BIA AND DOD

SCHOOLS

Student Achievement

and Other

Characteristics Often

Differ from Public

Schools’

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2001

GAO-01-934
Page i GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

The BIA School System 12

The DOD School System 34

Agency Comments 45

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 47

Student Achievement 48

Teacher Staffing and Educational Technology 50

Facilities 51

Estimated Per Pupil Expenditures 53

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 56

Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 57

GAO Comments 68

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 74

GAO Contacts 74

Staff Acknowledgments 74

Tables

Table 1: Performance of Students in BIA and Public Schools on

State Assessments in School Year 1999–2000 13

Table 2: 1999–2000 BIA Graduates’ Performance on SAT and ACT

Compared With National Averages 14

Table 3: Technology Statistics for BIA and Public Schools 20

Table 4: Reported Facility Deficiencies for BIA Schools and

Dormitories and Public Schools 25

Table 5: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair

Costs for BIA Schools and Dormitories 29

Table 6: Comparison of Per-Pupil Expenditures at BIA and Public

Schools, 1997–98 32

Table 7: National Percentile Rankings for Students in DOD Schools

on the TerraNova Multiple Assessments Standardized

Tests for School Year 1999–2000 35

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Table 8: Average SAT and ACT Scores for DOD and Public School

Students Graduating in 2000 36

Table 9: Median Class Sizes at DOD Schools 38

Table 10: Technology Statistics for DOD and Public Schools 39

Table 11: Reported Facilities Deficiencies for DOD and Public

Schools 42

Table 12: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair

Costs for DOD Schools 44

Table 13: Comparison of Per-Pupil Expenditures at DOD and

Public Schools, 1997–98 45

Figures

Figure 1: Locations of BIA Schools in School Year 1999–2000 4

Figure 2: Locations of DOD Europe Area Schools in School Year

1999–2000 7

Figure 3: Locations of DOD Pacific Area Schools in School Year

1999–2000 8

Figure 4: Locations of DOD Domestic and Cuba Schools in School

Year 1999–2000 9

Figure 5: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a Majority of

Teachers Received Various Types of Training 17

Figure 6: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a Majority of

Teachers Assign Students Computer or Internet Work at

Least Once Per Week for Various Classroom Activities 22

Figure 7: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That Various Work

Spaces and Equipment Are Insufficient 27

Figure 8: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That a Majority of

Teachers Received Various Types of Training 37

Figure 9: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That a Majority of

Teachers Assign Students Computer or Internet Work At

Least Once Per Week for Various Classroom Activities 40

Figure 10: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That Various

Work Spaces and Equipment Are Insufficient 43

Abbreviations

ACT American College Test

AIMS Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards

AME Applied Management Engineering, Inc.

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
Page iii GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

DOD Department of Defense

DODEA Department of Defense Education Activity

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NRC National Research Council

OIEP Office of Indian Education Programs

SAT Scholastic Assessment Test

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Page 1 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

September 28, 2001

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

United States Senate

The federal government has direct responsibility for two school systems

serving elementary and secondary students—the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) school systems. Unlike

public schools, where federal funding constitutes a small portion of total

resources, the BIA and DOD school systems depend almost entirely on

federal funds. Although the two school systems have this feature in

common, their histories and settings are quite different. Because these

school systems are a federal responsibility, the Congress is interested in

ensuring that children attending BIA and DOD schools are receiving a

quality education.

To better understand the quality of the educational environments in BIA

and DOD schools, you asked us to provide information about several

aspects of both school systems. Our study provides information on student

academic performance, teacher staffing, access to educational technology,

the condition of facilities, and expenditure levels for each system. This

study also provides comparative data for public schools when these data

were available.

The scope of our review included BIA day schools and boarding schools,

and DOD schools located both in the United States and overseas. To the

extent possible, we excluded from our analyses BIA peripheral

dormitories on reservations—which house Indian students who attend

nearby public schools—because they generally do not have academic

programs. Information for this review was gathered primarily from agency

data obtained from BIA and DOD, and from a mail survey of

administrators at all BIA and DOD schools covering the 1999–2000 school

year. Survey response rates were 81 percent and 92 percent for BIA and

DOD schools, respectively. We also obtained data on student performance

on achievement tests and college entrance examinations from states and

college testing organizations for students in BIA schools. Data needed to

precisely compute per-pupil expenditures for both BIA and DOD schools

were not available. Therefore, our calculations are estimates based on BIA

and DOD agency data and federal expenditure information from tribal

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

audit reports submitted under the Single Audit Act. We also conducted site

visits to nine BIA schools located in South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota,

and Washington, and seven DOD schools located at three military

installations in the United States—Maxwell Air Force Base, in Alabama;

and Fort Benning and Robins Air Force Base, in Georgia. For further

details about our scope and methodology, see appendix I. We did not

verify information collected for this study but obtained supporting

documentation where appropriate. We conducted our work between June

2000 and July 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

The academic achievement of many BIA students as measured by their

performance on standardized tests and other measures is far below the

performance of students in public schools. BIA students also score

considerably below national averages on college admission tests.

Academic performance has been strongly associated with educational and

income levels of parents, and students in BIA schools often come from

family settings where education, employment, and earning levels are lower

than the national average. BIA school administrators indicate that nearly

all BIA teachers are fully certified for the subjects or grade levels they

teach, although several officials said that some schools experience

considerable difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff. In terms of

educational technology, access levels to computers and the Internet

reported by BIA school administrators exceeded those of public schools,

but technical support to maintain computers and to assist teachers with

using technology in the classroom was more limited than in public

schools. Problems with school facilities were reported by many school

administrators. For example, administrators at more than 60 percent of

responding BIA schools reported having at least one building in

inadequate condition compared with about a quarter of administrators at

public schools surveyed by the Department of Education (Education) in

1999. Finally, our estimated per-pupil expenditures for BIA schools vary

widely by school type (for example, day or boarding), but are generally

higher than for public schools nationally. A number of factors distinguish

BIA schools from public schools, which may add to their costs. For

example, a high proportion of BIA students have special needs, and BIA

schools support a broader infrastructure (such as sewer and water

systems) than most public schools.

The academic achievement of DOD students, as measured by their

performance on standardized tests and their plans for enrolling in college,

generally exceeds that of elementary and secondary students nationwide.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

On college admission tests, DOD students score at or near national

averages. DOD school administrators indicated that nearly all their

teachers are fully certified for the subjects or grade levels they teach, and

about two-thirds have advanced degrees. Access levels to computers and

the Internet reported by these administrators were better than public

schools, and nearly all administrators reported that technical support is

available in their school. Many DOD school administrators reported some

problems with their school facilities, but overall the conditions of their

buildings did not vary greatly from those reported by public schools in

1999. Our estimated per-pupil expenditures at DOD schools located

overseas were higher than expenditures for those located in the U.S. DOD

records show that a substantial part of the difference is related to moving

and housing costs for teachers and staff in overseas schools. DOD’s

domestic schools, which generally do not have these expenses, are much

closer to national per-pupil expenditures.

The BIA and DOD school systems are unlike public school systems in a

number of ways and are also distinct from each other. Information on the

schools, the students and families they serve, the settings in which they

operate, and other fundamental aspects of these systems helps put our

findings into context.

BIA schools serve less than 10 percent of all Indian students enrolled in

elementary and secondary schools in this country.1

 In school year 1999–

2000, the total enrollment was 47,080 students in the 1712

 schools funded

by BIA. BIA schools are located in 23 states; however, over 70 percent of

the schools are in four states—Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and

South Dakota (see fig. 1). The schools are located primarily in rural areas

and small towns and serve Indian children living on or near reservations.

Individual school enrollments range in size from 14 to over 1,000 students,

but a little over half of the schools enroll fewer than 250 students; most are

combined schools spanning both elementary and secondary grades. A

 1

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), approximately 541,000

American Indian/Alaska Native children were enrolled in public elementary and secondary

schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in school year 1999–2000.

2

 In addition, BIA supports 14 peripheral dormitories which served 1,689 children in school

year 1999-2000. Two of the 14 peripheral dormitories offered kindergarten-only programs in

school year 1999-2000. We considered peripheral dormitories to be outside the scope of

this report and excluded them from our analyses where possible.

Background

BIA Schools
Page 4 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

unique feature of the BIA school system is that almost one-third of the

schools have a residential component; that is, they board at least a portion

of the students who attend the school. In total, about 17 percent of BIA

students reside in school dormitories. Some students board because their

homes are so far away or inaccessible that daily transportation is

impractical. However, an increasing proportion of students reside in the

dormitories for other reasons; for example, some students live in boarding

schools to separate them from dysfunctional or severely impoverished

home environments.

Figure 1: Locations of BIA Schools in School Year 1999–2000

Source: Data are from BIA’s Office of Indian Education Programs. School locations are indicated by

stars, but some stars represent more than one school.

Education programs and activities of BIA schools are administered by the

BIA’s Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP); however, in general,

the organization of BIA schools is highly decentralized. Each school is
Page 5 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

governed by its own independent school board, which has authority over

functions such as hiring personnel, adopting budgets, and setting policy.

Another important aspect of the BIA school system is the agency’s support

and encouragement of tribal control of school programs. In school year

1999–2000, 108 schools, or about two-thirds of all BIA-funded schools,

were operated by tribes or tribal organizations under grants, contracts, or

compacts with BIA; the remainder were operated by BIA.

In fiscal year 2001, BIA received a total of $777.6 million to support the

operations of its schools and address educational facility needs.3

 This

represented a substantial (30 percent) increase over fiscal year 2000

funding levels. Nearly all of the increase was for repair or replacement of

school facilities; funding for school operations increased only moderately. 4

Like many public schools, BIA schools also receive funding from

Education programs, such as Title I and Safe and Drug Free Schools and

Communities. Funds from these programs are provided to BIA and passed

through to schools.5

 Fiscal year 2000 funding from Education programs

totaled $132 million. BIA schools also participate in the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s (USDA) child nutrition programs, such as the National

School Lunch and Breakfast programs, which provide free or reducedprice meals for children living in families earning below certain income

levels.

DOD operates schools for the children of military and civilian DOD

personnel overseas and on certain military bases in the United States.6

 In

total, DOD operated 224 elementary and secondary schools in school year

1999–2000, with an enrollment of almost 108,000 students. A little over

 3

Funding for BIA schools comes primarily from two BIA appropriations: Operation of

Indian Programs and Construction.

4

Funding for school facilities repair and replacement—which comprises a smaller portion

of BIA’s education budget—increased by 121 percent. Funding for school operations, the

majority of the budget, increased by about 5 percent. Taken together these increases in

fiscal year 2001 raised funding 30 percent over the previous year.

5

Under an agreement with Education, BIA receives flow through funds for several

Education programs and is permitted to retain 1.5 percent of these funds to perform

administrative responsibilities similar to those performed by state education agencies.

6

The schools are organized into two separate but parallel systems: Department of Defense

Dependents Schools overseas, and the Department of Defense Domestic Dependent

Elementary and Secondary Schools in the United States. We refer to schools in both

systems as DOD schools.

DOD Schools
Page 6 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

two-thirds of DOD schools are located overseas, concentrated in several

countries in Europe and in Japan, Korea, and Cuba (see figs. 2 and 3).

About 74,280 students were enrolled in DOD overseas schools in school

year 1999–2000.7

 The domestic schools are located on military bases in

seven states concentrated in the Southeast and in Guam and Puerto Rico

(see fig. 4) and enrolled about 33,690 students in school year 1999–2000.8

Individual school enrollments range in size from 32 to over 1,300 in the

two DOD systems, with the median school size being about 450 students.

According to a DOD official, nearly all eligible children of military parents

overseas attend DOD schools. However, most children of military parents

in the U.S. attend public schools. DOD officials estimate that about 15

percent of school age military dependents in total attend DOD schools

abroad and in the United States.

 7

In addition, DOD pays tuition for about 2,080 eligible students overseas to attend non-DOD

schools in countries where no DOD schools are available.

8

In addition, DOD pays tuition and/or transportation costs for approximately 2,085 DOD

students enrolled in public schools operated by the local education agency in four states.
Page 7 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Figure 2: Locations of DOD Europe Area Schools in School Year 1999–2000

Source: Data are from DODEA 1999–2000 Accountability Report. (Arlington, Va.: Department of

Defense Education Activity (DODEA)). Some locations may have more than one school.

AFRICA

EUROPE

ATLANTIC

OCEAN
Page 8 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Figure 3: Locations of DOD Pacific Area Schools in School Year 1999–2000

Source: Data are from DODEA 1999–2000 Accountability Report. Some locations may have more

than one school.

ASIA

PACIFIC

OCEAN
Page 9 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Figure 4: Locations of DOD Domestic and Cuba Schools in School Year 1999–2000

Source: Data are from DODEA 1999–2000 Accountability Report. Some locations may have more

than one school.

Cuba

Guam Puerto Rico
Page 10 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Education programs and activities of DOD schools are managed and

directed by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). The

overseas and domestic schools are organized into 24 districts, each

managed by a superintendent and other district staff, such as curriculum

coordinators and maintenance supervisors.

In fiscal year 2001, DOD schools received a total of $1.3 billion to support

school operations and address facility needs.9 Overall, this represented

level funding since fiscal year 2000, although funding for school operations

and maintenance rose slightly while funding for school construction

decreased. DOD schools are not authorized to receive grants from federal

programs, including those administered by Education; however, DOD

schools do participate in the USDA child nutrition programs.

While the federal government has responsibility for both the BIA and DOD

school systems, the two systems are very distinct from each other,

particularly with respect to the types of students and families they serve.

The proportion of students who have special needs is much higher in BIA

schools than DOD schools. For example, according to agency records,

about 1 in every 5 BIA students is enrolled in special education, compared

with 1 in every 12 DOD students; and nearly 60 percent of BIA students

have limited English proficiency compared with just 6 percent of DOD

students. Students in the two systems also differ in terms of their

economic need. Eligibility for the USDA’s free or reduced-price lunch

programs is often used as an indicator of poverty. While data on the

proportion of children eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were not

complete for BIA schools, available data for 123 of the 171 schools showed

that over 80 percent of students were eligible, compared with about onethird of students at DOD schools.

Specific information on the education levels and employment status of

parents of BIA and DOD students was not available, but other information

suggests significant differences between the two. For example,

unemployment on or near Indian reservations is very high—over 40

percent in 1999. In contrast, students attending DOD schools are generally

military dependents and, by virtue of that fact, have at least one parent

 9

Funding for DOD schools comes from Military Construction Appropriations, DefenseWide; and Defense Appropriations—Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, and

Procurement, Defense-Wide.

Characteristics of BIA and

DOD Students and Their

Families Differ
Page 11 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

who is employed. With respect to education, about one-third of Indian

adults do not have high school diplomas, according to Census Bureau data

for 1990; in contrast, nearly all DOD active military personnel have

completed high school. Moreover, a number of factors can affect parental

involvement in BIA schools, including long distances between home and

school, language barriers, and parents’ poor associations with schools due

to past federal policies emphasizing the assimilation of Indian children. In

comparison, military communities have a tradition of supporting military

families, and this support extends to their schools. Parental involvement is

highly emphasized in DOD schools, with some base commands providing

release time to military personnel to volunteer in schools.

At various times, the Congress has considered the question of whether

there is a need for BIA and DOD schools in locations where public school

systems are close by. Since 1794, when the first treaty providing for any

form of Indian education was signed, the federal government has provided

education services for Indian children, and has carried it out almost

exclusively through the BIA. However, in the 20th century, the states

began providing for Indian education and currently provide schooling for

the majority of Indian elementary and secondary students. During the

latter part of the 1970s, the Congress reviewed the need to construct

certain BIA schools close to public schools to determine if BIA was

properly ranking schools on its school construction list. Though Indian

families can choose where to send their children to school, BIA’s policy at

that time was to have children attend nearby public schools with adequate

facilities instead of building new BIA schools to serve these students.

However, in 1988, the Congress decided that proximity to a public school

could not be the primary reason for rejecting a BIA school construction

project.

The need for DOD domestic schools also has been reviewed a number of

times, specifically to determine whether transferring schools to nearby

public school districts is feasible. DOD domestic schools were established

to provide education to military children in communities where the local

schools were deemed unable to provide a suitable education. After 1950,

schools were added to the system to allow military children to attend

integrated schools in locations where local schools remained segregated.

Since that time, however, more and more schools have been transferred to

public school districts, in part because of the integration of public schools

and Education’s emphasis on state and local responsibility for the

education of military children. Thus, while at one time there were about

100 installations with DOD-operated schools, now there are 14 located in

Need for BIA and DOD

Schools
Page 12 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

the 50 states. According to a DOD official, most children of military

parents in the U.S. attend public schools.

The academic achievement of many BIA students falls far below that of

public school students. As in most public schools, nearly all BIA teachers

are certified and class sizes in BIA schools are smaller than national

averages, even though officials report some difficulty recruiting staff. BIA

students have greater access to computers and Internet connections than

public school students generally, though a smaller proportion of BIA

schools than public schools has technology support staff to maintain

equipment and assist teachers in integrating technology into classrooms.

BIA administrators report extensive facilities problems and agency

records show a deferred maintenance and repair backlog approaching $1

billion. Estimated per-pupil expenditures vary widely among different

types of BIA schools, such as boarding schools and day schools, and are

higher than per-pupil expenditures at public schools. It is difficult to draw

conclusions about differences in expenditure levels between BIA and

public schools, in part because of cost factors that affect some BIA

schools, such as higher proportions of students who have special needs,

broader infrastructure responsibilities, longer distances to transport

children, and the cost of residential programs in boarding schools.

In school year 1999–2000, BIA students scored far below public school

students on state assessments in North Dakota, South Dakota, and

Arizona—three states with large numbers of BIA schools.10 As shown in

table 1, the average national percentile rankings for BIA students on North

Dakota’s statewide assessment, for all grades and subject areas tested,

ranged from the 25th to the 33rd percentiles in school year 1999–2000. (By

definition, the national average on the norm-referenced tests used in North

Dakota and South Dakota is the 50th percentile.) The corresponding

averages for public school students in North Dakota ranged between the

64th and 71st percentiles. Similarly, in South Dakota, the average national

percentile rankings for BIA students on South Dakota’s statewide

assessment were much lower than the averages for public school students

 10We were able to obtain data for all BIA schools in North Dakota and South Dakota and for

19 of the 50 BIA schools in Arizona that participated in the state’s assessment program.

About 36 percent of all BIA students attend the schools to which our data relate. Data were

not available for BIA schools in New Mexico, which has about one-quarter of all BIA

students.

The BIA School

System

Academic Performance of

Many BIA Students is

Below That of Public

School Students
Page 13 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

in the state, both overall and for specific skill areas such as language arts,

reading, and math. Finally, in Arizona, a smaller proportion of BIA

students met state standards than public school students. In school year

1999–2000, in reading, writing, and math, at each grade level tested, the

proportion of BIA students who met or exceeded the standards was far

lower than the proportion of public school students. (See table 1.)

Table 1: Performance of Students in BIA and Public Schools on State Assessments

in School Year 1999–2000

Average performance of BIA

students

Average performance of public

school students

North Dakotaa25th–33rd percentile 64th–71st percentile

South Dakotab25th–28th percentile 60th–67th percentile

Arizonac0–27 percent met or exceeded

standards

15–71 percent met or exceeded

standards

Note: The table shows the range of scores on these assessments for all grade levels and subject

areas tested.

a

North Dakota uses the TerraNova Basic Multiple Assessments as an assessment tool at grade 4,

and the TerraNova Complete Battery Plus at grades 6, 8, and 10. Scores shown are total scores.

b

South Dakota uses the Stanford Achievement Test as an assessment tool at grades 2, 4, 8, and 11.

Scores shown are for the complete battery.

c

Arizona uses an assessment test called the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) in

grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11. AIMS classifies students into four categories in relation to the standards—

Falls Far Below, Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds.

For Arizona and North Dakota, data for public school students by ethnicity

were available. These data indicate that Indian students in public schools

in these two states score below state averages but higher than BIA

students in those states.

In addition to standardized testing, BIA schools assess students’

proficiency in language arts and math using a combination of other

measures including “authentic assessment.” Authentic assessment

involves evaluating student achievement based on a review of multiple

items such as portfolios illustrating students’ work, grades, and work

samples as well as teacher observations. Many school districts and states

have been incorporating aspects of authentic assessment into their student

assessment programs. Authentic assessment often requires students to

demonstrate problem-solving skills and is thought to reflect real-world

situations. Some researchers consider authentic assessment more

appropriate for minority students than standardized testing because

standardized tests have been criticized as being culturally biased. In

particular, because of the diversity of languages and cultures among
Page 14 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Indian students, some educators have found these authentic assessment

methods more useful. These assessments are reported annually by all BIAfunded schools. Using authentic assessment approaches, about half of BIA

students have been assessed as proficient or advanced, in both math and

language arts, each year over the last 3 years.

Other measures often used as indicators of students’ academic success

include dropout rate, college admissions test scores, and the proportion of

students planning to attend college. On these measures, BIA students

perform less well than public school students. For example, in their annual

reports, BIA high schools report dropout rates—the proportion of high

school students who leave school and do not enroll in another school

during the year—averaging about 10 percent. This is higher than the

national average dropout rate (about 5 percent) and slightly higher than

dropout rates for other ethnic minority groups. In addition, BIA students

score significantly below national averages on college admission tests. As

shown in table 2, BIA students who take the Scholastic Assessment Test

(SAT) and the American College Test (ACT)—two widely used college

entrance examinations—score below students nationally in both

verbal/English and math assessments. They also score below students

from low-income families on these tests. Finally, in our survey, BIA school

officials estimated that about 28 percent of their graduates planned on

enrolling in college after graduation, about evenly split between 4-year and

2-year colleges. Nationally, in 1999, a little less than two-thirds of high

school graduates were enrolled in college the year after they completed

high school—about 40 percent in 4-year colleges and 24 percent in 2-year

colleges. For students from low-income families, the percentage who were

enrolled in college the year after they graduated was around 50 percent.

Table 2: 1999–2000 BIA Graduates’ Performance on SAT and ACT Compared With

National Averages

SAT scoresa

ACT scoresb

Verbal Math English Math

BIA students 383 382 14.7 15.9

National average 505 514 20.5 20.7

Note: A small number of BIA seniors (fewer than 70) take the SAT. Far more BIA students (about

800) take the ACT because BIA schools are located in areas of the country where the ACT is the

predominant college admission test.

a

Data provided by the College Board.

b

Data provided by the American College Testing Service.
Page 15 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

While the academic achievement of BIA students is low relative to

students nationally, to some extent the performance of BIA students may

be associated with conditions that are beyond a school system’s control.

Higher student outcomes have been strongly associated with higher

educational and income levels of parents. BIA students come from

environments where family education levels are low and unemployment

and poverty rates are high. For example, 1990 Census Bureau data show

that one-third of Indians age 25 or older do not have high school diplomas

compared with one-quarter of all adults nationally; and for Indians living

on reservations or trust lands, the proportion of adults who are not high

school graduates is over 45 percent. Indians living on or near reservations

also experience high rates of unemployment. Data from BIA’s Indian Labor

Force Report show that 43 percent of the potential labor force living on or

near reservations remained unemployed in 1999. Poverty rates are also

high among Indian families, with 27 percent having incomes below the

poverty level, compared with 10 percent of all families. Other data suggest

that the proportion of families with incomes below the poverty level is

even higher for those living on reservations and trust lands. Finally, the

issue of alcohol and substance abuse is significant for Indian communities;

the death rate due to alcoholism is about 7 times higher for Indians than

for all races. Parental substance abuse has been identified as an

environmental risk factor associated with learning problems, learning

disabilities, and developmental delays in children. In a previous Education

survey, almost 60 percent of BIA teachers considered parental alcohol or

drug abuse a serious problem in their schools, compared with about 13

percent of teachers in public schools with low Indian student enrollment.11

BIA officials noted that the agency has developed programs to begin to

moderate the influences of economic and family conditions on students’

academic performance. These include early childhood and family literacy

programs as well as a therapeutic residential model aimed at achieving

positive changes in attitude, behavior, and the academic performance of

students attending boarding schools. In addition, in its Annual

Performance Plan, BIA has established several goals that address student

academic performance. These goals concern student proficiency in

language arts and math, student attendance, teacher proficiency in new

assessments and technology, school accreditation, and number of degrees

 11NCES, Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education: Results From

the 1990–91 and 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Surveys, NCES 97-451 (Washington D.C.:

U.S. Department of Education, March 1997).
Page 16 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

conferred on Indian students at tribally controlled community colleges and

at BIA’s two post-secondary schools.12

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), one of

the major elements that characterizes teacher quality is teacher

preparation and qualifications. This refers to certification, education, and

continuing learning. Results from our survey indicate that nearly all

teachers in BIA schools were certified in school year 1999–2000. Typically,

about 95 percent of teachers in BIA schools were fully certified in the

subjects or grades they taught and another 3 percent had temporary or

provisional certification. About 92 to 93 percent of public school teachers

in general were fully certified in the subjects they taught.13 Teachers in

BIA-operated schools were slightly more likely to be fully certified than

teachers in tribally operated schools. In addition to certification, teachers

are being encouraged to pursue advanced degrees in order to gain a more

advanced understanding of their discipline. About one-fourth of teachers

in BIA schools had advanced degrees, compared to about 46 percent of

public school teachers generally.14 The proportion of teachers with

advanced degrees in BIA-operated schools was about 33 percent, while in

tribally operated schools it was about 21 percent.

BIA teachers have access to various kinds of professional development

and BIA schools support professional development in several ways. For

example, 93 percent of the BIA schools that responded to our survey

reported that the majority of their teachers received in-service training

provided by the school during the 1999–2000 school year. Other types of

training widely used included in-service training provided by the agency

and workshops provided by professional associations, as shown in

figure 5.

 12 BIA receives funds for two post-secondary schools: Haskell Indian Nations University

and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute.

131998 data as reported in The Condition of Education 2000, Table 47-3, NCES

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000).

141998 data from Fast Response Survey System as reported in The Condition of Education

2000, Table 47-1, NCES (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000).

Teacher Staffing at BIA

Schools Is Comparable to

That of Public Schools

Despite Some Recruiting

Difficulties
Page 17 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Figure 5: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers Received Various Types of Training

Source: GAO survey.

BIA schools facilitate their teachers’ professional development in a variety

of ways. The following supports were each reported by nine out of ten

survey respondents: permitting time off to participate in training, setting

days aside for training, paying travel or per diem for training, and paying

tuition or fees. Such training and supports for professional development

are comparable to the situation for public school teachers generally,

nearly all of whom report having some professional development in the

previous year with similar kinds of support from their schools.15

While nearly all teachers at BIA schools were certified, officials at some

schools we visited, particularly tribally operated schools, recounted some

difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff. At one tribally operated

school in Washington, the chief school administrator said it was difficult

to attract teachers because the school could not compete with

 15NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993–94, a national sample survey (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

College Courses in Teaching Methods

or Assessment

College Courses in Subject Matter

Professional Association Workshop

In-Service Provided by Agency

In-Service Provided by School 93

66

38

11

13

Percentage of Schools

Type of Training
Page 18 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

compensation packages offered by nearby urban districts.16 The 2000–2001

school year was the first year the school was able to pay teachers at the

state salary scale, but the school offered limited retirement benefits. As a

result, the administrator said the school tended to attract beginning

teachers or retired teachers who had pensions from their public school

careers. Other officials noted that the remote locations of some schools

hinder recruiting. Many BIA schools are located in settings with few

amenities to attract teachers and other staff. For example, at one school

we visited in Arizona, the closest town offering major shopping and

banking services was 96 miles away, and the principal said the

community’s isolation and lack of amenities contributed to teacher

turnover. In many locations, basic housing is not even available for staff to

purchase or rent, so BIA has constructed employee quarters for which

staff pay rent. About one-third of all BIA schools and 45 percent of

tribally operated schools had teacher turnover rates of 25 percent or

higher in school year 1999–2000; the average turnover rate was 18 percent.

Nationwide, about 87 percent of full-time public school teachers remain at

the same school from one year to the next, implying a turnover rate of

about 13 percent.17

A teacher’s ability to effect student learning may be influenced by the

number of students in the classroom, and various studies have associated

smaller class sizes with higher student achievement. Class sizes reported

by BIA administrators are generally smaller than national averages, with

tribally operated schools reporting smaller classes than BIA-operated

schools. Nationally, in 1998 the average class size for general elementary

classrooms was 23 students and in departmentalized settings (those in

which a teacher’s main assignment is in one particular subject area, such

as English or social studies) it was 24 students.18 The median number of

students per classroom reported by BIA-operated schools was about 20 to

22 in grades K through 8 and about 17 in grades 9 through 12. Tribally

operated schools had about 17 to 18 students per classroom in grades K

 16BIA-operated schools use a uniform salary schedule comparable to the salary schedule

used by the Department of Defense. This was implemented in part in an effort to recruit

and retain quality staff. However, tribally operated schools determine salaries

independently and there are no summary data available about their teachers’ salaries.

17NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993–94 and Teacher Follow-up Survey, 1994–95

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education).

18NCES, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public

School Teachers, NCES 1999-080 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Jan.

1999). Departmentalized settings are most often at the secondary level.
Page 19 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

through 6 and about 16 students per classroom in grades 7 through 12. Our

survey did not ask specifically about multiple grades in a classroom.

However, some BIA schools are very small and have fewer full-time

teachers than grade levels taught in the school. For example, there are five

BIA schools with 51 or fewer students in grades ranging from K to 6 and K

to 12. Four of these five schools have fewer full-time teachers than the

number of grades in the school, suggesting that multiple grades are being

taught in some classrooms.

BIA schools appear to be in step with schools around the country in

making technology available as an integral tool for learning. Based on our

survey results, BIA students have greater access to computers than public

school students nationwide. BIA administrators reported having about 1

instructional computer for every 3.5 students overall, although access

levels varied somewhat from school to school, ranging from 1 computer

for every student to 1 computer for every 18 students. In comparison, the

national average for public schools is 1 computer for every 5 students, as

reported by NCES for 2000.19 A major goal set by Education is that schools

have 1 modern multimedia computer for every 5 students.20 We do not

know about the quality or capacity of the computers in BIA or public

schools, but 46 percent of the computers in BIA schools were reported to

be 3 years old or older.

In some respects BIA schools provide their students with greater access to

the Internet than public schools. According to a BIA official, all 171 BIA

schools are connected to the Internet. Nationally, nearly all public schools

now have Internet access. However, BIA school officials reported that 1

computer with Internet access was available for every 4.3 students, a ratio

appreciably better than the 1 to 7 ratio for public schools nationwide.

Some policymakers have stressed the importance of not only connecting

every school to the Internet but eventually connecting every classroom. A

little over 80 percent of BIA instructional rooms have at least one

computer with a connection to the Internet. This number is also slightly

above the national average for public schools. However, as with some

public schools, some BIA schools still use the lowest-speed connections

 19NCES, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2000, NCES 2001-

071 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, May 2001).

20U.S. Department of Education, 1999 Performance Report and 2001 Annual Plan

(Washington, D.C.: 2000).

Access to Computers and

the Internet Reported by

BIA Schools Is Greater

Than Public Schools, but

Technology Support Is

More Limited
Page 20 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

for their primary connection to the Internet, and thus cannot access

complex computer applications and resources. Table 3 summarizes the

information on students’ access to technology at BIA schools based on our

survey and for public schools nationally.

Table 3: Technology Statistics for BIA and Public Schools

BIA

schoolsa

 Public

schoolsb

Number of students per instructional computer 3.5 5

Number of students per instructional computer with Internet

access

4.3 7

Percentage of schools connected to the Internet 100 98

Percentage of instructional rooms with Internet access 81 77

Percentage of schools using dial-up connections to the Internetc10 11

a

Data for BIA schools come from GAO’s survey, with the exception of the percentage of schools

connected to the Internet, which was provided by a BIA official. Data represent technology access in

BIA schools at the time of our survey, which was administered in Nov. 2000.

b

Public school data are for school year 1999–2000 and come from NCES’ Internet Access in U.S.

Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2000, NCES 2001–071 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Education, May 2001).

c

Other types of connections schools may be using include dedicated line, cable modem, and wireless

connection.

While computers and the Internet are generally available at BIA schools, a

smaller proportion of the schools have paid (versus volunteer) technology

support staff than public schools. In a survey conducted by Education,

nearly all (95 percent) of public schools reported having some paid staff,

either full- or part-time, to support advanced telecommunications (for

example, networked computers and computer hardware and software) in

their school in 1999. In our survey, we asked whether schools had (1) staff

who provided technical support or performed maintenance on computers

and (2) staff who assisted teachers in using computer software or the

Internet to instruct students. The results indicated that more than onequarter of BIA schools did not have paid technical support and about onethird did not have paid staff to help teachers use computers for instruction

in 2000. Evidence suggests that technology support of this kind has a

positive impact on teacher use of technology in the classroom.21 According

to an NCES report, research in general shows that public school teachers

 21A. Ronnkvist, S. Dexter, and R. Anderson, Technology Support: Its Depth, Breadth, and

Impact in America’s Schools, Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey

(Irvine, Calif.: June 2000).
Page 21 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

view the lack of technology support for integrating telecommunications

into the classroom and the lack of technical assistance in schools to be

obstacles to their effective use of technology.22 Our survey results show

that these areas of support are not available in many BIA schools. One

reason why technology staff is more limited in BIA schools, according to

one BIA official, is that the high turnover rate for technology coordinators

is a problem throughout the BIA school system. He indicated that these

technology coordinators often receive training for the work and then leave

the schools for higher-paying positions.

BIA school administrators reported that their computers are used

regularly for learning activities. Although there is evidence to suggest that

the effective use of technology in the classroom can improve student

learning, the research on what types of classroom activities are best

served by technology applications is not conclusive.23 Nonetheless, studies

on the uses of technology in schools tend to distinguish more basic uses of

computers—such as for drill and practice, which the research shows can

be effective for learning—from more pedagogically complex uses of

computers—such as using the Internet in small groups for class projects,

where the research data are less extensive. In our survey, we asked school

administrators to estimate the portion of their teachers who routinely

engaged their students in the use of computers for certain activities. As

shown in figure 6, many of the teachers at BIA schools regularly engage

students in the use of computers for practice drills and for learning subject

matter. Fewer BIA teachers are using them on a regular basis for student

research or to develop student skills in problem solving.

 22NCES, Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century, A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology,

NCES 2000-102 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Sept. 2000).

23H. Wenglinsky, Does It Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology

and Student Achievement in Mathematics (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service,

Sept. 1998).
Page 22 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Figure 6: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers Assign Students Computer or Internet Work at

Least Once Per Week for Various Classroom Activities

Source: GAO survey.

BIA schools appear to be making substantial investments in school

technology. Administrators reported to us that in 1999–2000 they spent an

average of $401 per student to support educational technology in their

schools. In comparison, according to a national survey, public school

districts planned to spend $113 per student on educational technology in

the 2000–2001 school year.24 These expenditures covered all aspects of

supporting educational technology, such as purchasing computer

hardware and software, installing and upgrading local and wide area

networks, paying for technical support and training for teachers, and

paying for telecommunications access.

 24Quality Education Data, Inc., Technology Purchasing Forecast 2000–2001, 6th Edition

(Denver, Colo.: 2000).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Problem Solving or Data Analysis

Research

Learning Subject Matter

Computer Applications

Practice Drill Work 40

38

52

32

17

Percentage of Schools

Classroom Activities
Page 23 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Most of the BIA school administrators responding to our survey reported

significant problems with the condition of their facilities. They noted

problems with specific building features, such as roofs and plumbing, and

with certain environmental conditions, such as indoor air quality. In

addition, they indicated that work spaces for teachers and students, such

as classrooms and libraries, were insufficient. The extent of the concerns

they reported in the survey are reflected in BIA’s backlog of maintenance

and repair needs. Among the backlog of such needs, which was recently

verified by an independent engineering firm, is more than $960 million in

needed repairs for school facilities and dormitories. A contributing factor

to the facility needs of BIA schools is their isolation. Many schools are

located in remote areas where, in addition to maintaining school buildings

and grounds, facilities managers must also maintain other components of

the infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, electric utilities, and

fire stations—systems normally provided by local municipalities for most

public schools. The Congress has recently increased funding used to

address the backlog. However, budget allocations for the maintenance and

repair of facilities have generally been less than amounts recommended by

national guidelines.

Compared to an earlier survey of administrators in public schools,

significantly more BIA school administrators responding to our survey

reported that the overall condition of their buildings and specific building

features was inadequate. As shown in table 4, administrators at 65 percent

of BIA schools reported that one or more of their school buildings was in

less-than-adequate condition and 76 percent of boarding schools reported

the same for their dormitory buildings.25 In comparison, in a 1999

Education survey on the condition of public school buildings,26

administrators at about one-quarter of public schools reported that one or

more of their buildings was in less-than-adequate condition. Looking back

 25Our survey asked school administrators to rate the condition of original buildings,

attached or detached permanent additions to original buildings, and temporary buildings

such as portables or trailers.

26NCES, Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000-32

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000).

Extensive Problems With

BIA School Facilities

Reported

BIA School Buildings, Features,

and Work Spaces Reported To

Be Less Than Adequate
Page 24 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

to reported conditions in 1994, the conditions of both BIA and public

schools appear to have generally improved.27

Administrators also reported that specific features of school buildings and

dormitories, such as the plumbing system or roof, needed substantial

repair or replacement. Overall, more than 70 percent of responding BIA

schools reported that one or more of the features of school buildings was

in less-than-adequate condition and 87 percent of boarding schools

reported the same for dormitory buildings. In contrast, administrators at

half of public schools reported that one or more of the features in their

school buildings was inadequate. As shown in table 4, for many of the

features listed, BIA administrators were at least twice as likely as public

school administrators to report that their school buildings and dormitories

had inadequate building features.

 27GAO conducted a survey of public school and BIA school building conditions in 1994. Our

current survey (2000) asked questions similar to those used in our 1994 survey and

Education’s 1999 survey of public schools. For results from our previous study, see School

Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1995) and School

Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools Funded by the Bureau of

Indian Affairs (GAO/HEHS-98-47, Dec. 1997). It should be noted that the results of our

1994 study of BIA schools reflect the reported conditions of responding schools; survey

response rates were too low (41 percent) to permit generalization to all BIA schools.
Page 25 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Table 4: Reported Facility Deficiencies for BIA Schools and Dormitories and Public Schools

Percentage of schools reporting inadequacy

Building deficiencies BIA schoolsa BIA dormitoriesa Public schoolsb

Onsite school buildings

One or more buildings in less-than-adequate condition (original buildings,

additions to original buildings, and temporary buildings)

65 76 24

Features of onsite buildings

One or more inadequate building features 72 87 50

 Roofs 48 50 22

 Framing, floors, foundation 41 61 14

 Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors 49 57 24

 Interior finishes, trim 39 58 17

 Plumbing 47 66 25

 Heating, ventilation, air conditioning 54 76 29

 Electric power 43 66 22

 Electrical lighting 34 65 17

 Safety features such as sprinklers, fire alarms, smoke detectors 37 53 20

a

Source: GAO survey.

b

Source: NCES, Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000–32 (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000).

Administrators responding to our survey also indicated that some

environmental conditions were a problem in their schools. For example,

over 40 percent reported unsatisfactory indoor air quality, acoustics or

noise control, or physical security in their buildings. Administrators at

over 70 percent of responding boarding schools reported the same for

dormitory buildings. In comparison, these environmental conditions were

a problem for 20 percent or less of public schools in 1999.

During our site visits, school officials indicated various problems with

their school buildings. For example, the principal of a school in

Washington said that in one portable classroom building the roof and

windows leaked, and in two buildings there was a continuous problem

with mold in the walls, which was difficult to control due to the wet

climate. She said that the mold was a health problem for children with

certain allergies. In a South Dakota school, a teacher expressed concerns

about aging asbestos floor tiles in her classroom that had to be partially

removed due to cracking, leaving other tiles exposed. Asbestos floor tiles,

which are present in more than 90 of BIA’s schools, can be a threat to the
Page 26 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

health of students and staff if the asbestos fibers are disturbed, released

into the air, and inhaled.28

In addition to questions about the condition of buildings and aspects of

their environment, our survey asked administrators about the sufficiency

of work spaces for students and teachers, such as classrooms, libraries,

labs, and eating areas. We also asked whether some of these work spaces

were adequately equipped—for example, whether libraries had sufficient

numbers of books or whether buildings were adequately wired to support

technology needs. As shown in figure 7, many BIA school administrators

responding to our survey reported that various work spaces and

equipment were insufficient at their school. For example, administrators

at 55 percent of responding schools reported that the number of

classrooms was insufficient and over 60 percent reported the space in

their libraries was a problem. Insufficient classroom space was noted by

officials at some schools we visited. For example, at a large K–12 school in

South Dakota, officials said that the number of students in the high school

building exceeded capacity. According to school officials, the building was

intended to house 250 students, but they currently had about 400 students

enrolled. In an Arizona school, because there was no other space, the

school held special education classes in an area previously used for

storage and teachers used partitions to separate the different groups of

students.

 28Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was used widely from the 1950s through the early 1970s

in construction materials, such as shingles for roofing and siding, pipe and boiler

insulation, floor tiles, ceiling panels, coatings, and gaskets. It is present in most BIA schools

in the form of floor tiles and/or insulation. A danger occurs when tiny asbestos fibers are

released into the air and can be inhaled or swallowed, increasing the potential for

conditions such as lung cancer.
Page 27 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Figure 7: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That Various Work Spaces and Equipment Are Insufficient

Source: GAO survey.

A large proportion of BIA schools (60 percent) also reported that the

capacity of the building’s telephone and electrical wiring systems to

support computers, the Internet, and telephones was inadequate for their

buildings. For BIA schools with insufficient telephone and electrical

wiring, the age of the buildings may be a factor. Almost half of the

buildings are more than 30 years old and almost 15 percent are between 50

and 100 years old. The principal of an Arizona school built in the 1930s

said that most of the electrical wiring in the school is original and as new

technology has been added, they have had frequent problems with system

overloads. He said that this is likely to get worse as more new technology

is added.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Telephone and Electrical Wiring

Size of Eating Area

Number of Science Labs

Number of Computer Labs

Number of Library Books

Library Space

Size of Classrooms

Number of Classrooms 55

29

62

64

38

31

44

60

Percentage of Schools

Work Space and Equipment
Page 28 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Administrators’ concerns about the condition of their facilities are

reflected in the BIA backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs.29 This

backlog is a catalog of deficiencies—related to buildings, surrounding

grounds, and other infrastructure—identified by architects, engineers,

facilities managers, and safety officers over the years. The inventory

describes in detail individual work items required in schools to meet

national standards and codes such as the Uniform Building Code and

National Fire Codes. The backlog contains a description of the work that

needs to be done and the estimated cost for each item. The deficiencies

may involve safety and health, access for persons with disabilities, or

noncompliance with building codes. Recently, BIA’s backlog was validated

by an independent engineering firm.30 According to BIA officials and

representatives from the engineering firm, this process included on-site

inspections of each BIA school building. Based on their inspections, the

engineers validated current projects and their cost estimates, removed

items that had already been addressed, and added new deficiencies they

identified.

As of February 2001, BIA’s backlog for educational facilities totaled $962

million31—an increase of almost $270 million (in current dollars), or 39

percent, since October 1997.32 Table 5 shows estimated costs from BIA’s

backlog to address deficiencies related to certain building features at BIA

schools. BIA school administrators often indicated problems with these

features in our survey. For example, the cost to address all deficiencies

 29Maintenance is generally defined as the upkeep of property and equipment and includes

the adjustment, cleaning, or lubrication of equipment; replacement of parts; painting; and

other actions to assure continuing service and prevent breakdown. Deferred maintenance

is maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was scheduled

to be and which, therefore, is put off or delayed for a future period. Repair is work to

restore damaged or worn-out property to a normal operating condition. Repairs are

curative, while maintenance is preventive.

30The review of BIA’s backlog was conducted by Applied Management Engineering, Inc.

(AME). In addition to the validation of the backlog, AME developed a process for BIA to

ensure the consistency and quality of information going into the backlog. AME is also

conducting a study on the adequacy of operations and maintenance funding for BIA

schools and an assessment of their facilities with respect to educational program needs,

according to AME’s general manager.

31According to a BIA official, in some cases, the backlog may include both the deficiencies

for a certain building and the estimated cost for planning, design, and/or construction to

replace that same building.

32See School Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools Funded by

Bureau of Indian Affairs (GAO/HEHS-98-47, Dec. 31, 1997).

BIA Reports Needing More

Than $960 Million To Address

Educational Facilities

Deficiencies but Funding Has

Been Increasing
Page 29 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

related to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in schools

totaled more than $63 million at the time of this review. Administrators at

more than half of the schools responding to our survey indicated problems

with these systems. One school we visited in Arizona did not have a

central cooling system, so each classroom had an air conditioner or

evaporative cooling unit. The principal said the units were quite old and so

noisy that they disrupted the students’ learning environment.33

Table 5: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair Costs for BIA

Schools and Dormitories

Building features often indicated as

inadequatea

Estimated cost to repair related

deficiencies b

 (dollars in millions)

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning $63.2

Plumbing 31.6

Roofs 24.5

a

Source: GAO survey.

b

Source: BIA backlog data as of February 2001.

More than $127 million of the backlog total represents deficiencies related

to the health and safety of students, and a significant portion of this ($44

million) relates to fire safety alone. For example, the backlog lists

buildings at more than 100 schools that need to have their fire alarm

systems replaced or upgraded because they are old, not working, or

missing. At one school we visited, the facilities manager said that the fire

alarm system on the school campus was no longer reliable, and that it was

so old that buying replacement parts was becoming difficult. With respect

to sprinkler systems, the BIA Chief of Safety and Risk Management said

that it is BIA’s goal to have sprinkler systems and smoke detectors in all

dormitories to ensure the safety of the residents. However, at the time of

our review, the backlog showed that more than half of the 54 boarding

schools’ dormitories needed sprinkler systems either to be installed or

upgraded. None of the boarding schools we visited had sprinkler systems

in student dormitories. In addition, a dormitory at one school was closed

due, in part, to fire-related safety deficiencies, according to the school

superintendent.

 33Some studies have concluded that school facility conditions, such as inadequate

ventilation, faulty heating systems, and excessive noise, can affect student learning as well

as the health and morale of staff and students. However, overall, the research is

inconclusive and many scholars say that more research is needed to establish a link

between school facility conditions and student performance.
Page 30 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

A contributing factor to BIA school facility needs and the backlog is that

BIA schools have to support a more extensive infrastructure than most

public schools. Because many BIA schools are located in isolated areas,

they maintain their own water and sewer systems, electric utilities, fire

stations, and other important services that are generally provided to public

schools by municipalities. Among the 171 BIA schools and 14 peripheral

dormitories, 146 sites (79 percent) had responsibility for maintaining some

kind of water infrastructure such as wells, water distribution lines, and/or

water treatment facilities; 138 (75 percent) had responsibility for sewer

infrastructure, such as sewage lagoons and sewage lines; and 52 schools

(30 percent) operated and maintained fire trucks.

BIA officials indicated that providing and maintaining this additional

infrastructure was a considerable drain on resources. For example, at a K–

8 school we visited in Arizona, the facilities manager said that his staff

must maintain a water system that includes five wells with distribution

lines, pumps, pump houses, and water storage tanks; a sewer system that

includes sewer lines, a lagoon, and a lift station; a fire station, fire truck,

and hydrants; and a landfill. The facilities manager said the school has

chronic problems with the sewer system, and an independent engineering

firm has recommended that the sewer mains and service lines be replaced.

For water and sewer systems alone, deficiencies in BIA’s backlog for

educational facilities totaled almost $56 million.

BIA’s infrastructure also includes dormitory facilities for boarding

students and housing for staff and their families. In total, BIA schools

support 157 dormitory buildings for students and 1,879 single-family

quarters and 194 apartment buildings for employees. However, we did not

include employee housing in the scope of our study because the rent paid

by staff is meant to cover the upkeep of these facilities.

Funding from BIA’s construction budget that is used largely to address the

backlog was increased substantially by the Congress last year. This

funding more than doubled from $40 million in fiscal year 2000 to $110

million in fiscal year 2001. BIA uses this funding to support a wide range of

facility-related activities, including minor projects, such as the

replacement of boiler systems, and major projects, such as the

replacement of a natural gas line or the renovation of a school office

building. In addition, the Congress provided even greater increases for

replacement school construction the last 2 years. Funding rose from $17

million in fiscal year 1999 to $141 million in fiscal year 2001. This funding

can reduce the backlog when new facilities are constructed to replace
Page 31 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

those that cannot accommodate current education programs or are

beyond repair.

While funding has increased during the last few years for certain facilityrelated line items in BIA’s budget, we attempted to look more closely at

funding available specifically for maintenance and repair needs.

Adequately funding maintenance and repair is important because deferral

of these tasks can increase the backlog. One guideline set forth by the

National Research Council (NRC)34 considers maintenance and repair

budgets in terms of the current replacement value of buildings.35 The NRC

has recommended that budget allocations for routine maintenance and

repair be in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the current replacement value of

buildings.36

Using NRC’s definitions, we extracted and combined pieces of BIA’s

budget to identify funding available for the maintenance and repair of

buildings and other infrastructure and determined that funding levels were

below those recommended by the NRC. From 1997–2000, funding

requested for and allocated to the maintenance and repair of BIA schools

was between 1.5 percent and 1.8 percent—below the lower end of the

recommended range of 2 to 4 percent. Funding increased in fiscal year

2001, resulting in maintenance and repair budget allocations providing

about 2.5 percent of current replacement value that year. However, based

on discussions with recognized experts in budgeting and facilities

operations and maintenance, even with this increase, budget allocation

levels over the past 5 years have been too low.37 These experts suggested

that because of the extensive infrastructure beyond buildings that BIA

must support, the isolation of the schools which dramatically increases

maintenance and repair costs, and the age of BIA facilities, BIA schools

 34NRC is the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the

National Academy of Engineering in providing advisory services in science and technology

to the federal government and other entities.

35Current replacement value is the amount in current dollars it would cost to duplicate the

facility.

36NRC, Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public

Buildings (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990).

37The experts we spoke with included a member of the National Academy of Engineering,

two engineering consultants, and a retired director of facilities for a historical society with

past experience developing capital and facilities operations budgets for the Congress.

BIA Funding for Maintenance

and Repair Is Less Than

National Guidelines
Page 32 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

likely require maintenance and repair funding in the range of 4 to 6 percent

of current replacement value.

Estimated per-pupil expenditures for BIA day schools were $9,647 in 1997–

98.38 In comparison, the national average per-pupil expenditure for public

schools was $6,189 in 1997–98, the latest year for which national data were

available at the time we did our work. It is important to note that per-pupil

expenditures can range widely. Within the 50 states, per-pupil

expenditures for public schools in 1997–98 ranged from $4,288 in

Mississippi to $9,643 in New Jersey.

Estimated per-pupil expenditures at BIA schools also varied widely

depending upon the type of school. As shown in table 6, BIA boarding

school expenditure estimates were almost $2,000 more per pupil than BIA

day schools overall; the additional estimated expenditures for the

boarding schools were likely due to their residential components. Among

BIA day schools, estimated expenditures per pupil were higher for tribally

operated schools than BIA-operated schools.

Table 6: Comparison of Per-Pupil Expenditures at BIA and Public Schools, 1997–98

BIA-funded schools

Estimated

per pupil

expenditure Public schools

Per-pupil

expenditureb

Day schools $9,647 All schools $6,189

 BIA-operated 7,677 Rural schools 5,817

 Tribally operated 10,423 Large city schools 6,293

Boarding schoolsa $11,643

a

Includes BIA-operated and tribally operated boarding schools.

b

Data are from the National Public Education Financial Survey, Fiscal Year 1998, as cited in NCES’

Statistics in Brief: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education:

School Year 1997–98, NCES 2000–348 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, May

2000).

One reason for the difference between estimated per-pupil expenditures

for day schools operated by BIA and those by tribes is that tribally

operated schools bear higher administrative costs—each school must

 38Our analysis of expenditures at BIA schools considered expenditures from federal

funding sources alone. According to BIA officials, federal funds constitute by far the largest

part of funding for BIA schools. The national per-pupil expenditure figures include funding

from federal, state, local, and private sources.

Estimated Expenditures

Per Pupil for BIA Schools

Are Higher Than Public

Schools’, and Vary

Substantially Between

Categories of Schools
Page 33 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

provide its own accounting and other support services that otherwise

would be provided by BIA for a comparable BIA-operated school. To

support these additional operating expenses, BIA provides administrative

cost grants to tribally operated schools, which averaged about $1,400 per

student in 1997–98.

In comparing BIA and public school per-pupil expenditures, it is difficult

to draw meaningful conclusions because the many factors that distinguish

BIA schools from public schools may add to their educational costs.

Special-needs students generally require additional educational resources

and, as mentioned previously, a high proportion of BIA students have

special needs. For example, according to BIA records for the 2000–2001

school year, about 21 percent of BIA students are enrolled in special

education compared with 13 percent of public school students, and 58

percent of BIA students have limited English proficiency, compared with 8

percent of public school students.39 Available data also indicate that a high

proportion of BIA students are poor.40 The student populations of BIA

schools in fact may be more similar to those of large city or rural public

schools, where higher proportions of students tend to have special needs.

Other characteristics of BIA schools may lead to increased expenditures.

The isolation that results in additional infrastructure needs for BIA

schools also results in higher costs in other areas, such as transportation.

For example, the number of miles transported per student for BIA schools

in school year 1999–2000 was about 296, while that of public schools was

about 165 for school year 1998–1999. Many of the miles traveled by BIA

students are on unimproved roads or roads in poor condition, which

increases wear and tear on vehicles. BIA also provides long-distance

transportation four times a year for many of the 8,000 students living in

boarding schools. Because BIA schools are generally small and often far

 39Data on the proportion of public school students in special education are for 1998–99 and

are from Digest of Education Statistics 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, Jan. 2001). Data on the proportion of public school students who are

considered to have limited English proficiency are for 1996–97 and are from the National

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Summary Report of the Survey of the States’

Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services

1996–97 (Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education

and Human Development, Sept. 1998).

40As noted earlier, available data for 123 of the 171 BIA schools show that over 80 percent

of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch for school year 1999–2000.

According to data from USDA, about 40 percent of students enrolled in schools nationwide

are approved for free or reduced-price lunch.
Page 34 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

from each other, it can be difficult for them to achieve economies of scale.

Many, for example, must have their own facility maintenance shops and

garages; in contrast, public school districts generally have such facilities

that serve several schools.

DOD students’ academic achievement generally exceeds that of

elementary and secondary students as measured by national standardized

tests. DOD school administrators indicated that nearly all teachers in DOD

schools are certified in the subjects or grades they teach, and the majority

of teachers hold advanced degrees—this proportion is greater than the

national average for public school teachers. Students’ access to computers

reported by DOD school administrators is greater than that reported for

public schools nationwide. In addition, the vast majority of DOD schools

provide their teachers with technical and instructional assistance for using

computers in the classroom. Many DOD school administrators reported

some problems with their school facilities and some reported that work

spaces for teachers and students were not adequate. However, overall the

conditions of facilities reported by DOD schools and public schools in

1999 were not substantially different. The estimated per-pupil expenditure

for DOD schools is higher than the national average, and the estimated

per-pupil expenditure is higher for overseas schools than for domestic

schools.

On standardized achievement tests, DOD students on average score at or

above national norms. DOD schools use the TerraNova Multiple

Assessments to assess students in grades 3 through 11. In math and

language arts, DOD students’ average national percentile rankings ranged

from the 61st percentile to the 72nd percentile (see table 7). Overseas and

domestic schools scored in a comparable range. By definition, the national

average is the 50th percentile. At most grade levels, the rankings for

overseas schools were a few points higher than those for domestic

schools. For both boys and girls, and for various ethnic groups, DOD

students were at or above national averages. On the National Assessment

The DOD School

System

Academic Performance of

DOD Students Exceeds

That of Students

Nationally
Page 35 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

of Educational Progress (NAEP), another standardized test, DOD students

scored at or above national benchmarks.41

Table 7: National Percentile Rankings for Students in DOD Schools on the

TerraNova Multiple Assessments Standardized Tests for School Year 1999–2000

National percentile rankings

Grade Language arts Math

3 63 61

4 64 64

5 64 63

6 68 65

7 66 65

8 68 62

9 70 66

10 72 72

11 68 67

Source: DOD data.

On other measures that are often used as indicators of students’ academic

achievement, such as college admissions tests and plans to attend college,

DOD students generally perform as well as or better than public school

students. A high proportion of DOD students take college admissions tests,

scoring at or near national averages. (See table 8.) In addition, DOD school

administrators reported that about three-quarters of DOD graduates plan

to pursue higher education. Nationally, just under two-thirds of high

school graduates are enrolled in college the year after they complete high

school. DOD administrators responding to our survey also estimated that

about 60 percent of their graduates planned to enter 4-year colleges and

another 15 percent planned to enter 2-year colleges. Nationally, about 40

percent of high school graduates enroll in 4-year colleges the year after

they graduate and about 24 percent enroll in 2-year colleges.

 41The NAEP is a nationally administered test that assesses students’ proficiency in different

subject areas, such as reading, math, and writing, in different years. We examined DOD

data on students’ performance on the NAEP in math (1996), reading (1998), and writing

(1998).
Page 36 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Table 8: Average SAT and ACT Scores for DOD and Public School Students

Graduating in 2000

SAT scores ACT scores

Verbal Math English Math

DOD students 504 500 21.3 20.8

National average 505 514 20.5 20.7

Source: DOD data.

The academic achievement of DOD students may be influenced by

socioeconomic factors and a “common culture” engendered by military

service. Education research has strongly associated student academic

achievement with parental education, income levels, and family structure.

In each of these areas, military families fare relatively well. For example,

nearly all military enlistees are high school graduates and relatively high

proportions of the parents of DOD students have attended or graduated

from college. Moreover, while a considerable portion of children in DOD

schools are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs (32 percent),

this is less than the proportion in public schools (40 percent); in addition,

military families receive benefits, such as tax-free housing allowances or

free housing on base, that are not considered in eligibility determinations

for the lunch programs. Finally, nearly 90 percent of military school-age

children reside in two-parent families compared with 70 percent of

children in public schools, although DOD families are affected by the

absence of parents deployed away from home.

In addition to these socioeconomic factors, DOD schools receive unique

support from the military and its culture. Military commands support the

schools in their jurisdictions and encourage their staffs to do so as well—

for instance, by making parent-teacher conferences a duty or fostering

volunteer work in the schools. Staff at DOD schools are sensitive to the

unique circumstances of military families, such as the deployment of

military parents away from home and frequent family moves to new duty

stations. According to a recent study, military children move through an

average of six school districts between kindergarten and the completion of

high school. Therefore, DOD is developing standardized curricula in its

schools that are intended to help overcome some problems associated

with high student mobility.
Page 37 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Administrators responding to our survey indicated that virtually all

teachers in DOD schools are certified in the subjects or grades they teach,

both in domestic and overseas schools. About two-thirds of teachers in

DOD schools have advanced degrees compared to about 46 percent of

public school teachers generally. Again, this proportion was about the

same for both domestic and overseas schools.

DOD teachers have access to various kinds of professional development,

and DOD schools support professional development in several ways. For

example, 95 percent of the DOD schools that responded to our survey

reported that the majority of their teachers received in-service training

provided by the school during the 1999–2000 school year. Other types of

training are shown in figure 8.

Figure 8: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers Received Various Types of Training

Source: GAO survey.

DOD schools facilitate their teachers’ professional development in several

ways. Nearly all DOD schools reported allowing time off to participate in

training and setting days aside for training. In addition, nearly nine out of

ten schools reported paying travel or per diem for training; about half

reported paying tuition or fees. These types of training and supports for

DOD Teachers Are

Certified and Most Have

Advanced Degrees

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

College Courses in Teaching Methods

or Assessment

College Courses in Subject Matter

Professional Association Workshop

In-Service Provided by District

In-Service Provided by School 95

71

6

7

5

Percentage of Schools

Type of Training
Page 38 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

professional development are comparable to those for public school

teachers generally, nearly all of whom reported having some professional

development with similar kinds of support from their schools.42

DOD officials related few problems attracting teachers to domestic

schools but noted that recruiting was somewhat more difficult in certain

overseas locations, particularly in parts of Asia. To ease recruiting, DOD

often pays moving expenses for teachers it hires in the U.S. to work in

overseas schools. DOD provides transportation for the employees and

their family members, and ships their household goods to and from the

overseas area. Applicants recruited in the U.S. for overseas posts also

receive housing allowances to cover rent and utility costs.43

Class sizes reported by DOD administrators are close to national averages

with no consistent pattern between domestic and overseas schools.

Nationally, in 1998, the average class size was 23 students for general

elementary classrooms and 24 students for teachers in departmentalized

settings. The median number of students per classroom reported by DOD

schools was in the low 20s in grades K through 8 and in the high teens in

grades 9 through 12, as shown in table 9.

Table 9: Median Class Sizes at DOD Schools

Median number of students per class

Grades

K to 3

Grades

4 to 6

Grades

7 to 8

Grades

9 to 12

Overseas schools 22 24 20 19

Domestic schools 20 23 23 19

Source: GAO survey.

Beginning in school year 1999–2000, DOD obtained additional funding to

reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 in order to enhance learning

opportunities and improve the quality of instruction. The target is a pupilteacher ratio of 18 to 1. Reduced class sizes were to be implemented in 18

overseas schools and 25 domestic schools, with all DOD schools phased in

over the next 6 years.

 42NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993–94 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education).

43According to a DOD official, a small number of staff in DOD overseas schools live in

government-provided quarters, but the majority receive allowances intended to cover the

cost of housing in the areas where they choose to live.
Page 39 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Based on the responses of DOD school officials to our survey, DOD

students appear to have greater access to computers, including computers

connected to the Internet, than do public school students nationwide.

These administrators reported having about 1 instructional computer for

every 3.7 students. This ratio is slightly better than the national average

reported by NCES for 2000. (See table 10.) We do not know about the

quality or capacity of computers in DOD schools, but a significant portion

of these computers (59 percent) are 3 years old or older.

Administrators at DOD schools reported that students had 1 computer

connected to the Internet available for every 4.8 students. This ratio also is

better than the ratio for public schools nationwide (1 computer for every 7

students). In addition, DOD administrators reported that almost 90 percent

of instructional rooms in their schools have at least one computer with a

connection to the Internet. This figure exceeds the national average in

2000 by more than 10 percentage points.

Table 10: Technology Statistics for DOD and Public Schools

DOD

schoolsa

Public

schoolsb

Number of students per instructional computer 3.7 5

Number of students per instructional computer with Internet

access

4.8 7

Percentage of schools connected to the Internet 100 98

Percentage of instructional rooms with Internet access 89 77

Percentage of schools using dial-up connections to the

Internetc

5 11

a

Data for DOD schools come from GAO’s survey, with the exception of the percentage of schools

connected to the Internet, which was provided by a DOD official. Data represent technology access in

DOD schools at the time of our survey, which was administered in Nov. 2000.

b

Public school data are for school year 1999–2000 and come from NCES’ Internet Access in U.S.

Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2000, NCES 2001–071 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Education, May 2001).

c

Other types of connections schools may be using include dedicated line, cable modem, and wireless

connection.

DOD schools also appear to have greater staff support for technology than

public schools nationwide. Almost all DOD school administrators reported

that in 2000 they had paid (versus volunteer) staff that maintained

technology and provided technical assistance. In addition, 98 percent of

DOD schools have paid staff to support teachers in using technology for

instruction. In a survey conducted by Education in 1999, 95 percent of

public schools reported having some paid staff to support advanced

telecommunications in their school. A school technology administrator at

Technology Access and

Support Reported by DOD

Schools is on Average

Greater Than Public

Schools
Page 40 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

one Army base told us that each school on the base has a technologist

available to instruct teachers on how to use technology in the classroom,

and that, as a result, teachers were integrating the technology into the

curriculum on a daily basis. At one school in this district, first graders

were learning how to create and deliver PowerPoint presentations.

As previously noted, though research suggests that effective use of

technology in the classroom can improve student learning, research is

inconclusive concerning what types of classroom activities are best served

by technology. In responding to our questions concerning teachers’ use of

computers in the classroom, about half of DOD school administrators

reported that the majority of their teachers regularly engage students in

the use of computers to learn subject matter, conduct research, and learn

computer applications. Fewer DOD administrators reported that a

majority of their teachers are routinely using computers to develop

student problem-solving or data-analysis skills or for drill and practice

purposes. (See fig. 9.)

Figure 9: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers Assign Students Computer or Internet Work At

Least Once Per Week for Various Classroom Activities

Source: GAO survey.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Problem Solving or Data Analysis

Research

Learning Subject Matter

Computer Applications

Practice Drill Work 40

47

54

48

25

Percentage of Schools

Classroom Activities
Page 41 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

DOD schools appear to be making significant investments in educational

technology. According to agency records and estimates, the DOD school

system obligated about $356 per student for educational technology in

fiscal year 2000 for domestic and overseas schools. By comparison,

according to a national survey, public school districts planned to spend

$113 per student on educational technology in the 2000–2001 school year.44

Many DOD school administrators responding to our survey reported

problems with their school facilities but, for the most part, their responses

were not substantially different from those reported nationally by public

school administrators in 1999.45 As shown in table 11, 32 percent of the

school administrators reported that they had one or more buildings in less

than adequate condition; in 1999, 24 percent of public school

administrators responding to a national survey reported that they had one

or more buildings in less than adequate condition. Looking at specific

building features, such as roofs and plumbing, administrators at about half

of both DOD and public schools reported having at least one inadequate

feature. For many features, about the same proportion of DOD and public

schools reported problems. For some features, including electric power,

electrical lighting, and safety features, fewer DOD schools reported

problems than public schools.

 44Quality Education Data, Inc., Technology Purchasing Forecast 2000-2001, 6th Edition

(Denver, Colo.: 2000).

45NCES, Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000–32

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000).

Administrators Report

Some Problems With DOD

School Facilities
Page 42 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Table 11: Reported Facilities Deficiencies for DOD and Public Schools

Percentage of schools reporting

inadequacy

DOD schoolsa

Public

schoolsb

Building deficiencies

Onsite school buildings

One or more buildings in less than adequate

condition (original buildings, additions to original

buildings, and temporary buildings)

32 24

Features of onsite buildings

One or more inadequate building features 52 50

Roofs 21 22

Framing, floors, foundation 15 14

Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors 20 24

Interior finishes, trim 14 17

Plumbing 22 25

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning 29 29

Electric power 14 22

Electrical lighting 11 17

Safety features such as sprinklers, fire alarms,

or smoke detectors

14 20

a

Source: GAO survey.

b

Source: NCES, Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000–32 (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000).

When asked about the condition of certain environmental factors in DOD

schools, such as indoor air quality, again about the same proportion of

administrators at DOD schools as public schools reported unsatisfactory

conditions. About 20 percent or less of administrators at DOD and public

schools reported that indoor air quality, acoustics or noise control, or

physical security were inadequate in their buildings.

Some DOD schools reported that various work spaces and equipment for

students and teachers were insufficient at their schools: 29 percent of

schools reported that the number of classrooms was insufficient; about

the same proportion reported inadequate library space (see fig. 10). The

principal of a 40-year-old school we visited that had not been renovated

said that the lack of space for storage was a major problem. In addition, 40

percent of DOD schools reported that the telephone and electrical wiring

in their facilities was inadequate. The problems with inadequate telephone

and electrical wiring may be due to the age of DOD education facilities.

About 60 percent of the DOD school buildings are 30 to 70 years of age,
Page 43 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

and as the level of technology introduced into the schools has increased,

so have the demands on the telephone and electrical systems.

Figure 10: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That Various Work Spaces and Equipment Are Insufficient

Source: GAO survey.

DOD estimates that about $529 million is needed to improve its

educational facilities, as of May 2001. This estimate comes from the 5-Year

Facilities Plan for DOD schools. This plan lists projects for repair and

improvement identified by school engineers and principals.46

Each year, each DOD school principal and a DOD school district facilities

engineer inspect the school facilities and grounds to validate existing

projects on the plan, identify new projects, coordinate routine

maintenance, identify construction projects, and discuss prioritization.

Headquarters-level facilities officials prioritize the projects for DOD

schools systemwide and determine which projects will be funded based on

 46The 5-Year Facilities Plan for DOD schools also includes the cost to replace some schools.

At the time of this review, the plan included the costs to replace six schools.

DOD Reports Needing More

Than $500 Million to Improve

Educational Facilities

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Telephone and Electrical Wiring

Size of Eating Area

Number of Science Labs

Number of Computer Labs

Number of Library Books

Library Space

Size of Classrooms

Number of Classrooms 29

24

28

16

14

18

28

40

Percentage of Schools

Work Space and Equipment
Page 44 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

the availability of funds. Included on this list are repair and maintenance

requirements that cost more than $25,000 for domestic schools and

$10,000 for overseas schools. Projects below these levels are funded

centrally out of school or district operations and maintenance budgets,

according to the DOD’s chief of school facilities. DOD school

superintendents/principals and facilities managers at the schools we

visited indicated that they were generally able to meet the repair and

maintenance needs of their facilities with these funds.

Table 12 shows DOD’s estimated costs to address deficiencies related to

certain building features at DOD schools. DOD school administrators

often indicated problems with these features in our survey. For example,

the cost to address all deficiencies related to heating, ventilation, and air

conditioning systems in schools totaled more than $44 million at the time

of this review. Administrators at almost 30 percent of schools responding

to our survey indicated problems with these systems. During our site visits

to seven DOD schools in Alabama and Georgia, the condition of the

heating, ventilation, and cooling systems was the most common complaint

about school facilities.

Table 12: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair Costs for DOD

Schools

Building features often indicated as

inadequatea

Estimated cost to repair related

deficienciesb

 (dollars in millions)

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning $44.5

Roofs 29

Playground surfaces and equipment 21

a

Source: GAO Survey.

b

Source: 5-Year Facilities Plan for DOD schools, May 2001.

Funding to address projects in the 5-year plan comes primarily from repair

and maintenance and minor construction allocations from the operation

and maintenance budget for DOD schools, according to a DOD official.

These allocations have decreased from about $71 million in fiscal year

1998 to $40 million in fiscal year 2000. According to agency officials, these

decreases were implemented in part to help pay for escalating payroll

costs at DOD domestic schools. In addition to allocations from the

operation and maintenance budget, funding from the construction budget

for DOD schools is used for projects in the 5-year plan. The construction

budget has fluctuated over the last several years. In fiscal year 1999, the

construction budget for DOD schools totaled $44 million; in fiscal year
Page 45 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

2000, this amount rose to $82 million; and in fiscal year 2001, it decreased

to $36 million.

Estimated per-pupil expenditures for DOD domestic and overseas schools

were above the national average for 1997–98 (see table 13), and DOD

schools’ estimated expenditures per pupil vary depending on their

locations.47 Schools located overseas tend to have substantially higher

estimated per-pupil expenditures ($10,097) than DOD domestic schools

($7,725). Much of this difference, according to DOD data, reflects the

added costs of having teachers and other school-related staff overseas.48

These costs include such things as benefits paid to employees in

connection with moves to overseas locations and allowances to

compensate for substantially higher living costs outside the United States.

Table 13: Comparison of Per-Pupil Expenditures at DOD and Public Schools,

1997–98

DOD schools

Estimated

per pupil

expenditure Public schools Per-pupil expenditure

Domestic $7,725 All schools $6,189a

Overseas 10,097

a

Data are from the National Public Education Financial Survey, Fiscal Year 1998, as cited in NCES’

Statistics in Brief: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education:

School Year 1997–98, NCES 2000–348 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, May

2000).

We provided officials at DOD, Education, and the Department of the

Interior (Interior), which oversees BIA, an opportunity to comment on a

draft of this report. In its written comments, DOD concurred with the

content of the report and had no technical comments. DOD’s letter is

printed in appendix II. Education found the report to be helpful and

informative and provided technical comments which we incorporated into

the report when data were available. Interior provided written comments

and agreed with many aspects of our report. However, the agency pointed

 47DOD does not have readily available expenditure data to determine per-pupil

expenditures. Therefore, we used obligation data as a proxy for expenditures.

48Although there are some such costs associated with teachers and school-related staff in

Guam and Puerto Rico, they are much less than those for overseas schools because there

are fewer schools in these locations than overseas.

Estimated Expenditures

Per Pupil for DOD Schools

Are Higher Than Public

Schools’ and Vary

Substantially Between

Domestic and Overseas

Schools

Agency Comments
Page 46 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

out that BIA’s students and schools are very different from those in the

public school system and stated that in some cases GAO had made

inappropriate comparisons between BIA schools and the public school

system. Interior stressed this most with respect to measures we used to

consider the academic performance of BIA students and our calculation of

expenditures per pupil. However, we believe that we have provided a

framework for our analysis that shows a sensitivity to these issues and

that our analysis is a fair and balanced representation of the achievement

of and expenditures for BIA students. We discuss Interior’s comments in

appendix III following the agency’s printed letter. Interior also provided

technical corrections which we incorporated where appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents

earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report until 30 days

after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; Neal McCaleb,

Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; the

Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; John M. Molino,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family

Policy; the Honorable Roderick R. Paige, Secretary of Education;

appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. Please

call me at (202) 512–7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this

report. Key contacts and staff acknowledgments for this report are listed

in appendix IV.

Marnie S. Shaul

Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 47 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

This appendix discusses in more detail the scope and methodology for

examining the following aspects of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and

Department of Defense (DOD) school systems: (1) student achievement,

(2) teacher staffing, (3) access to educational technology, (4) condition of

school facilities, and (5) expenditure levels.

The scope of our review included BIA day schools and boarding schools,

and DOD schools located both in the United States and overseas. To the

extent we could, we excluded from our analyses BIA peripheral

dormitories, which house Indian students on reservations who attend

nearby public schools and generally do not have academic programs. Our

focus was the 1999–2000 school year, and most of the data we collected

relate to that year.

A major source of information for this review was a mail survey of

administrators at all BIA and DOD schools. We pretested a draft

questionnaire at eight schools and revised it based on their comments. In

November 2000, we mailed the final questionnaire to all 171 BIA schools

and 224 DOD schools. We did follow-up mailings in January and March

2001 and accepted returns through early May 2001, yielding response rates

of 81 percent for BIA schools and 92 percent for DOD schools. We did not

independently verify the accuracy of the information provided in the

questionnaire responses. In addition to information collected through the

survey, we obtained budget, facilities, and other data from BIA and DOD,

and testing data from state departments of education and college testing

organizations. We obtained and reviewed supporting documentation for

some budget and expenditure data but otherwise did not verify this

information.

In the course of this review, we interviewed various staff at BIA’s Office of

Indian Education Programs and DOD’s Department of Defense Education

Activity who are responsible for education programs, budgets, technology,

and facilities. As shown below, we also conducted site visits to nine BIA

schools located in South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota, and Washington and

seven DOD schools located in the United States at three military

installations—Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and Fort Benning and

Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. At these schools, we toured the school

facilities and met with a variety of officials, including principals,

superintendents, education specialists, and facilities management staff.

The BIA schools we visited were

• Greasewood Springs Community School, Ariz.,

• Hopi Day School, Ariz.,

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 48 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

• Muckleshoot Tribal School, Wash.,

• Chief Leschi School, Wash.,

• Flandreau Indian Boarding School, S. Dak.,

• Pine Ridge School, S. Dak.,

• Loneman Day School, S. Dak.,

• Fond du Lac Ojibwe School, Minn., and

• Nay-Ah-Shing School, Minn.

The DOD schools we visited were

• Maxwell AFB Elementary School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.,

• Dexter Elementary School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

• Faith Middle School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

• Loyd Elementary School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

• White Elementary School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

• Linwood Elementary School, Robins AFB, Ga., and

• Robins Elementary School, Robins AFB, Ga.

We obtained data on public schools from readily available sources,

typically from Department of Education (Education) studies.

We conducted our work between June 2000 and July 2001 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

To provide an indication of BIA and DOD students’ academic achievement,

we reviewed their performance on standardized tests and state

assessments. We also obtained data on their performance on college

entrance examinations, namely the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and

the American College Test (ACT). In addition, our survey asked

administrators to report on the post-high-school plans of graduating

seniors.

For BIA schools, we attempted to collect data on BIA students’

performance on state assessments from four states that account for more

than 70 percent of all BIA schools—Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota,

and South Dakota. We were able to obtain data for all BIA schools in

North Dakota and South Dakota and for 19 of 50 BIA schools in Arizona

that participated in Arizona’s state assessment program. No data were

available for BIA schools in New Mexico, which has about one-quarter of

all BIA students. In total, about 36 percent of BIA students attend the

Student Achievement
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 49 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

schools to which our data relate. All data obtained were for school year

1999–2000.

From the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, we obtained

data on students’ performance on the statewide assessment. North Dakota

uses the TerraNova Basic Multiple Assessments to assess students in

grade 4 and the TerraNova Complete Battery Plus to assess students in

grades 6, 8, and 10. The state provided data on statewide averages for

students’ performance on the test, a breakdown of these scores by student

ethnicity, and the scores for all BIA schools. We focused on students’ total

scores on the test and reported the range of scores across all grades. In

South Dakota, schools use the Stanford Achievement Test to assess

students in grades 2, 4, 8, and 11. From South Dakota’s Department of

Education, we obtained the average scores for students statewide, and the

scores for all BIA schools on the complete battery and for specific skill

areas such as language arts, reading, and math.1

 We reported specifically

on the range of scores on the complete battery across all grades. Arizona

uses an assessment test customized for its standards, called the Arizona

Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), in grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11.

AIMS classifies students into four categories in relation to the standards:

Falls Far Below, Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds. The Arizona Department

of Education provided us with statewide averages for students’

performance on the AIMS, including a breakdown of statewide scores by

ethnicity, and the scores for participating BIA schools. We reported the

range for the proportion of children who met or exceeded the state

standards, across all grades and across all subjects (reading, writing, and

math).

We requested data on the performance of BIA students on the SAT and

ACT from the respective college testing organizations. With BIA’s

approval, the testing organizations provided us data on the scores for BIA

students who graduated in 1999 or 2000. It should be noted that a small

number of BIA graduates (fewer than 70) take the SAT. Far more BIA

students (about 800) take the ACT because BIA schools are located in

areas of the country where the ACT is the predominant college admissions

test.

BIA also provided the annual reports for virtually all BIA-funded schools,

which include data on the proficiency of students as assessed by schools.

 1

The complete battery score is a composite score that includes all subject areas tested.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

These assessments are based on multiple measures, which in addition to

students’ performance on standardized tests can include measures such as

portfolios illustrating students’ work, grades, teacher observations, and

work samples.

DOD students in both overseas and domestic schools are assessed using

the TerraNova Multiple Assessments in grades 3 through 11. We obtained

data from DOD on students’ performance for school year 1999–2000 and

focused on students’ scores in language arts and math. We reported the

range of scores for students in all grades, across both language arts and

math, and across students in both overseas and domestic schools. We also

obtained data from DOD on students’ performance on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is a nationally

administered test offered in different subject areas, such as reading, math,

science, and writing, in different years. We examined DOD data on

students’ performance on the NAEP in math (1996), reading (1998), and

writing (1998). We reviewed overall averages for DOD students in both

overseas and domestic schools and compared these scores with national

averages. Finally, we obtained SAT and ACT results from DOD for

students graduating during the 1999–2000 school year.

Nearly all information about BIA and DOD teacher qualifications and

training was obtained through GAO’s survey. Some information on teacher

turnover rates and staff tenure was obtained from agency records. To

determine class sizes, we asked administrators on the survey to report the

average number of students in a classroom for grades K–3, 4–6, 7–8, and

9–12.

Nearly all information on BIA and DOD students’ access to technology in

schools, technology staffing levels, and how technology is used in the

classroom was obtained through the survey. We calculated student-tocomputer ratios systemwide for BIA and DOD schools by dividing the total

number of computers reported by responding schools by the total number

of students at the schools. For individual schools in the BIA and DOD

systems, student-to-computer ratios varied somewhat from the ratio for

the systems overall. With respect to technology spending, DODEA

provided us with estimates of how much the agency spent to support

Teacher Staffing and

Educational

Technology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

educational technology programs in its schools for the 1999–2000 school

year. BIA schools provided this information to us through the survey.

We gathered information on the condition of BIA and DOD school

buildings primarily through the survey. We asked school administrators to

report on the physical condition of buildings and on specific building

features, such as roofs and plumbing. We also asked about whether certain

environmental conditions were satisfactory, such as indoor air quality and

acoustics or noise control, and whether working facilities for teachers and

students, such as classrooms, libraries, and computer labs, were sufficient.

Many of the questionnaire items were based on those used in two previous

surveys: a 1999 Education survey on the condition of school buildings,

which was conducted on a nationally representative sample of public

schools;2 and a 1994 GAO survey on the condition of school buildings,

conducted on a nationally representative sample of public schools and all

BIA schools.3

 We asked administrators to report separately on the

condition of school buildings and on the condition of dormitory buildings.

As a further indication of the condition of schools, we reviewed BIA and

DOD agency data on needed maintenance and repairs at school facilities.

In reviewing BIA’s backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs, we first

excluded data for buildings not related to schools, such as administrative

buildings, employee quarters, and buildings supporting law enforcement

services. We then looked at estimated costs to address certain types of

deficiencies according to categories used by BIA—for example, those

related to student and staff safety; environmental needs, such as asbestos

and radon testing; and energy-related needs. Finally, we asked BIA

officials to conduct searches on the backlog database for deficiencies

related to certain items asked about on our survey—for example, roofs;

plumbing; fire safety; handicapped access requirements; sewer and water

infrastructure; asbestos; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and

playground surfaces and equipment—and then totaled the estimated costs

 2

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Condition of America’s Public School

Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000-32 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, June

2000).

3

School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1995).

Facilities

Condition

Backlogs of Maintenance

and Repair Needs
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 52 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

for these deficiencies. We also obtained the 5-Year Facilities Plan for DOD

schools, which includes a total for the estimated amount needed to

address all identified items. It should be noted that the 5-year plan does

not include repair projects costing under $25,000 for domestic schools and

$10,000 for overseas schools. We reviewed the 5-year plan data for specific

building deficiencies that were noted more often as problems by DOD

schools in our survey: roofs; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and

playground surfaces and equipment.

To assess maintenance and repair funding levels for BIA schools, we

measured funding against guidelines set by the National Research Council

(NRC). The NRC has recommended that budget allocations for

maintenance and repair be between 2 and 4 percent of current

replacement value.4

 We first determined the current replacement value of

BIA schools by multiplying the square footage of the schools by the cost to

construct a new school per square foot. We obtained BIA’s total education

facility square footage for maintained buildings for 1997–2001. (These data

included 14 peripheral dormitories and two colleges, which account for

about 11 percent of BIA’s total education facility square footage.) We then

obtained data on the average cost per square foot of a new school for each

year from 1997 through 2000, from annual education construction reports

published by American School and Universities.5

 (The average cost per

square foot of a new school was not yet available for 2001, so we used the

average amount per square foot reported for 2000 for this year.) Then, for

each year from 1997 to 2001, we multiplied BIA’s educational facility

square footage by the average cost per square foot to construct a school

that year.

To identify BIA budget allocation categories that met the NRC’s definition

of maintenance and repair, we reviewed BIA documents describing the

categories and discussed these with experts. Once we identified the

appropriate categories, we obtained the amounts BIA requested and

allocated for these categories for fiscal years 1997–2001. Then for each

year, we determined the percentage that the requested and allocated

 4

NRC, Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public

Buildings (1990).

5

J. Agron, 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th Annual Official Education Construction Reports,

(Overland Park, Kan.: American School and University, May 1998, May 1999, May 2000, and

May 2001).

BIA’s Allocations for

Maintenance and Repairs

of Schools as a Percentage

of Replacement Value
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 53 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

amounts represented of the current replacement value and compared

these with NRC guidelines.

To calculate estimated per pupil expenditures for DOD and BIA schools

that would be comparable to public school figures, we followed guidelines

for identifying expenditures set forth by the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) in its National Public Financial Education Survey.6 The

results of this survey are used to develop the national per-pupil figure.

National per-pupil expenditure figures reflect current expenditures from

federal, state, local and private sources, at the district level for prekindergarten through grade 12. Current expenditures include salaries,

benefits, purchased services, and supplies for the following functions:

instruction; support services; noninstructional services, such as food

services; and direct program support, such as state contributions to

employee retirement funds. Long-term expenditures such as capital

outlay, debt service, facilities acquisition and construction services, and

property expenditures (for example, for equipment and vehicles) are

excluded from current expenditures by NCES and, in most cases, by our

evaluation. At the time we did our work, the latest school year for which

national public school per-pupil expenditures were available was 1997–98.

Data needed to precisely compute per-pupil expenditures for both BIA and

DOD schools were not available. Therefore, our calculations are estimates

based on BIA and DOD agency data and federal expenditure information

from tribal audit reports submitted under the Single Audit Act. Because

BIA and DOD data were generally not available by categories specified by

NCES, we used agency or tribal expenditure or obligation data for

programs or budget line items which included these categories. Using this

approach we were able to include expenditures for salaries, benefits,

purchased services, and supplies for the categories included in the

national per-pupil expenditure: instruction, support services, and

noninstructional services. Direct program support generally did not apply.

Similarly, we were generally able to exclude expenditures for capital

outlay, debt service, and facilities acquisition and construction services by

excluding budget line items that contain these expenditures. In some

 6

NCES, The National Public Education Financial Survey Instruction Booklet, January

1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education). Because 1997–98 was the latest

year for which national public school per-pupil expenditures were available at the time we

did our work, we used the guidelines dated January 1999, since these guidelines applied to

the 12-month period beginning July 1, 1997, and ending June 30, 1998.

Estimated Per Pupil

Expenditures
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 54 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

cases, we were not able to extract specific expenditures or obligations

relating to property expenditures within selected programs; however,

these amounts were likely to be relatively small.

For BIA schools, we developed estimated per-pupil calculations for (1)

BIA-operated day schools, (2) tribally operated day schools, (3) day

schools overall, and (4) boarding schools. For BIA-operated schools, we

obtained expenditure information from the Department of the Interior’s

(Interior) financial system based on codes indicating programs that

support kindergarten through grade 12. We were not able to identify

expenditures for administrative services provided by Interior for BIAoperated schools, such as payroll and procurement. We used fiscal year

1998 data. A fiscal year reasonably approximates the period July 1, 1997,

and ending June 30, 1998, used by NCES. For tribally operated schools,

we relied primarily on federal expenditure information from audit reports

submitted under the Single Audit Act. These reports were generally for the

period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998. We were able to obtain

expenditure information for 54 of the 98 schools that were tribally

operated that year. We could not obtain expenditure information for the

remaining 44 schools because, in some cases, the school expenditure

information in the audit report was included with other expenditure

information for tribal or other organizations and could not be readily

extracted, or because related audit reports were not available.

For both BIA-operated and tribally operated schools, we considered

expenditures from federal funding sources only, which, according to BIA

officials, represent by far the greatest source of funding for BIA schools.

This included expenditure data for Education programs, such as Title I;

and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) child nutrition programs,

such as the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs. The per-pupil

expenditure figures for public schools nationally consider funding from all

sources. Most funding for public schools comes from state, intermediate,

and local sources.

In order to determine overall estimated per-pupil expenditures for day and

boarding schools, we weighted the calculated estimated per-pupil

expenditures for BIA-operated and tribally operated schools of both types,

according to the number of students attending each type of school. We

used student enrollment figures from BIA internal reports for each school

type.

In order to calculate DOD overseas and domestic estimated per-pupil

expenditures, we used obligations from DOD internal financial reports for
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 55 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

fiscal year 1998 as a proxy for expenditures, since DOD does not maintain

expenditure information in the detail necessary for this type of analysis.

We also used fiscal year 1998 data since, similar to other federal agencies,

DOD tracks obligations by fiscal year and not for other periods. For

student enrollment figures, we relied on data from DOD internal reports

for domestic and overseas schools. We also obtained information for the

value of USDA’s child nutrition programs, such as the National School

Lunch and Breakfast programs, for fiscal year 1998, which we included in

the estimated expenditure per pupil calculation.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department

of Defense

Page 56 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Appendix II: Comments from the Department

of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 57 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Appendix III: Comments from the

Department of the Interior
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 58 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

See comment 3.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 59 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

See comment 6.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 12.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 10.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 60 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

See comments 8 & 9.

Now on p. 14.

See comment 7.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 61 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Now on p. 19

See comment 10.

Now on pp. 17-18.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 62 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

See comment 12.

See comment 11.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 63 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Now on p. 28.

Now on p. 31.

See comment 13.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 64 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Now on p. 32.

See comment 16.

See comment 15.

See comment 14.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 65 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

See comment 17.

See comment 18.

See comment 17.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 66 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

See comment 19.

Now on p. 33.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 67 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 68 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

1. We stated that BIA’s funding for school operations and facilities needs

increased 30 percent from fiscal years 2000 to 2001. Interior suggested

that GAO differentiate the actual amount of the increase between the

Operation of Indian Programs and Construction appropriation

accounts, initially stating that each account had increased by 25

percent. Based on our calculations, we added information to the report

specifying that funding for Operation of Indian Programs increased by

about 5 percent and funding for Construction increased 121 percent

between fiscal years 2000 and 2001. This supports our statement that

nearly all the increase was for the repair and replacement of school

facilities while funding for school operations received only a modest

increase.

2. Interior commented that our report should acknowledge that the

Department of Education (Education) funding that BIA schools

receive is available to all public schools across the country. Interior

specifically noted that public schools that educate Indian children on

or near Indian reservations receive Impact Aid Funds from Education.

We added text to the report indicating that like BIA schools, many

public schools also receive funding from Education.

3. Interior noted that in an agreement with Education, BIA serves as a

state education agency and is authorized to receive flow through funds

from Education. We have added this information in the report.

4. Interior suggested that we provide some examples to further highlight

differences between BIA and DOD schools. Interior stated that the

DOD school system has no schools with small enrollments or

combinations of grades like those in the BIA school system. The DOD

school system does have several schools with enrollments under 100

students and schools that span both elementary and secondary grades,

but we agree that these types of schools are less prevalent in DOD’s

school system. Interior also said that it would have been helpful for

GAO to provide an example of how BIA schools are less able to take

advantage of economies of scale and that this would help explain the

school system’s per- pupil expenditure. In our report section on per

pupil expenditures, we describe a situation that illustrates how

difficult it can be for BIA schools to achieve economies of scale.

Finally, Interior stated that the report could comment on how the

physical conditions found in BIA schools could affect student

outcomes. Thus, we added a note to the report stating that though

some studies conclude that school facility conditions—such as

GAO Comments
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 69 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

inadequate ventilation or faulty heating systems—can affect student

learning, the research is inconclusive overall.

5. Regarding the performance of BIA students on state assessments,

Interior argued that state standardized tests may be culturally biased

and may be a less reliable measure for Indian students than other

minorities. In the report we acknowledged that standardized tests have

been criticized as being culturally biased, and we therefore provided

information on authentic assessments of BIA students. However, we

are not aware of any research that shows standardized tests are less

reliable for Indian students than other minority students.

6. Interior said GAO should have compared BIA student achievement

with public schools serving large numbers of Indian students in rural

areas. We agree that these would be worthwhile analyses. However,

the additional audit work and data required to perform these analyses

did not allow us to include them in this report.

7. Interior noted BIA’s efforts to address differences in student

achievement through programs designed to moderate the effects of

poor economic and family conditions on student achievement. The

agency also noted that BIA had established long term goals that

address student performance. We have added information to the report

to acknowledge BIA’s efforts in these areas.

8. Interior questioned our comparison of BIA students’ plans to attend

college and performance on college entrance examinations with those

of students nationally. The agency argued that the economies of rural

areas, where most BIA schools are located, do not offer jobs that

require post-secondary education, and for this and other reasons, less

cultural emphasis is placed on BIA students to perform well on tests

like the SAT and to attend college. The agency stated that BIA students

generally expect to go to tribal colleges that do not require college

entrance examinations, such as the SAT. We believe that these

measures are appropriate given that one of the Office of Indian

Education Program’s goals is to increase post-secondary enrollment

rates. Also, a significant number of BIA students take the SAT and

ACT, perhaps to enter colleges that require these examinations.

9. Interior also said that we should have compared BIA students’ plans to

attend college and their performance on college entrance

examinations with students from other rural regions of the U.S. or

students in public schools on Indian reservations. Some data are
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 70 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

available for students living in rural areas but these are not specifically

focused on Indian students. For example, data from 1993-94 show that

on average 54 percent of 12th graders living in small towns or rural

areas applied to college, compared with BIA school administrators’

estimates that 28 percent of graduating seniors planned to enroll in

college. With regard to the SAT, for students graduating in 2000, rural

students received an average total score of 992 on the verbal and math

sections of the SAT, compared with 1,019 for students nationally, and

765 for BIA students.

10. Interior stated that teacher turnover correlates with reduced student

achievement, but did not provide support for this statement. We were

not able to identify any studies establishing a link between teacher

turnover and student achievement.

11. Interior noted that in fiscal year 2000, BIA conducted a census of

personal computers in BIA schools and concluded that the school

system had a ratio of 1 computer for every 3.3 students. BIA added,

however, that 30 percent of these computers are for administrative

usage and that almost half are reaching or have surpassed their life

cycle usefulness. Our survey asked school administrators about

computers used specifically for instructional purposes. Using these

data, we determined that the school system had a ratio of 1 computer

for instructional purposes for every 3.5 students.

12. Interior said that we had failed to address the fact that state

legislatures have appropriated funds for school technology and that

these funds are not included in district funding appropriations and

therefore are not included in calculations of expenditures per pupil by

NCES. We contacted NCES and were told that state funding for

educational technology should be included in the data that states

report to NCES for expenditure per pupil calculations. Thus, based on

this information, we did not modify our report. Interior also noted that

the Office of Indian Education Programs had to rely on private

partnerships and grants to provide enough resources to place technical

capabilities in all its schools. (It should be noted that these additional

resources were not identified during our review and therefore were

not included in our expenditure per pupil calculation for BIA schools.)

In addition, Interior stated that our report was unclear about the

resources DOD uses to support technology in its schools. In our report

we provided an estimate for the amount of money the DOD school

systems obligated per student for educational technology in fiscal year

2000, which was less than the amount BIA schools spent per student
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 71 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

based on our survey results. This funding comes from DOD

appropriations.

13. With respect to housing for teachers and staff, Interior said that we

had assumed that rents collected from teachers living in employee

housing covered the cost of maintaining this housing and had not

realized that schools end up covering these costs out of their facilities

maintenance funds. Interior argued that school maintenance funding

diverted for teacher housing should not have been included in our

calculation of expenditures per pupil. Interior also stated that staff in

DOD schools live in government provided quarters expense free. Early

in our review, BIA officials informed us that rents paid by teachers and

staff did not cover the full cost of maintaining employee housing.

However, when requested, BIA was unable to identify expenditures

made by schools for such purposes. More importantly, Interior noted

in its comments that providing housing is necessary for maintaining a

qualified teaching staff. Because of this, we believe that expenditures

to maintain employee housing are part of the cost of providing

instruction for these schools. An NCES official agreed and stated that

expenditures from school facilities maintenance funds used to

maintain employee housing should be included in the calculation of

expenditures per pupil. For the same reason, we included DOD

schools’ expenditures for housing allowances provided to overseas

staff in our calculation of expenditures per pupil. We have also added a

footnote stating that a small number of staff in DOD schools overseas

live in government-provided quarters; most receive housing allowances

intended to cover the cost of housing in the areas where they choose

to live.

14. Interior commented that our report failed to address the adequacy of

funding for facilities operations. We were not able to identify a widely

used benchmark to assess the sufficiency of BIA’s facilities operations

funding. We were only able to compare BIA’s obligations for both

facilities operations and maintenance with similar expenditures for

public schools. We found that BIA’s obligations per square foot of

building space were higher than the national median for public

schools. However, it was difficult to draw conclusions from these

calculations as they do not consider the additional infrastructure BIA

schools operate and maintain. Also, this analysis does not examine the

adequacy of BIA’s funding for operations and maintenance, it merely

compares the amounts used by BIA and public schools for these

purposes. Further, we were aware at the time we conducted our work

that BIA had contracted with a private engineering firm to assess the
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 72 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

adequacy of BIA’s facilities operations and maintenance funding. This

work may provide a clearer picture of BIA’s needs. This report is

expected to be completed in Fall 2001.

15. Interior commented that the cost of operating facilities could be

reduced if school replacement construction funding covered the cost

of demolishing and removing old structures. Currently, BIA provides

for the security of these idle structures out of operations funding until

a decision is made on their disposal. This issue may be worthy of

attention, but BIA’s own budget formula for determining operations

and maintenance needs suggests that this is not a major expense.

16. Interior noted that BIA, DOD, and public schools define and account

for maintenance funds and expenditures differently, and these

differences make “a straight across the board comparison” difficult.

We determined that it would be challenging to complete such an

analysis within the timeframe of this review. Thus, we did not attempt

to compare maintenance budgets or expenditures among these school

systems. Rather, we analyzed BIA’s and DOD’s maintenance and repair

backlogs and provided information on the amount of funding allocated

to address them and school construction.

17. Interior commented that our estimates of expenditures per pupil were

not adjusted to reflect differences between students in day schools and

in residential schools. We did calculate separate per-pupil

expenditures for day schools and residential schools and did not

combine them. Interior also stated that we did not adjust our per-pupil

expenditure estimates for students with special education needs or for

the costs of small schools in sparsely populated areas. The agency

recommended that we use an alternative approach for calculating

expenditures per pupil that takes into account differences in student

and school needs. Interior pointed to funding allocation systems used

by some states where students are weighted differently based on the

additional education resources they may require. For example, a

student requiring special education services may be counted as 1.5

students in determining state aid. Interior argued that we should have

used a weighted count of its students to calculate expenditures per

pupil, since a high proportion have special needs. Such a calculation

may be useful, but comparisons with public schools would not be

possible since NCES does not calculate the national expenditure per

pupil using a weighted student count.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department

of the Interior

Page 73 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

18. Interior stated that we should have compared BIA expenditures per

pupil with that of school districts with similar student populations.

Interior suggested several school districts with similar student

populations in South Dakota and New Mexico that could be used for

comparison with BIA’s per-pupil expenditure. We obtained the perpupil expenditures for these districts from NCES and found they

ranged from $4,979 to $8,706 in 1997-98, all below BIA’s estimated

expenditure per pupil of $9,647.

19. Interior recommended that we should not have included

administrative cost grants for tribally operated schools in our

expenditure per pupil calculation. The agency argued that these grants

are for the purpose of administering the schools and carrying out

support functions that are not part of the basic academic instruction,

such as fiscal and personnel activities. According to an NCES official,

these expenditures should be included as they fall into the category of

general administration expenditures, which is included in the national

per pupil expenditure calculation.
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 74 GAO-01-934 BIA and DOD Schools

Karen A. Whiten, (202) 512-7291

Linda Y.A. McIver, (206) 287-4821

In addition to the individuals named above, Mary E. Abdella, Beverly G.

Burke, Julianne Hartman Cutts, Eric M. Eliasen, Kopp F. Michelotti, Nancy

R. Purvine, Joel I. Grossman, Elsie M. Picyk, Stanley G. Stenersen, and

James P. Wright made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff

Acknowledgments

(102002)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs