical assistance (TA) resources available and 

provide universal support to all States and 

Entities.

New Engagement

OSEP will offer to provide the BIE, in collaboration with OSEP’s technical assistance providers, 

intensive technical assistance and support in its work to improve the BIE’s graduation rate, dropout rate, 

or reading and math proficiency rates based on the BIE’s needs. OSEP’s support may include establishing 

a schedule of regular contact, engaging in conversations to explore improvement activities, and discussing 

the progress and effectiveness of activities currently underway in the BIE to improve outcomes for 

students with disabilities. OSEP may also work with the BIE to conduct a root cause analysis of the 

factors that contribute to low results outcomes for students with disabilities. 

Fiscal | Level of Engagement: Universal

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Factors are only listed when the level of 

engagement is targeted or intensive.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will provide the State with universal support related to Part B fiscal requirements.

Compliance | Level of Engagement: Intensive

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation: 

83.45% 

• Indicator 13: Secondary Transition: 14.98%

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States and Entities.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 29

• Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data: 

84.35%

• Long Standing Non-Compliance: Special 

Conditions 3 or more years.

New Engagement

OSEP will gather additional information to determine the scope of engagement necessary to assist the 

BIE in improving IDEA compliance. This may include working collaboratively with the BIE and OSEPfunded technical assistance centers, working with the BIE to conduct a root cause analysis of the factors 

that contributed to low compliance, and /or additional OSEP monitoring. 

SSIP | Level of Engagement: Intensive

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Infrastructure changes to support SSIP 

initiatives.

• Stakeholder Engagement.

• Evidence-based practices.

• Progress toward the SiMR.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States and Entities.

New Engagement

OSEP will offer to provide the BIE intensive technical assistance and support in its work to improve the 

SSIP in areas such as evidence-based practices, evaluation planning, or stakeholder engagement. OSEP 

will offer to establish a schedule of regular contact with the BIE, explore improvement activities and 

discuss the progress and effectiveness of the activities currently underway in the BIE. OSEP will also 

work collaboratively with OSEP-funded TA providers and may, if necessary, explore opportunities for 

on-site technical assistance to the BIE.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 30

OSEP SAN FELIPE LETTER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

LETTER

AUG 8 2018

Honorable Tony L. Dearman Director

Bureau of Indian Education 1849 C Street NW

MS-4657-MIB

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Director Dearman:

The purpose of this letter is to discuss the Bureau of Indian Education's (BIE's) responsibilities to 

resolve the systemic problems underlying the disruption of required special education services in at 

least one BIE-operated school, as well as actions the BIE must take to demonstrate it will resolve 

those problems. On April 23, 2018, staff from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education's, Office of State Support (OSS), participated in a school visit 

to the San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School in San Felipe Pueblo, New Mexico. During their visit, 

OSS staff observed potential violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 

which they reported to my office. the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Specifically, 

OSEP was informed that related services were not being provided to students with disabilities in 

accordance with their individualized education programs (IEPs) due to a contractual problem. 

Subsequently, on May 4, 2018, our office was contacted by a parent of a student with disabilities 

who attends this school who made similar allegations. This parent also provided us with a letter 

dated February 23, 20 l8 from the school principal, Ms. Christianna M. Sisneros, addressed to 

affected families and which described the disruption of services.

Our understanding, based on the OSS visit and the call from the parent and the letter she forwarded, 

is that related services at the San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School, including Speech Language 

Therapy, Physical Therapy, and School Psychological Services, have been suspended due to the 

expiration of contracts for the services. It is also our understanding that Occupational Therapy was 

temporarily disrupted, but those services have since been restored.

During a May 9, 2018 phone call with members of my staff Matthew Schneer and Josiah Willey, 

staff from the BIE confirmed our understanding and verified that the problem with providing related 

services, specifically Speech Language Therapy, Physical Therapy, and School Psychological 

Services, was due to a disruption in contractual agreements. The contracts in question expired in 

January 2018, and those services have been suspended ever since. In addition, BIE staff explained 

that. due to a lack of school psychologists, initial evaluations were also not being conducted in a 

timely fashion. As a result, students suspected of having a disability have not been evaluated to 

determine if they are eligible for services under IDEA. BIE staff explained that they were made 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 31

aware of the contractual problem by the principal in a timely manner and that they had knowledge of 

the problem for approximately 13 months. BIE staff also stated they believed the delay in getting the 

contracts in place was due to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA's) procedures, and stated that the 

contracts were submitted for approval to the BIA in April 2017. It has now been over a year since 

the contracts were submitted for approval to the BIA.

BIE staff further explained that the BIE-Operated Schools Office is working with the BIA Division 

of Acquisitions to ensure related services are restored and/or continuing at the school. BIE staff 

confirmed that the San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School has sent Prior Written Notice to parents of 

students with disabilities whose services have been delayed due to the contractual problems. BIE 

staff informed OSEP that, hen services are restored, compensatory services will be discussed and 

provided for those students.

Furthermore, in the course of the discussion, we learned that there are six additional schools that 

fall under the same contracts, so there are many more students who may potentially be impacted 

by this problem. BIE staff was not aware of any other schools that were in a similar situation, 

beyond those six additional schools, and pointed out that procurement processes within the BIA 

create challenges only for BIE-operated schools, as tribally-controlled schools use their own 

procurement procedures.

The failure to provide services in accordance with a child's IEP is a violation of the fundamental 

IDEA requirement to make available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children 

with disabilities. IDEA Section 612(a)(I). It is also a violation of the requirement in 34 CFR 

§ 300.323(c)(2) to ensure that, "[a]s soon as possible following development of the IEP, special 

education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child's 

IEP." In addition, under 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(1), initial evaluations must be conducted within 

60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation. The BIE, which is required to exercise 

the general supervisory responsibility of a State educational agency under IDEA Part B, is 

responsible for ensuring that BIE-funded schools meet their affirmative obligation to identify, 

locate and evaluate all children with disabilities in accordance with IDEA requirements, and for 

ensuring that FAPE is made available to all eligible children with disabilities in BIE-funded 

schools. IDEA Sections 611(h)(2)(A), 6l2(a)(1), 6l2(a)(3), and 612(a)(11); 34 CFR §§ 300.111,

300.301(c)(1 ), 300.600, 300.708(a) and 300.716. OSEP has serious concerns that children with 

disabilities in BIE-funded schools are not receiving special education and related services in 

accordance with their IEPs, which amounts to a denial of FAPE. OSEP also is concerned that. 

as a result of the disruption, children suspected of having a disability are not being evaluated in 

a timely manner and potentially eligible children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools are 

being denied FAPE.

As a result of our review of information provided by OSS. the February 13, 2018 letter from 

Ms. Sisneros, and our May 9, 2018 phone call with the BIE, OSEP is requiring the following:

1) Within 30 days of the date of this letter, the BIE must report: (a) the number of students 

with disabilities, at the San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and any other school that 

falls under the same contracts, who are not receiving related services in accordance with 

their IEPs as of the date of this letter; (b) the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that 

these students receive services in accordance with their IEPs, as required by IDEA 

Section 612(a)(1) and 34 CFR §§ 300.320 and 300.323(c)(2), and that IEP Teams 

consider, on an individual basis, whether compensatory services arc needed as a remedy 

for the services previously not provided; (c) the number of requested evaluations that 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 32

have not been conducted or have been delayed as of the date of this letter; and (d) the 

steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that those evaluations are conducted as soon as 

possible. The BIE must continue to provide updates in its quarterly progress reports for 

the 2018-2019 Corrective Action Plan (CAP), due on October 31, 2018, January 31, 

2019, April 30, 2019. and July 31, 2019, or until such time as all services have been 

restored and any compensatory services, determined necessary by the IEP Teams have 

been provided, and all requested evaluations have been conducted. The quarterly updates 

must report on the status of services that were interrupted and evaluations that had not 

been conducted, as well as the status of the BIE’s actions to ensure the affected students 

with disabilities receive services in accordance with their IEPs and are provided any 

compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams and to ensure the 

requested evaluations arc conducted.

2) Within 30 days of the date of this letter, the BIE must determine if any other BIE-funded 

schools are unable to provide services or conduct timely initial evaluations due to 

contracting delays. If the BIE determines that there are other schools that are not 

providing services in accordance with students' IEPs or that are not conducting timely 

initial evaluations due to contracting delays, the BIE must report on the students not 

receiving required services and/or evaluations not timely conducted, in the same manner 

described in paragraph (1) above.

3) With the first quarterly report for the 201 8 - 20 19 CAP, due on October 31, 2018, the BIE must

submit a plan to prevent contractual problems that could result in a similar disruption of 

services in the future. If you have any further questions, please contact Dr. Josiah Willey at 

(202) 245-6247.

Sincerely,

Ruth E Ryder

Acting Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Donald Griffin

BIE Director of Special Education
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 33

BIE FFY 2019 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

1. Basis for Requiring Specific Conditions

Pursuant to Section 611(h)(2)(F) of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 

the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is imposing high-risk Specific Conditions13 on the 

Bureau of Indian Education’s (BIE) Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019 grant award under Part B of the 

IDEA. OSEP is imposing these Specific Conditions because of: (1) the BIE’s failure to complete all 

of the corrective actions contained in Section C of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP), formerly known 

as the Program Improvement and Accountability Plan (PIAP); (2) the BIE’s continued low level of 

compliance under the IDEA Part B Compliance Indicator 13 (related to secondary transition 

requirements); (3) the BIE’s 2019 Part B Results Driven Accountability (RDA) score of ‘0’ for its 

data on the percentage of children with disabilities exiting school by dropping out and the percentage 

of children with disabilities exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma; (4) the 

BIE’s failure to complete any of the required actions in OSEP’s August 8, 2018 letter to resolve the 

systemic problems underlying the disruption of required related services and timely initial evaluations 

in several BIE-funded schools; and (5) the BIE’s failure to meet the timeline requirements for 

reporting the information required in the 2018-19 CAP and the quarterly progress reports, the report 

on and analysis of disaggregated secondary transition data, and the spending plan for use of the 

directed FFY 2018 IDEA Part B administrative funds to address noncompliance with secondary 

transition requirements and to improve accuracy of secondary transition data. The objective of 

Section C of the CAP is to ensure the BIE provides a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all 

eligible students with disabilities in all BIE-funded schools.

In response to serious concerns raised in 2005 by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) 

concerning the BIE’s administration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the 

IDEA programs, the Department of the Interior (Interior) developed the PIAP. The PIAP was 

Interior’s plan for meeting the statutory requirements set forth in the ESEA and the IDEA for 

properly managing Federal funds, improving the achievement levels of Indian students, and meeting 

the responsibilities for accountability that the ESEA and the IDEA have established. The BIE has 

been submitting quarterly reports to the Department on its progress in implementing the PIAP, and 

the BIE and the Department have been meeting quarterly to discuss the BIE’s progress in 

implementing the PIAP’s corrective actions. 

Because of the lack of satisfactory progress in implementing the PIAP, the Department placed Special 

Conditions on Interior’s receipt of all FFY 2007 and FFY 2008 ESEA and IDEA funds the 

Department provided to Interior. As part of the Special Conditions, the Department imposed 

requirements regarding further PIAP reporting and submission of supporting documentation that 

would enable Interior to demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of the ESEA and the 

IDEA. In FFYs 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, ,2017, and 2018, OSEP imposed 

13 Pursuant to the requirements in 2 C.F.R. §200.207, the term “Specific Condition” is used, rather than “Special Condition,” 

beginning with FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant awards that are issued subject to additional requirements. In this letter, the 

term “Special Condition” is used when referencing the BIE’s IDEA Part B grant awards and required reporting associated 

with the receipt of those funds for years prior to FFY 2018. In addition, OSEP is designating the BIE’s FFY 2019 Specific 

Conditions as “high-risk conditions,” in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, at 2 CFR 3474.10.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 34

program-specific Special or Specific Conditions on the grant award under Part B of the IDEA, 

because the BIE had not completed all of the corrective actions contained in Section C of the PIAP. 

At Interior’s request, the PIAP’s name was formally changed to the CAP during the 2013-2014 

school year.

At this time, the BIE has not documented completion of all of the corrective actions contained in 

Section C of the 2018-2019 CAP. 

Fiscal Monitoring: The BIE has not demonstrated sufficient progress in fiscal monitoring. 

Specifically, the BIE has not submitted copies of fiscal monitoring reports issued to schools (in 

accordance with Milestone C.4.2.2); the BIE has not submitted evidence of correction of findings of 

noncompliance related to fiscal requirements that are timely corrected, and the number of findings of 

noncompliance related to fiscal requirements that are corrected more than one year after the BIE’s 

identification of noncompliance (in accordance with Milestone C.4.2.3); and the BIE has not 

submitted evidence that it has verified that schools are correcting fiscal noncompliance when 

identified through self-assessments and document reviews (in accordance with Milestone C.4.2.4).

Therefore, the BIE has not ensured the appropriate use of Part B funds allocated under IDEA Section

611(h)(1)(A), as required by IDEA Sections 611(h)(2)(A) and (F), 612(a)(11), 613(a)(2)(A)(i), and 

616; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600, 300.708, and 300.716; 20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3)(E); and in 

OSEP’s verification letter dated May 26, 2010. As a result, OSEP is maintaining the Specific 

Condition requiring the BIE to implement a fiscal monitoring system to ensure that BIE-operated and 

tribally-operated schools are ensuring the appropriate use of the IDEA Part B funds.

Dispute Resolution Timelines: The documentation the BIE has submitted does not sufficiently 

demonstrate that the BIE’s procedures ensure that State complaints are resolved consistent with the 

IDEA requirements and timelines (in accordance with Milestone C.5.1.1). This milestone was added 

to the BIE’s 2013-2014 Special Conditions as a result of OSEP’s finding, as identified in OSEP’s 

September 7, 2012 and February 19, 2013 letters, that the BIE was not in compliance with the State 

complaint requirements contained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152. The data the BIE provided in its quarterly 

reports for the 2018-2019 CAP demonstrated continued noncompliance in meeting the State 

complaint requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152. Specifically, the BIE has not ensured that State 

complaints are resolved within the 60-day timeline (or an appropriately extended timeline under 34 

C.F.R. § 300.152(b)(1)), consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.152. According to the BIE’s Quarter 1, 

Quarter 2, and Quarter 3 CAP progress reports, a total of four State complaints have been filed in the 

reporting period covered by the reports (i.e., July 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). Of these, two written 

decisions were issued in excess of the 60-day timeline (140 and 91 days respectively) and two were 

still pending and past the 60-day timeline as of the date the BIE submitted its Quarter 3 CAP progress 

report. As a result, OSEP is maintaining the Specific Condition requiring that the BIE report on State 

complaint timelines.

Data Procedures and Processes: Although the BIE has demonstrated improvement in its data 

submissions under both Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA, OSEP continues to have concerns 

regarding data quality. 

First, pursuant to Section 616(b)(2)(B) of the IDEA, the BIE is required to collect valid and reliable 

information as needed to report annually to the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on the priority 

areas described in Section 616(a)(3). Although the BIE provided FFY 2016 data for Indicators 3B and 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 35

3C in its FFY 2016 SPP/APR, those data constitute only partial data from 10 of 23 States and 

therefore are not valid and reliable. OSEP’s response to the BIE’s FFY 2016 SPP/APR required the 

BIE to provide valid and reliable FFY 2016 data in its FFY 2017 APP/SPR, which was due on 

February 1, 2019. The BIE did not provide the required FFY 2016 data for Indicators 3B and 3C. In 

addition, although the BIE submitted FFY 2017 data for Indicators 3B and 3C in its FFY 2017 

SPP/APR, the data was not submitted to EDFacts under Title I of ESEA in a timely manner. Further, 

the BIE’s FFY 2017 data for Indicator 3C are not consistent with the assessment data it submitted in 

EDFacts, and the BIE did not provide assessment metadata for grade 12 in its response to the EMAPS 

State Supplemental Survey – IDEA; OSEP was therefore unable to determine whether the FFY 2017 

data for Indicator 3C were valid and reliable.

Further, the BIE failed to publicly report on the assessment of students with disabilities in the same 

manner and frequency as it reports on the assessment of students without disabilities, as required 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f), for five years in a row – 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 – as noted 

in OSEP’s Responses to the BIE’s FFYs 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 SPP/APRs, respectively. 

As a result of the BIE’s repeated failures to comply with all of the above IDEA data submission 

requirements, OSEP is maintaining the Specific Condition related to data procedures and processes 

on the BIE’s FFY 2019 Part B grant award. However, based on the BIE’s progress in submitting 

timely and accurate data under Section 618 of the IDEA, OSEP is removing Subtask C.6.3 (Section 

618 Data) and the corresponding milestones and performance metrics.

Secondary Transition: In its FFY 2017 SPP/APR, the BIE continued to report a very low level of 

compliance under Part B Compliance Indicator 13, which is related to secondary transition 

requirements. Under Indicator 13, the BIE was required to provide data on the percent of youth with 

IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that 

are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, 

including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, 

and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, as required by IDEA Section

614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 CFR § 300.320(b). There also must be evidence that the student was 

invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were to be discussed and evidence that, if 

appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with 

the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority, consistent with 34 CFR 

§ 300.321(b). The BIE reported 8.39% compliance under Indicator 13 in its FFY 2017 SPP/APR, a 

further decline from the 14.98% compliance the BIE reported in its FFY 2016 SPP/APR. In its FFY 

2017 SPP/APR, the BIE noted that it was “just beginning the implementation of a new model of 

professional development and technical assistance provided to high schools around this indicator. 

[The BIE] recognized the need for more targeted resources in this area and ha[s] worked to get these 

resources in place for initial implementation of the PD/TA model that began May 2018. [The BIE] 

anticipated a dip in [its] compliance rates and w[as] not expecting improvement in SY 2017-18 as [it] 

secured all the necessary supports and resources to move into full implementation for the 2018-19 

school year.” 

Indicator 13 is integral to the BIE’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), which has been a 

positive project for the BIE and the students it serves and also represents a significant financial 

investment by the BIE. While OSEP recognizes the BIE’s efforts to increase the validity and 

reliability of data it reports under Indicator 13, the data itself is extremely low and raises serious 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 36

concerns about the BIE’s compliance with secondary transition requirements. Therefore, due to the 

continued low level of compliance for this Indicator, OSEP is maintaining the Specific Condition 

related to secondary transition on the BIE’s FFY 2019 Part B grant award. 

In addition to the Specific Conditions on the BIE’s FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award, OSEP 

directed the BIE to use $300,000 of its FFY 2018 administrative funds under IDEA Section

611(h)(1)(A) and 34 CFR § 300.710(a) for use in improving the BIE’s collection of secondary 

transition data and compliance with the requirements for secondary transition, pursuant to IDEA 

Section 616(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A). Further, the Department required BIE to develop, implement, and 

report progress on, a spending plan to expend directed funds by July 1, 2019, that demonstrates how 

the directed funds will be used to pay for strategies and activities that address the suspected or known 

reasons for the noncompliance with the secondary transition requirements in IDEA Section

614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b) and that are reasonably designed 

to correct that noncompliance and improve the accuracy of the data. However, after the late 

submission of its proposed spending plan, BIE indicated it would be unable to expend the directed 

FFY 2018 funds by the July 1, 2019, deadline. On June 3, 2019, BIE verbally requested a six-month 

extension to expend the directed FFY 2018 funds in accordance with the FFY 2018 spending plan 

approved by OSEP. As explained in OSEP’s determination letter dated July 1, 2019, the Department 

is extending the deadline for BIE’s expenditure of the directed FFY 2018 funds to December 31, 

2019.

Furthermore, because the BIE’s continued very low performance under Indicator 13 contributed to 

the BIE’s 2019 Needs Intervention determination under Section 616 of the IDEA (see section 2 

below), OSEP is directing the use of an additional $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2019 administrative 

funds under IDEA Section 611(h)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.710(a) for use in improving the BIE’s 

collection of secondary transition data and compliance with the requirements for secondary transition, 

pursuant to IDEA Section 616(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A). Please note that the use of the directed FFY 

2018 funds must be tracked separately from the use of the directed FFY 2019 funds, as the spending 

plan and deadlines for the use of the directed FFY 2018 funds are distinct and separate from the 

spending plan and deadlines for the use of the directed FFY 2019 funds.

2. BIE’s 2019 Part B Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Needs Intervention Determination:

As a result of the BIE’s 2019 Part B RDA Percentage of 22.5 percent, the BIE received a “needs 

intervention” determination in 2019 for the eighth consecutive year. Major factors that contributed to 

this determination include: (1) the BIE’s very low compliance data reported for Indicator 13 

(secondary transition); (2) scores of zero on the results elements in the Part B Results Matrix issued 

with the Department’s July 1, 2019 determination letter (Part B Results Matrix) that reflect: (a) 

untimely submissions of data on the participation of BIE’s third through eighth grade children with 

disabilities on regular Statewide assessments for reading and math; (b) the percentage of children 

with disabilities who exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma; 

and (c) the percentage of children with disabilities who exited an educational program by dropping 

out of school; (3) the BIE’s longstanding noncompliance with IDEA requirements (i.e., the 

Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the BIE’s last three (FFYs 2016, 2017, 

and 2018) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Special or Specific Conditions are in effect at the 

time of the 2019 determination); and (4) the BIE’s failure to meet the timeline requirements for 

reporting the information required in the 2018-2019 CAP and the quarterly progress reports, the 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 37

report on and analysis of disaggregated secondary transition data, and the spending plan for use of the 

directed FFY 2018 IDEA Part B administrative funds to address noncompliance with secondary 

transition requirements and to improve accuracy of secondary transition data. 

2019 Enforcement Action: 

As described in the Department’s July 1, 2019 determination letter pursuant to Sections 

616(e)(2)(B)(iii) and 611(h)(3) of the IDEA and 34 CFR §§ 300.604(b)(2)(iii), 300.708(d) and 

300.716, the Department intends to withhold 20 percent of the BIE’s FFY 2019 funds reserved for 

administrative costs under Section 611(h)(1) (A) of the IDEA and 34 CFR § 300.710 until the BIE. 

has sufficiently addressed the areas in which it “needs intervention.”14

The Department’s July 1, 2019 determination letter also requires the BIE, pursuant to IDEA Section

616(e)(2)(B)(i), to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) that is reasonably designed to correct the 

major areas of noncompliance that contributed to the BIE’s Needs Intervention determination. In 

addition to submitting a CAP, pursuant to IDEA Section 616(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A), the Department 

has directed the BIE to use $300,000 of its FFY 2019 Part B administrative funds under IDEA 

Section 611(h)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.710(a) to address noncompliance with secondary transition 

requirements and to improve the accuracy of its secondary transition data. The BIE must develop, 

implement, and report progress on, a spending plan to expend the directed funds by July 1, 2020 that 

demonstrates how the directed funds will be used to pay for strategies and activities that address the 

suspected or known reasons for the noncompliance with the secondary transition requirements in

IDEA Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b) and that are 

reasonably designed to correct that noncompliance and improve the accuracy of the data. No later 

than October 31, 2019, the BIE must submit, along with its proposed spending plan, a report of the 

BIE’s FFY 2018 secondary transition compliance data disaggregated by compliance item and BIEfunded school, and the BIE’s analysis of the disaggregated data, including suspected or known 

reasons for any noncompliance. (See subparagraphs 3.C and 3.D below for detailed requirements.) In 

addition to the directed use of funds, pursuant to IDEA Section 616(e)(1)(A) and (e)(2)(A), the 

Department has advised the BIE of available sources of technical assistance and directed the BIE to 

access technical assistance related to the exiting data elements for which the BIE received a score of 

zero on the Part B Results Matrix.

In addition, the BIE must submit a corrective action plan that ensures that it can meet, by the end of 

the fourth quarterly reporting period for the 2019-2020 school year under Section C of the CAP, all of 

the Specific Conditions that are being imposed on its FFY 2019 IDEA Part B grant award. The 

corrective action plan must address the steps the BIE will take to: (1) implement fiscal monitoring 

procedures to ensure that BIE-operated schools and tribally-operated schools are ensuring the 

appropriate use of Part B funds allocated under IDEA Section 611(h)(1)(A); (2) demonstrate 

compliance with the timeline requirements for resolving State complaints under 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.152(a); (3) demonstrate compliance with the data reporting requirements under Sections 

612(a)(16)(D), 616(b)(2)(B) and 618 of the IDEA and 34 CFR § 300.160(f); (4) demonstrate 

compliance with the secondary transition requirements in IDEA Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34

14 The BIE’s rights related to appealing the Department’s proposal to withhold funds are described in full in both the 

determination and grant award letters and the opportunity to enter into a compliance agreement is described in the 

determination letter.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 38

C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b); (5) demonstrate how the directed FFY 2018 and FFY 2019 Part 

B administrative funds will be used to address noncompliance with the secondary transition 

requirements and improve the accuracy of the data, and provide evidence of the use of those directed 

funds; and (6) demonstrate completion of all of the required actions described in OSEP’s August 8, 

2018 letter regarding the systemic problems underlying the disruption of related services and timely 

initial evaluations in several BIE-funded schools, including San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School.

In addition, with its FFY 2018 SPP/APR, due on February 3, 2020, the BIE must report on the 

sources from which it received technical assistance on the exiting data elements for which the BIE 

received a score of zero on the Part B Results Matrix and the actions the BIE will take as a result of 

that technical assistance. 

The BIE must submit its corrective action plan for 2019-2020 and its final quarterly progress report 

on Section C of the 2018-2019 CAP, both due on July 31, 2019, and quarterly progress reports on the 

2019-2020 CAP in accordance with the reporting and timeline requirements specified in the Specific

Conditions that OSEP is imposing on the BIE’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B grant award.

3. Nature of the Specific Conditions

Based on the enforcement actions resulting from the BIE’s 2019 Needs Intervention determination, 

and on OSEP’s review of the BIE’s first through third quarterly reports on Section C of the 2018-

2019 CAP, ending with the quarter ending March 31, 2019, OSEP has determined that it is necessary 

to impose the following Specific Conditions.

A. Final Report on Section C of the 2018-2019 CAP: The BIE must submit to the Department by 

July 31, 2019, its final report on Section C of the CAP for the 2018-2019 school year. This report 

covers April 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. The report must contain: (a) the status of each task, 

subtask, and milestone scheduled to be completed; (b) the BIE’s supporting documentation 

regarding completion of these tasks, subtasks, and milestones, including an explanation of any 

delays and expected completion dates for all unimplemented actions; and (c) other data or 

documentation as the Department may request in order to verify the completion of tasks, subtasks 

and milestones.

B. Submission of Section C of the 2019-2020 CAP: The BIE must submit the 2019-2020 CAP by 

July 31, 2019. The 2019-2020 CAP must include the tasks, subtasks, milestones, and performance 

metrics described in subparagraph 3.E below.

C. Required Report on Disaggregated FFY 2018 Secondary Transition Data (Indicator 13): No 

later than October 31, 2019, the BIE must provide the following:

(a) A report of the BIE’s secondary transition compliance data for the period July 1, 2018 

through June 30, 2019, disaggregated by: 

(i) compliance item (i.e., each particular component of the secondary transition 

requirements associated with SPP/APR Indicator 13 – for example, whether there 

is evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition 

services are to be discussed); and 

(ii) BIE-funded school.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 39

(b) The BIE’s analysis of the disaggregated data, including suspected or known reasons for 

any noncompliance.

NOTE: The BIE must ensure that its proposed spending plan for the use of the directed FFY 

2019 Part B administrative funds includes strategies and activities that are specifically designed 

to address the suspected or known reasons for any noncompliance and to focus on the specific 

BIE-funded schools that continue to report low performance on particular compliance items or 

secondary transition requirements in general.

D. Submission of Spending Plan for Use of Directed FFY 2019 Funds: The BIE must submit, by 

October 31, 2019, a proposed spending plan that demonstrates how it will use $300,000 of its 

FFY 2019 Part B administrative funds to pay for strategies and activities that address the 

suspected or known reasons for the noncompliance with secondary transition requirements and 

that are reasonably designed to correct that noncompliance and improve the accuracy of the data. 

The BIE’s proposed spending plan must include: (1) the activities that will be carried out with 

those funds; (2) the costs associated with each of the activities; (3) a projected timeline for using 

the funds to pay the costs associated with each of the activities that demonstrates that the funds 

will be used by July 1, 2020; and (4) an explanation of how the activities will result in improved 

compliance with secondary transition requirements and improved accuracy of data. The BIE must 

also describe the documentation it will provide to demonstrate funds were used in accordance 

with its FFY 2019 spending plan. In addition, to ensure that the BIE can increase compliance with 

the secondary transition requirements and improve data accuracy within one year, the BIE must 

expedite the use of the directed FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds and target the use of 

those funds for activities that are based on a careful review of the BIE’s FFY 2018 secondary 

transition data.

Please note that the use of the directed FFY 2018 funds (of which, as noted above, the 

Department has granted a six-month extension until December 31, 2019) must be tracked 

separately from the use of the directed FFY 2019 funds, as the spending plan and deadlines for 

the use of the directed FFY 2018 funds are distinct and separate from the spending plan and 

deadlines for the use of the directed FFY 2019 funds.

E. Implementation of Section C of the 2019-2020 CAP and Reporting Requirements:

The BIE must implement Section C of the 2019-2020 CAP, which covers the period between July 

1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, until all corrective actions have been implemented. To ensure 

progress, the BIE must provide the Department with quarterly progress reports, which will be due 

to the Department 30 days after the end of each quarter. Each quarterly report will contain: 

(a) a description of activities and progress for each milestone, as described in the 

performance metric, during the reporting period; 

(b) the status of each milestone scheduled to be completed during the reporting period 

along with specific completion dates for all tasks, subtasks, and key milestones; 

(c) supporting documentation regarding completion of the milestones, including 

explanation of any delays and expected completion dates for all unimplemented 

actions; 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 40

(d) updates to ensure that progress for previously completed tasks, subtasks and 

milestones is sustained; and 

(e) other data or documentation as the Department may request in order to verify the 

completion of tasks, subtasks and milestones. 

When reporting the information required in the 2019-2020 CAP and the quarterly progress 

reports, the report on and analysis of disaggregated secondary transition data, and the spending 

plan for use of directed funds, the BIE shall include data and other required information for the 

reporting periods reflected below, unless otherwise specified:

Due Date Reporting Period

Final Quarterly Progress 

Report for Section C of 2018-

2019 CAP

July 31, 2019 April 1, 2019 – June 30, 2019

Section C of the 2019-2020 

CAP July 31, 2019 July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020

Report on and Analysis of 

Disaggregated FFY 2018 

Secondary Transition Data

October 31, 2019 July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019

Proposed spending plan that 

demonstrates how the BIE will 

use $300,000 of its FFY 2019 

Part B administrative funds to 

address noncompliance with 

the secondary transition 

requirements and to improve 

accuracy of data

October 31, 2019 July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020

First Quarterly Progress 

Report for Section C of 2019-

2020 CAP and a report on the 

BIE’s FFY 2018 Part B 

administrative funds used 

from July 1, 2019 through 

September 30, 2019, to carry 

out the activities in the BIE’s 

spending plan

October 31, 2019 July 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 41

Due Date Reporting Period

Second Quarterly Progress 

Report for Section C of 2019-

2020 CAP and a report on the 

BIE’s FFY 2018 and FFY 

2019 Part B administrative 

funds used from October 1, 

2019 through December 31, 

2019, to carry out the activities 

in the BIE’s spending plans 

for the FFY 2018 and FFY 

2019 funds

January 31, 2020 October 1, 2019–December 31, 2019

FFY 2018 SPP/APR February 3, 2020 July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019

Third Quarterly Progress 

Report for Section C of 2019-

2020 CAP and a report on the 

BIE’s FFY 2019 Part B 

administrative funds used 

from January 1, 2020 through 

March 31, 2020, to carry out 

the activities in the BIE’s 

spending plan

April 30, 2020 January 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020 

Final Quarterly Progress 

Report for Section C of 2019-

2020 CAP and a report on the 

BIE’s FFY 2019 Part B 

administrative funds used 

from April 1, 2020 through 

June 30, 2020, to carry out the 

activities in the BIE’s 

spending plan

July 31, 2020 April 1, 2020 – June 30, 2020

Section C of the 2019-2020 CAP must include the tasks, subtasks, milestones, and performance 

metrics described below.

Task C.4.0: Conduct School Monitoring.

Subtask C.4.2 (Fiscal Monitoring): Implement fiscal monitoring system to ensure that 

BIE-operated schools and tribally-operated schools are ensuring the appropriate use of 

IDEA Part B funds.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 42

Milestone C.4.2.1: Implement adequate fiscal monitoring procedures.

Performance Metric: 

(a) Report on the implementation of fiscal monitoring procedures, 

including communications with schools, both before and after 

monitoring visits, technical assistance provided to the schools, and 

any barriers to effective fiscal monitoring of and support to the 

schools. 

(b) Provide updated fiscal monitoring procedures, if changes are made.

Milestone C.4.2.2: Issue fiscal monitoring reports.

Performance Metric: 

Provide copies of fiscal monitoring reports issued to schools.

Milestone C.4.2.3: Ensure timely correction of findings of noncompliance 

identified in fiscal monitoring reports.

Performance Metric: 

Report the number of findings of noncompliance related to fiscal 

requirements that are timely corrected, and the number of findings of 

noncompliance related to fiscal requirements that are corrected more 

than one year after the State’s identification of noncompliance; and 

provide evidence of correction.

Milestone C.4.2.4: Ensure verification of correction of noncompliance related to 

fiscal requirements for which no written findings are issued.

Performance Metric: 

Report instances of noncompliance related to fiscal requirements, 

identified through self-assessments and document reviews, for which the 

BIE does not issue a written finding; and evidence that the BIE has 

verified the school corrected the noncompliance.

Task C.5.0: Conduct Dispute Resolution Processes in Accordance with the IDEA Requirements 

and Timelines.

Subtask C.5.1 (State Complaints): Implement procedures to ensure compliance with 

State complaint requirements contained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) and (b).

Milestone C.5.1.1: Ensure that State complaints are resolved within the 60-day 

timeline or an appropriately extended timeline due to the exceptional 

circumstances with respect to the particular complaint or because the parent (or 

individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to 

engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available 

in the State, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) and (b).
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 43

Performance Metric: 

Provide a listing of State complaints, including the date the complaint 

was filed and the date the written decision was issued.

Task C.6.0: Collect and Report Data to the Secretary and the Public in Accordance with the 

Requirements of Sections 612, 616, and 618 of the IDEA.

Subtask C.6.1 (Data Procedures and Processes): Develop and implement procedures to 

collect and report valid and reliable data required under Sections 616 and 618 of the 

IDEA in a timely fashion.

Milestone C.6.1.1: Follow guidance of the Partner Support Center (PSC) and 

seek its assistance as needed.

Performance Metric:

Submit evidence of any contacts with PSC.

Milestone C.6.1.2: Complete development and implementation of protocols, 

procedures and governance to ensure the collection and reporting of valid and 

reliable data required under Section 616 and 618 of the IDEA in a timely fashion.

Performance Metric:

Provide completed protocols, procedures, and governance for the collection and reporting 

of data required under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA, and report on implementation 

of the protocols, procedures, and governance, as well as the Data Governance Board.

Subtask C.6.2 (Section 616 Data): Develop and implement procedures to ensure that all 

section 616 data required in the SPP/APR are valid and reliable and reported in a timely 

fashion.

Milestone C.6.2.1: Report valid and reliable data for Indicators 3B and 3C for 

FFY 2016 in the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, due on February 3, 2020.

Milestone C.6.2.2: Report valid and reliable data for all Indicators for FFY 2018 

in the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, due on February 3, 2020.

Performance Metric:

Provide the required data for all SPP/APR indicators in the FFY 2018 

SPP/APR.

Subtask C.6.3 (Public Reporting of Assessment Data): Develop and implement 

procedures to ensure public reporting of assessment data in accordance with the IDEA 

requirements in a timely fashion.

Milestone C.6.3.1: Develop and implement procedures to ensure that the BIE 

will publicly report on the assessment of children with disabilities in the same 

manner and frequency as it reports on the assessment of children without 

disabilities, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f). 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 44

Performance Metric: 

Within 90 days of the receipt of the BIE’s 2019 determination letter, the 

BIE must provide to OSEP a Web link that demonstrates that it has 

reported, for FFY 2015, to the public, on the statewide assessments of 

children with disabilities in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f).

As soon as possible after the BIE reports publicly on the assessments of nondisabled children for 

FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, the BIE must provide to OSEP a Web link that demonstrates that it has 

reported, for FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, to the public, on the statewide assessments of children 

with disabilities in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f).

Task C.7.0: Demonstrate Compliance with Secondary Transition Requirements.

Subtask C.7.1 (Update and Implementation of Corrective Action Plan): Update, as 

appropriate, and implement the corrective action plan submitted in the 2018-2019 CAP to 

demonstrate compliance with secondary transition requirements and improve the 

accuracy of the secondary transition data.

Milestone C.7.1.1: Update and implement a corrective action plan that addresses 

the actions the BIE will take to demonstrate compliance with the secondary 

transition requirements in IDEA section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b) and improve the accuracy of the secondary 

transition data.

Performance Metric: 

Submit a report on the status of implementation of the actions the BIE is 

taking to demonstrate compliance with secondary transition requirements 

and improve the accuracy of the secondary transition data. 

Subtask C.7.2 (Use of Directed Administrative Funds): Develop and implement a 

spending plan demonstrating that the FFY 2019 directed funds will be used to address the 

noncompliance with secondary transition requirements and to improve the accuracy of 

the secondary transition data.

Milestone C.7.2.1: Submit a report on and analysis of FFY 2018 secondary 

transition compliance data, disaggregated by compliance item and BIE-funded 

school.

Performance Metric: 

No later than October 31, 2019, provide the following:

(a) A report of the BIE’s secondary transition compliance data for the 

period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, disaggregated by:

(i) Compliance item (i.e., each particular component of the 

secondary transition requirements associated with SPP/APR 

Indicator 13 – for example, whether there is evidence that the 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 45

student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition 

services are to be discussed); and

(ii) BIE-funded school.

(b) The BIE’s analysis of the disaggregated data, including suspected or 

known reasons for any noncompliance.

Milestone C.7.2.2: In addition to implementing the approved spending plan for 

the use of the directed FFY 2018 funds (for which the Department granted a sixmonth extension to December 31, 2019), the BIE must develop and implement a 

spending plan to expend the directed FFY 2019 funds by July 1, 2020 that 

demonstrates how the directed funds will be used to pay for strategies and 

activities that address the suspected or known reasons for the noncompliance 

with the secondary transition requirements in IDEA Section

614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b) and that are 

reasonably designed to correct that noncompliance and improve the accuracy of 

the data. The BIE’s proposed spending plan must include: (1) the activities that 

will be carried out with those funds; (2) the costs associated with each of the 

activities; (3) a projected timeline for using the funds to pay the costs associated 

with each of the activities that demonstrates that the funds will be used by July 1, 

2020; and (4) an explanation of how the activities will result in improved 

compliance with secondary transition requirements and improved accuracy of the 

data. The BIE must also describe the documentation it will provide to 

demonstrate that the directed FFY 2018 funds were used in accordance with the 

FFY 2018 spending plan, and the separate documentation it will provide to 

demonstrate that the directed FFY 2019 funds were used in accordance with the 

FFY 2019 spending plan. In addition, to ensure that the BIE can increase 

compliance with the secondary transition requirements and improve data 

accuracy within one year, the BIE must expedite the use of the directed FFY 

2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds and target the use of those funds for 

activities that are based on a careful review of the BIE’s FFY 2018 secondary 

transition data.

Performance Metric:

(a) By October 31, 2019, submit the proposed spending plan for the 

directed FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds for OSEP 

approval.

(b) With each quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, provide evidence 

that the BIE has directed the use of funds, as appropriate, during the 

reporting period.

(c) With the first and second quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, 

provide the amount of the $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2018 IDEA 

Part B administrative funds that were used during the reporting 

period to carry out the activities described in the BIE’s FFY 2018 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 46

spending plan to address the suspected or known reasons for the 

noncompliance with secondary transition requirements and to 

improve the accuracy of the data.15

(d) With the second, third and fourth quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 

CAP, provide the amount of the $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2019 

IDEA Part B administrative funds that were used during the 

reporting period to carry out the activities described in the BIE’s 

FFY 2019 spending plan to address the suspected or known reasons 

for the noncompliance with secondary transition requirements and to 

improve the accuracy of the data. 

(e) With each quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, provide 

documentation that the BIE used those FFY 2018 and/or FFY 2019 

IDEA Part B administrative funds during the reporting period in a 

manner consistent with the BIE’s respective spending plan.

Task C.8.0: Improve Exiting Data In Accordance with IDEA Requirements.

Subtask C.8.1 (Improving Exiting Data): Improve exiting data by utilizing available 

technical assistance resources.

Milestone C.8.1.1: The BIE must report on: (1) the sources from which it 

received technical assistance related to those exiting data elements for which the 

BIE received a score of zero on the 2019 Part B Results Matrix; and (2) the 

actions it took as a result of that technical assistance.

Performance Metric:

With the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, due on February 3, 2020, provide 

agendas, schedules, and/or other documentation that demonstrates 

evidence of receipt of technical assistance related to those exiting data 

elements for which the BIE received a score of zero on the 2019 Part B 

Results Matrix and subsequent actions the BIE took as a result of that 

technical assistance.

Task C.9.0: Ensure the provision of related services and timely initial evaluations in accordance 

with the requirements of IDEA.

Subtask C.9.1: Ensure correction of noncompliance previously identified by OSEP in 

San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and other BIE-funded schools covered by the 

expired contracts for related services and timely initial evaluations.

Milestone C.9.1.1: The BIE must report on the status of the expired contracts at 

San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and other BIE-funded schools that resulted 

in the disruptions of related services and timely initial evaluations.

15 OSEP has granted a six-month extension for the use of the directed FFY 2018 funds until December 31, 2019. As a result, the 

final report on the use of the FFY 2018 funds should be included in the second quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 47

Performance Metric:

With the first quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP due on October 31, 

2019, the BIE must provide an assurance that: (1) all the expired 

contracts have been renewed; (2) IEP Teams considered, on an 

individual basis, whether compensatory services were needed as a 

remedy for the services previously not provided; and (3) any 

compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams have 

been, or are being, provided.

Subtask C.9.2: Implement procedures to ensure compliance with requirements to 

provide related services in accordance with students’ IEPs and to conduct timely initial 

evaluations at San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and other BIE-funded schools 

covered by the expired contracts.

Milestone C.9.2.1: Ensure that all students with disabilities enrolled in San 

Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and other BIE-funded schools covered by the 

expired contracts received related services in accordance with their IEPs and any 

compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams, as required by 

IDEA Section 612(a)(1) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 and 300.323(c)(2), and that all 

initial evaluations are conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for 

the evaluation in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c)(1).

Performance Metric:

With each quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, report on: (a) the 

number of students with disabilities, at San Felipe Pueblo Elementary 

School and any other BIE-funded school that falls under the same 

contracts, who are still not receiving related services in accordance with 

their IEPs; (b) the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that these 

students receive the required services in accordance with their IEPs and 

any compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams; (c) 

the number of requested initial evaluations that have not been conducted 

or have been delayed; and (d) the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure 

that those evaluations are conducted as soon as possible.

Subtask C.9.3: Implement procedures to ensure compliance in all other BIE-funded 

schools with the requirements to provide related services in accordance with students’ 

IEPs and to conduct timely initial evaluations. 

Milestone C.9.3.1: Determine if any other BIE-funded schools are unable to 

provide services or conduct timely initial evaluations due to contracting delays.

The BIE may develop a reasonable monitoring plan that examines a sample of 

BIE-funded schools per year, in lieu of examining all BIE-funded schools at the 

same time. If the BIE selects this option, it must submit the monitoring plan to 

OSEP for approval.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 48

Performance Metric: 

(a) If the BIE opts to develop a monitoring plan, it must submit the plan 

to OSEP for approval with the first quarterly report for the 2019-

2020 CAP due on October 31, 2019.

(b) With each quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, report on: (i) the 

number of students with disabilities who are not receiving related 

services in accordance with their IEPs; (ii) the steps that the BIE is 

taking to ensure that these students receive the required services in 

accordance with their IEPs and any compensatory services 

determined necessary by the IEP Teams; (iii) the number of 

requested initial evaluations that have not been conducted or have 

been delayed; and (iv) the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that 

those evaluations are conducted as soon as possible.

Subtask C.9.4: Implement procedures to prevent contractual problems that could result 

in a similar disruption of services in the future.

Milestone C.9.4.1: Submit a plan to prevent contractual problems that could 

result in a similar disruption of services in the future.

Performance Metric:

With the first quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must 

provide a plan to prevent contractual problems that could disrupt 

services, by identifying specific policies, procedures, processes and staff 

positions that are responsible for implementation and oversight of 

compliance with this requirement.

Required Documentation to Verify Completion of Certain Milestones: In order to 

demonstrate completion of Milestones in Section C of the CAP, the BIE must include the 

following information: 

Milestones C.4.2.1, C.4.2.2, C.4.2.3, and C.4.2.4: 

(a) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must report on the implementation 

of fiscal monitoring procedures and any changes to those procedures.

(b) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 20198-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide copies of fiscal 

monitoring reports issued to schools during the reporting period. 

(c) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide: (i) the number of 

findings of noncompliance related to fiscal requirements that are corrected during the 

reporting period; (ii) the date those findings were identified; (iii) the number of those 

findings timely corrected; (iv) the number of those findings corrected more than one 

year after the BIE’s identification of noncompliance: and (v) a description of the 

evidence used by the BIE to verify correction of those findings.
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 49

(d) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide: (i) the number of 

instances of noncompliance related to fiscal requirements, identified through selfassessments and documents reviews during the reporting period, for which the BIE 

did not issue a written finding; (ii) the date those instances of noncompliance were 

identified; (iii) the date those instances of noncompliance were verified as corrected; 

and (iv) a description of the evidence used by the BIE to verify correction of those 

instances of noncompliance.

Milestone C.5.1.1:

(a) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide a listing of State 

complaints, including the date the complaint was filed and the date the written 

decision was issued.

Milestones C.6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.3.1: 

(a) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-20198 CAP and the first, second, and 

third quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide evidence of any 

contact with PSC.

(b) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide completed protocols, 

procedures, and governance developed to ensure the collection and reporting of valid 

and reliable data under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA in a timely fashion, and 

report on implementation of the protocols, procedures, and governance, as well as the 

Data Governance Board.

(c) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP, the BIE must provide 

evidence of submission of Section 618 data for SY 2018-2019 in accordance with the 

timelines for submission of preliminary, revised, and final data.

(d) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide documentation that it 

has developed procedures to publicly report on the assessment of students with 

disabilities in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f), and that it has implemented 

those procedures by providing a Web link demonstrating compliance with 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.160(f) for FFY 2015, and, for FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, as soon as possible 

after the BIE reports publicly on the FFY 2016 and FFY 2017 assessments of 

nondisabled children.

(e) For the third quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide 

documentation that it has implemented procedures to publicly report on the 

assessment of students with disabilities in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f), by 

providing a Web link, in its FFY 2018 SPP/APR, demonstrating compliance with 34 

C.F.R. § 300.160(f) for FFY 2018. 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 50

Milestone C.7.1.1:

(a) For the fourth quarterly report for the 2018-2019 CAP and the first, second, and third 

quarterly reports for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must report on the status of 

implementation of the corrective action plan to demonstrate compliance with the 

secondary transition requirements and to improve the accuracy of the secondary 

transition data. 

Milestone C.7.2.1:

(a) No later than October 31, 2019, the BIE must submit a report of its FFY 2018 

secondary transition compliance data, disaggregated by compliance item and BIEfunded school, and an analysis of the disaggregated data, including suspected or 

known reasons for any noncompliance.

Milestone C.7.2.2:

(a) By October 31, 2019, the BIE must submit, for OSEP approval, a proposed spending 

plan that demonstrates how the directed FFY 2019 Part B administrative funds will 

be used to pay for strategies and activities that address the suspected or known 

reasons for the noncompliance with the secondary transition requirements and that 

are reasonably designed to correct that noncompliance and improve the accuracy of 

the data. The BIE’s proposed spending plan must include: (1) the activities that will 

be carried out with those funds; (2) the costs associated with each of the activities; (3) 

a projected timeline for using the funds to pay the costs associated with each of the 

activities that demonstrates that the funds will be used by July 1, 2020; and (4) an 

explanation of how the activities will result in improved compliance with secondary 

transition requirements and improved accuracy of the data. The BIE must also 

describe the documentation it will provide to demonstrate funds were used in 

accordance with the FFY 2019 spending plan.

(b) For the first quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide evidence 

that the BIE has directed the use of funds, as appropriate, and provide the amount of 

the $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2018 IDEA Part B administrative funds (for which 

the Department granted an extension until December 31, 2019) that were used from 

July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019, to carry out the activities described in the 

BIE’s spending plan to address the suspected or known reasons for noncompliance 

with secondary transition requirements and to improve the accuracy of the data, and 

documentation that the BIE used those FFY 2018 IDEA Part B administrative funds 

in a manner consistent with the BIE’s spending plan.

(c) For the second quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide 

evidence that the BIE has directed the use of funds, as appropriate, and provide the 

amount of the $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2018 IDEA Part B administrative funds 

and the amount of the $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative 

funds that were used from October 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, to carry out 

the activities described in the BIE’s respective spending plan to address the suspected 

or known reasons for noncompliance with secondary transition requirements and to 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 51

improve the accuracy of the data, and documentation that the BIE used those FFY 

2018 and FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds in a manner consistent with 

the BIE’s respective spending plan.

(d) For the third quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide evidence 

that the BIE has directed the use of funds, as appropriate, and provide the amount of 

the $300,000 of the BIE’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds that were 

used from January 1, 2020 through March 31, 2020, to carry out the activities 

described in the BIE’s spending plan to address the suspected or known reasons for 

noncompliance with secondary transition requirements and to improve the accuracy 

of the data, and documentation that the BIE used those FFY 2019 IDEA Part B 

administrative funds in a manner consistent with the BIE’s spending plan.

Milestone C.8.1.1:

(a) With the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, due on February 3, 2020, the BIE must provide 

agendas, schedules, and/or other documentation that demonstrates evidence of receipt 

of technical assistance related to those exiting data elements for which the BIE 

received a score of zero on the Part B Results Matrix and subsequent actions the BIE 

took as a result of that technical assistance.

Milestone C.9.1.1:

With the first quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP due on October 31, 2019, the 

BIE must provide an assurance that (1) all the expired contracts have been renewed; 

(2) IEP Teams considered, on an individual basis, whether compensatory services 

were needed as a remedy for the services previously not provided; and (3) any 

required compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams have been, 

or are being, provided.

Milestone C.9.2.1

With each quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, report on: (a) the number of 

students with disabilities, at San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and any other 

BIE-funded school that falls under the same contracts, who are still not receiving 

related services in accordance with their IEPs; (b) the steps that the BIE is taking to 

ensure that these students receive the required services in accordance with their IEPs 

and any compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams; (c) the 

number of requested initial evaluations that have not been conducted or have been 

delayed; and (d) the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that those evaluations are 

conducted as soon as possible.

Milestone C.9.3.1

a) If the BIE opts to develop a monitoring plan, it must submit the plan to OSEP for 

approval with the first quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP due on October 

31, 2019.

(b) With each quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, report on: (i) the number of 

students with disabilities who are not receiving related services in accordance 
OSEP DMS REPORT BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION | 2019 PAGE 52

with their IEPs; (ii) the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that these students 

receive the required services in accordance with their IEPs and any compensatory 

services determined necessary by the IEP Teams; (iii) the number of requested 

initial evaluations that have not been conducted or have been delayed; and (iv) 

the steps that the BIE is taking to ensure that those evaluations are conducted as 

soon as possible.

Milestone C.9.4.1

With the first quarterly report for the 2019-2020 CAP, the BIE must provide a plan to 

prevent contractual problems that could disrupt services by identifying specific 

policies, procedures, processes and staff positions that are responsible for 

implementation and oversight of compliance with this requirement.

4. Evidence Necessary for Conditions To Be Removed

The Department will remove the Specific Conditions if, at any time prior to the expiration of the grant 

year, the BIE provides documentation, satisfactory to the Department, that it has fully met the 

requirements and conditions set forth above. 

5. Method of Requesting Reconsideration

The BIE can write to OSEP’s Director, Laurie VanderPloeg, at the address below, if it wishes the 

Department to reconsider any aspect of these Specific Conditions. The request must describe in detail 

the changes to the Specific Conditions sought by the BIE and the reasons for those requested changes.

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education Programs

Attn: Laurie VanderPloeg

550 12th Street, SW, Room 4109

Washington, DC 20202

6. Submission of Reports

The BIE must submit all reports required under the Specific Conditions. The quarterly reports for 

Section C of the CAP should be submitted to: 

Jennifer Wolfsheimer

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education Programs

550 12th Street, SW, Room 5033

Washington, DC 20202 

And

Susan Benbow 

U.S. Department of Education 

Risk Management Services Division

Office of Finance and Operations

550 12th Street, SW, Room 6050