INDIAN AFFAIRS

Better Management 

and Accountability 

Needed to Improve 

Indian Education

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

September 2013

GAO-13-774

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-774, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives 

September 2013

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Better Management and Accountability Needed to 

Improve Indian Education

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2012, the federal government 

provided over $850 million to 185 BIE 

schools that serve about 41,000 Indian 

students living on or near reservations. 

BIE is part of Indian Affairs within the 

Department of the Interior, and BIE’s 

director is responsible for managing

education functions at all BIE schools. 

BIE’s mission is to provide quality 

education opportunities to Indian 

students. 

GAO was asked to study the extent to 

which BIE is achieving its mission. 

GAO examined (1) how student 

performance at BIE schools compares 

to that of public school students; (2) 

what challenges, if any, BIE schools 

face assessing student performance; 

and (3) what management challenges, 

if any, affect BIE and its mission. 

For this work, GAO reviewed agency 

documents and relevant federal laws 

and regulations; analyzed student 

assessment data from 2005-2011; and 

conducted site visits to BIE schools

and nearby public schools in four 

states based on location, school and 

tribal size, and other factors.

What GAO Recommends

Among other things, GAO

recommends that Indian Affairs

develop and implement decisionmaking procedures and a 

communications protocol to ensure 

that BIE has effective management 

controls and comports with federal

laws and regulations. To improve BIE’s 

management of its schools, GAO also 

recommends that Indian Affairs

develop a strategic plan that includes 

goals and measures for BIE and a 

revised strategic workforce plan. 

Interior concurred with all of our 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools perform consistently below 

Indian students in public schools on national and state assessments. For 

example, based on estimates from a 2011 study using national assessment data, 

in 4th grade, BIE students on average scored 22 points lower for reading and 14 

points lower for math than Indian students attending public schools. The gap in 

scores is even wider when the average for BIE students is compared to the 

national average for non-Indian students. Additionally, the high school graduation 

rate for BIE students in 2011 was 61 percent, placing BIE in the bottom half 

among graduation rates for Indian students attending public schools in states 

where BIE schools are located. 

BIE’s administrative weaknesses have resulted in it experiencing difficulty 

assessing the academic progress of its students and adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) for its schools as required by federal law. Department of the Interior 

(Interior) regulations generally require BIE schools to administer the same 

academic assessments used by the 23 respective states where the schools are 

located. However, in the 2011-12 school year, at the direction of BIE officials, 21 

schools did not administer their state assessment. These schools administered 

an alternative assessment that had not been approved for assessing AYP. BIE 

made this critical decision without the appropriate level of review at Interior or the 

Department of Education (Education) because it does not have procedures 

specifying who should be involved in making key decisions. Further, BIE did not 

provide its schools their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year prior to the start 

of the next school year, hindering school officials’ ability to develop appropriate 

strategies to improve student performance. Unless BIE provides schools 

information that affects student instruction in a timely and consistent manner, it 

will be difficult for BIE to be well-positioned to improve student academic 

performance in the future.

Fragmented administrative services and a lack of clear roles for BIE and Indian 

Affairs’ Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M)—that 

until July 2013 was responsible for BIE’s administrative functions—contributed to 

delays in schools acquiring needed materials, such as textbooks. In July, Indian 

Affairs underwent a realignment, which assigned another office in Indian Affairs

the responsibility for most of BIE’s administrative functions. The realignment is 

intended to improve efficiency in delivering services to Indian Affairs

stakeholders, including BIE schools. However, it is unclear to what extent, if at 

all, the changes will result in improved services for BIE schools. For example, 

Indian Affairs had not conducted a recent analysis before implementing the 

realignment to determine if it has the right people in place with the right skills 

doing the right jobs. Such workforce planning is critical given Indian Affairs’ 

recent realignment and employee buy-out and early-out initiatives. Similarly, 

Indian Affairs has not developed a strategic plan with specific goals and 

measures for itself or BIE, or a strategy for communicating with stakeholders.

Such a strategic workforce plan and performance measures could help improve 

operations and align the organization’s human capital program with its current 

and emerging mission and programmatic goals. View GAO-13-774. For more information, 

contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 

scottg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Letter 1 

Background 3

BIE Students Score Consistently Below Indian Students in Public 

Schools on National Assessments and Have Relatively Low 

Graduation Rates 6

BIE Has Difficulty Complying with Various Assessment 

Requirements and Collaborating with Education, but is Working 

to Address Certain Challenges 11

Poor Management and Communication Hinder Support for BIE 

Operations 17

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendix I Comments from the Department of the Interior 30

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements 34

Tables

Table 1: Remedial Actions for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 

Title I Part A Schools That Do Not Make Adequate Yearly 

Progress (AYP) 14

Table 2: BIE Schools in Each BIA Region with Schools, Excluding 

Dormitories 24

Figures

Figure 1: Fourth Grade Estimated Average Scores on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Students 

in BIE Schools Compared to Indian Students in Public 

Schools and Non-Indian National Average, 2005 to 2011 6

Figure 2: Eighth Grade Estimated Average Scores on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Students 

in BIE Schools Compared to Indian Students in Public 

Schools and Non-Indian National Average, 2005 to 2011 7

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Figure 3: Graduation Rates for BIE Students Compared to 

Graduation Rates for Indian Students in Public Schools in 

States Where BIE Schools Are Located, School Year 2010-

2011 10

Figure 4: Leadership of Offices that Support BIE Schools 20

Abbreviations

AYP Adequate Yearly Progress

BIE Bureau of Indian Education 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

DAS-M Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as

 amended

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NCES National Center for Education Statistics 

NWEA Northwest Evaluation Association

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 24, 2013

The Honorable Mike Simpson

Chairman

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In fiscal year 2012, the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the 

Department of Education (Education) provided over $850 million to 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, slightly over $650 and $200 

million, respectively.1

We used multiple data collection methods to address these issues. To 

determine how student performance at BIE schools compares to that of 

public school students, we reviewed data on student performance for 4th 

and 8th grades at BIE and public schools for 2005 to 2011 using data 

from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a project 

of Education. In addition, we analyzed student performance data for 3rd 

and 7th grades from BIE and selected state educational agencies in three 

This funding supports 185 BIE schools, primarily in 

rural areas and small towns, in 23 states. These schools serve about 

41,000 Indian students living on or near reservations, representing about 

7 percent of the Indian student population. BIE’s mission is to provide 

quality education opportunities to Indian students. However, poor student 

outcomes raise questions about how well BIE is achieving its mission. For 

example, a recent BIE-funded study found the achievement levels of BIE 

students much lower than the general population of students. 

Accordingly, you asked us to study aspects of BIE’s mission. Specifically, 

this report examines: (1) how student performance at BIE schools 

compares to that of public school students, (2) the challenges, if any, BIE 

schools face assessing student performance, and (3) what management 

challenges, if any, affect BIE and its mission of educating Indian students. 

We intend to issue a second report that will compare funding and 

expenditures for BIE schools to those of nearby public schools.

 

1

While BIE and Education provide most of the funding for BIE schools, other federal 

agencies provide additional funding, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture through 

its school meal programs.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

of the four states we visited (selection described below) for school years 

2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the most recent 3 years for which data 

were available. We also used data from a 2011 study on Indian education 

conducted through NAEP by the National Center for Education Statistics.2

To determine the challenges, if any, BIE schools face assessing student 

performance and what management challenges, if any, affect BIE and its 

mission of educating Indian children, we conducted site visits to BIE 

schools and interviewed administrators and teachers about student 

performance and management issues. In addition, we interviewed 

officials in Education and in Interior’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs’ Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management, 

BIE, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Further, we interviewed 

administrators and teachers at public schools in close proximity to the BIE 

schools we visited to obtain their perspectives on issues relating to 

student performance. We also reviewed agency documents including 

budget justifications, guidance, internal correspondences, and agencysponsored management studies, and we reviewed relevant federal laws 

and regulations. We selected site visit locations to reflect an array of BIE 

schools that varied in administration type, school and tribal size, and 

location. Specifically, we visited 16 BIE schools that serve the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge, South Dakota; the Mississippi Band of the 

Choctaw Indians; the Navajo Nation in New Mexico and Arizona; and 

various Pueblo Indians in New Mexico. The views of the officials we 

spoke with at these locations are not generalizable to all administrators 

and teachers at BIE or public schools nationwide.

Further, we analyzed Education’s provisional data on regulatory adjusted 

cohort graduation rates for school year 2010-11, which was the most 

recent data available on cohort graduation rates at the time of our review. 

We assessed the reliability of the student performance and graduation 

rate data used in our study by reviewing related documentation and 

interviewing officials who are knowledgeable about the data. We found 

the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, we 

reviewed the methodology used for the 2011 study on Indian education 

and found the study sufficiently reliable to use in the report.

 

2

National Center for Education Statistics, National Indian Education Study 2011 (NCES 

2012–466) (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education, 2012).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

We compared BIE’s actions related to management challenges to criteria 

on key practices for collaboration, organizational transformation, and 

workforce planning that GAO previously identified and to Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government.3,4 We conducted this 

performance audit from July 2012 through September 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions.

BIE’s mission is to provide Indian students quality education opportunities 

starting in early childhood in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural 

and economic well-being. Students attending BIE schools must be 

members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, or descendants of 

members of such tribes, and reside on or near federal Indian 

reservations. BIE’s Indian education programs derive from the federal 

government’s trust relationship with Indian tribes, a responsibility 

established in federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, and executive 

actions.5

 

3

To identify key practices for collaboration, organizational transformation, and workforce 

planning, GAO gathered and analyzed information from a variety of sources including 

interviewing experts, reviewing academic literature, and analyzing prior GAO work. See: 

GAO, Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012); GAO, 

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 

(Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003); and GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: 

Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, 

GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

5

The federal government recognizes Indian tribes as distinct, independent political 

communities that possess certain powers of self-government. Federal recognition confers 

specific legal status on a particular Native American group, establishes a government-togovernment relationship between the United States and the tribe, imposes on the federal 

government a fiduciary trust relationship with the tribe and its members, and imposes 

specific obligations on the federal government to provide benefits and services to the tribe 

and its members.

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

BIE, formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs when it 

was part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was renamed and 

established as a separate bureau within Interior in 2006. Organizationally, 

BIE is under the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, and its 

director reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. 

The BIE director is responsible for the direction and management of 

education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, 

supervision of all program activities, and approval of the expenditure of 

funds for education functions. BIE is composed of a central office in 

Washington, D.C.; a major field service center in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico; 3 associate deputy directors’ offices located regionally (1 in the 

east and 2 in the west); 22 education line offices located on or near Indian 

reservations; and schools in 23 states.6

While BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior, they receive 

annual formula grants from Education, similar to public schools. Like state 

educational agencies that oversee public schools in their respective 

states, BIE administers and monitors the operation of these Education 

grants. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as 

amended, holds recipient schools accountable for improving their 

students’ academic performance, using Education program funds they 

receive through BIE. Specifically, under ESEA, schools must be 

measured to determine whether they are making adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) in meeting standards in math, reading, and science. In 

turn, the performance information must be reported to parents. Interior 

determined that, to measure AYP, each BIE school would use the 

definitions used by the state in which the school was located.

Of the 185 elementary and 

secondary schools BIE administers, 59 are directly operated by BIE (BIEoperated), and 126 are operated by tribes (tribally-operated) through 

federal contracts or grants. BIE provides funding on the same terms to 

tribally-operated schools as it does to BIE-operated schools based on the 

number of students attending the schools, among other factors. A local 

education line office manages the BIE-operated schools, functioning like 

a public school district superintendent’s office. It also provides technical 

assistance to tribally-operated as well as BIE-operated schools.

7

 

6

All of the BIE schools are located in the continental United States. 

7

Interior’s regulation provides that the standards, assessments, and definition of AYP for 

BIE schools are the standards, assessments, and definition of AYP of the states in which 

the BIE schools are located. 25 C.F.R. § 30.104(a).
 

Page 5 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

BIE and its predecessor, the Office of Indian Education Programs, have 

been through a number of restructuring efforts. Before 1999, BIA’s 

regional offices were responsible for most administrative functions for 

Indian schools. In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration

(NAPA) issued a report, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of 

Indian Affairs, which identified management challenges within BIA. The 

report concluded that BIA’s management structure was not adequate to 

operate an effective and efficient agency.8

More recently, in 2011, Indian Affairs commissioned another study—

known as the Bronner report—to evaluate the administrative support 

structure for BIE and BIA. The report, issued in March 2012, found that 

organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not 

coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. The report 

recommended that Indian Affairs adopt a more balanced organizational 

approach to include, among other things, shared responsibility, new 

policies and procedures, better communication, and increased 

decentralization.

The report recommended 

centralization of some administrative functions. According to BIE officials, 

for a brief period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own 

administrative functions. However, in 2004, in response to the NAPA 

study, its administrative functions were centralized under the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M).

9 On July 1, 2013, Indian Affairs implemented an 

administrative structural realignment intended to address the Bronner 

report recommendations.

 

8

National Academy of Public Administration, A Study of Management and Administration: 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (1999). 

9

Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for 

Support Functions (March 2012). 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Students in BIE schools have performed consistently below Indian 

students enrolled in public schools on national assessments administered 

by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) between 

2005 and 2011.10 For example, in 2011, 4th grade estimated average 

reading scores were 22 points lower for BIE students than for Indian 

students attending public schools.11

Figure 1: Fourth Grade Estimated Average Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Students 

in BIE Schools Compared to Indian Students in Public Schools and Non-Indian National Average, 2005 to 2011

For 4th grade mathematics, BIE 

students scored lower, on average, than Indian students attending public 

schools, but the gap was less than for reading scores—14 points in 2011. 

Figure 1 shows the trend in the estimated average 4th grade reading and 

math scores for students in BIE schools as compared to Indian students 

in public schools and the national average for non-Indian students.

 

10Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, 

mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. 

Because NAEP assessments are administered uniformly using the same sets of test 

booklets across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric for all states and 

selected urban districts. NAEP is a project of the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.

11NCES 2012-466.

BIE Students Score 

Consistently Below 

Indian Students in 

Public Schools on 

National Assessments 

and Have Relatively 

Low Graduation Rates
 

Page 7 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Notes: The category “Non-Indian students (National average)” includes students in public, private, 

and Department of Defense schools. All score estimates from NAEP assessments have margins of 

error at the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 9 points or less. 

In 8th grade, BIE students also scored consistently lower, on average, on 

NAEP assessments than Indian students in public schools. However, for 

reading the performance gap was slightly less than it was for 4th grade. 

For example, in 2011, 8th grade estimated average reading scores were 

19 points lower for BIE students than for Indian students attending public 

schools. Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have 

consistently scored lower on average than the national average of nonIndian students in 8th grade on both the math and reading NAEP 

assessments. Figure 2 shows the trend in estimated average 8th grade 

reading and math scores for students in BIE schools compared to Indian 

students in public schools and the national average for non-Indian 

students.

Figure 2: Eighth Grade Estimated Average Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for Students 

in BIE Schools Compared to Indian Students in Public Schools and Non-Indian National Average, 2005 to 2011

Notes: The category “Non-Indian students (National average)” includes students in public, private, 

and Department of Defense schools. All score estimates from NAEP assessments have margins of 

error at the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 9 points or less. 

Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have 

consistently scored lower on average than the national average for non-
 

Page 8 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Indian students in 4th and 8th grades on both the math and reading 

NAEP assessments. Some of the difference in performance levels 

between Indian students and non-Indian students may be explained by 

factors such as poverty and parents’ educational backgrounds. For 

example, in 2011, larger percentages of Indian students were eligible for 

free and reduced-price lunch (an indicator of low family income) in both 

grades 4 and 8 as compared to non-Indian students.12

In states we visited, BIE students also consistently underperformed Indian 

students in public schools on state reading and math assessments in 3rd 

and 7th grade, over the most recent 3-year period for which data are 

available.

In addition, the 

percentage of 8th grade Indian students reporting that at least one parent 

had some education beyond high school was smaller than the 

percentages of Black, White, and Asian students.

13,14 Specifically, in Mississippi and South Dakota, a lower 

percentage of students in BIE schools scored at the proficient level or 

above on 3rd and 7th grade state assessments compared to Indian 

students in public schools.15

 

12Students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch have consistently lower 

average scores on NAEP 4th and 8th grade reading and math assessments than students 

who are not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch.

In Arizona, the difference in the performance 

of students in BIE schools and Indian students in public schools was less 

13We were unable to compare the performance of BIE students across states with the 

performance of Indian students in public schools because each state uses a different 

assessment. For three states we visited—Arizona, Mississippi, and South Dakota—we 

compared the performance of students in BIE schools to the performance of Indian 

students in public schools for school years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. These three 

states together have 82 of the 185 BIE-funded schools. We excluded New Mexico from 

our comparison of student performance because about half the BIE schools located there 

did not take New Mexico state assessments in the school year 2011-2012. 

14We were unable to compare the performance of students in BIE-operated schools with 

that of students in tribally-operated schools nationally because each of the 23 states 

where BIE schools are located administer different assessments.

15In Mississippi and South Dakota, for almost all of the 3rd and 7th grade reading and 

math test results during the 3-year period (school years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12), 

at least 13 percent more of the Indian students in public schools scored at the proficient 

level or above, compared to students in BIE schools.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

marked, with a somewhat lower percentage of students in BIE schools 

scoring at the proficient or above levels.16

Finally, students attending BIE schools had relatively low high school 

graduation rates compared to Indian students enrolled in public schools in 

the 2010-2011 school year. Specifically, the graduation rate for BIE 

students for the 2010-2011 school year was 61 percent—placing BIE 

students in the bottom half among graduation rates for Indian students in 

states where BIE schools are located.17 In these states, the Indian 

student graduation rates ranged from 42 percent to 82 percent.18

 

16In Arizona, for almost all of the 3rd and 7th grade reading and math test results during 

the 3-year period (school years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12), between 1 and 8 percent 

more of the Indian students in public schools scored at the proficient level or above, 

compared to students in BIE schools.

Figure 3 

shows the Indian student graduation rates for BIE and states where BIE 

schools are located.

17Our analysis of graduation rates covered 20 of the 23 states where BIE schools are 

located. At the time of our review, cohort graduation rate data were not available for 2 of 

the 23 states where BIE schools are located, and we excluded data from an additional 

state due to the small number of students in the Indian student subgroup for which the 

graduation rates were calculated.

18These rates are based on the first year of data calculated using a common, rigorous 

measure referred to as regulatory adjusted cohort graduation rates.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Figure 3: Graduation Rates for BIE Students Compared to Graduation Rates for Indian Students in Public Schools in States 

Where BIE Schools Are Located, School Year 2010-2011

Notes: The graduation rates shown for each state are public school students in the subgroup of 

“American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native American” students. The graduation rate shown for BIE is 

for all students in BIE schools. The 20 states shown in the figure are states where BIE schools are 

located that had at least 100 Indian students in the cohort used for the 2010-11 graduation rates. The 

three other states where BIE schools are located either did not have data available or had less than 

100 Indian students in the cohort. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

BIE’s administrative and internal control weaknesses have resulted in 

difficulty assessing the academic progress of its students and AYP for its 

schools as required under ESEA. In addition, BIE has delayed critical 

efforts to collaborate with Education. BIE’s efforts to assess student and 

school performance are not consistent with internal controls standards 

that can help agencies operate more effectively and help ensure 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations.19

BIE officials provided inaccurate guidance to some of its schools about 

which student assessment to administer in the 2011-12 school year, 

resulting in a lack of compliance with federal requirements. In that school 

year, BIE offered its schools in New Mexico the ability to administer an 

assessment20—in lieu of the state assessment—that was not approved by 

Education for use as an accountability tool for determining whether 

schools made AYP under ESEA. Education officials told us they did not 

approve any BIE schools to use assessments other than those required 

by Interior’s regulation.21

 

19Federal agencies are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls to 

achieve their objectives such as enforcing compliance with federal laws and regulations, 

and having relevant, reliable and timely information is a standard element of internal 

control. GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

To determine whether an assessment meets 

ESEA accountability requirements, Education has an external group of 

experts to evaluate the assessment. This evaluation ensures that the 

assessment is aligned with the state academic content and achievement 

standards taught in the classroom and is valid and accessible for use by 

the widest possible range of students—such as students with disabilities 

and students with limited English proficiency. However, BIE did not 

submit a request to Education to review the assessment through this 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

20This assessment was the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of 

Academic Progress. NWEA—a formative assessment which provides information needed 

to adjust teaching and learning strategies—is administered multiple times over the course 

of a school year. In contrast, state assessments are used to measure student learning 

relative to content standards and are administered once at the end of the school year. 

21See 25 C.F.R. § 30.104.

BIE Has Difficulty 

Complying with 

Various Assessment 

Requirements and 

Collaborating with 

Education, but is 

Working to Address 

Certain Challenges

BIE Provided Inaccurate 

and Changing Guidance to 

Schools
 

Page 12 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

process. As a result of BIE’s guidance, 21 of BIE’s 42 schools in New

Mexico administered an alternative assessment that Education was 

unable to use to hold schools accountable for student performance under 

ESEA. 

Further, BIE did not act within the scope of its authority when providing 

this option to schools. Under an Interior regulation, BIE schools are 

generally required to administer the same academic assessments used 

by the 23 respective states where the schools are located.22 While this 

regulation allows BIE schools to use alternative assessments for the 

purposes of ESEA, the Secretaries of Education and Interior must first 

provide approval.23 In addition to not obtaining Education’s approval of 

the assessment, BIE made this critical decision without the appropriate 

level of review by the Secretary of the Interior or his designee. This 

happened because BIE does not have procedures that specify who 

should be involved in making key decisions.24 As a result, BIE offered its 

schools a choice to use an assessment without approval from the 

Secretaries, which does not align with Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government. These standards state that significant events 

should be authorized and executed only by persons acting within the 

scope of their authority. Further, the standards state that internal controls 

and other significant events need to be clearly documented to help 

management with decision making and to help ensure operations are 

carried out as intended. The documentation should appear in 

management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals.25

BIE officials acknowledged that they did not obtain approval from the 

Secretary of Interior to allow schools in New Mexico to use the Northwest 

Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress rather 

than their state assessment as required by an Interior regulation, nor did 

they submit a waiver request to Education to allow them to do so. As a 

result, they acknowledged they did not adhere to the correct process 

 

22See 25 C.F.R. § 30.104.

23See 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(1)(B) and 25 C.F.R. §§ 30.105 and 30.113. 

24Moreover, the relevant Interior regulation states that the tribe or school board must 

request authorization to use an alternative assessment and that did not occur in this case.

25GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

when providing schools in New Mexico the option of which assessment 

they could administer.

BIE also provided changing directions to its schools about what 

assessments they could use to assess students’ academic progress in 

the 2012-13 school year to comply with ESEA. For the 2012-13 school 

year, BIE school officials in Arizona, Mississippi, and South Dakota said 

that BIE directed them to administer the alternative assessment it allowed 

the BIE schools in New Mexico to take during the prior school year, 

instead of their respective state assessments. However, in late 

September 2012, BIE directed them to administer both their state 

assessment and the alternative assessment. As a result, some BIE 

schools, such as those in Arizona, experienced delays in obtaining 

materials for the state assessment. Further, school officials in Arizona, 

Mississippi, and South Dakota were under the impression that their 

schools would administer the alternative assessment used in New Mexico 

instead of their respective state assessments. Without clear decisionmaking procedures, BIE has not provided schools consistent guidance to 

help them develop strategies to inform instruction.

BIE did not notify schools of their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year

before the start of the 2012-13 school year. Specifically, BIE did not notify 

its schools of their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year until April and 

May 2013—over 6 months after the school year typically begins.26

According to Education officials, the impact of schools not knowing 

whether they made AYP depends on their performance the previous year. 

Some BIE and school officials we spoke with expressed concern that 

without this information on whether they made AYP they were unable to 

comply with ESEA and notify parents in a timely manner of the schools’ 

performance. Schools receiving ESEA Title I Part A funds face specific 

consequences depending on how many years they do not make AYP.27

 

26As of July 2013, BIE had not notified its schools in New Mexico of their AYP status 

because most schools submitted results from an assessment other than the required state 

assessment. 

Table 1 shows the remedial actions for BIE Title I Part A for schools that 

do not make AYP. Such actions may include replacing school staff, 

27 According to BIE officials, all BIE schools receive Title I funds from Education.

BIE Did Not Inform 

Schools about Adequate 

Yearly Progress in a Timely 

Manner
 

Page 14 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

implementing new curricula, or appointing outside experts to advise 

schools.

Table 1: Remedial Actions for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Title I Part A 

Schools That Do Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

AYP 

School status in the next 

year 

Remedial actions for BIE Title I 

schools 

First year missed Not applicable Not applicable

Second year missed Needs improvement (first 

year of improvement) 

Required to develop a school 

improvement plan

Third year missed Needs improvement (second 

year of improvement) 

School still covered by school 

improvement plan

Fourth year missed Corrective action (third year 

of improvement) 

Implement certain corrective 

actions

Fifth year missed Planning for restructuring 

(fourth year of improvement) 

Plan for a change in governance

Sixth year missed Implementation of 

restructuring (fifth year of 

improvement) 

Implement change in governance

Seventh year missed 

(and beyond) 

Restructuring Continue implementation of the 

change in governance until AYP 

is met for 2 consecutive years 

Source: GAO analysis of ESEA and Interior regulations. 

Federal internal control standards provide that information should be 

recorded and communicated to management and others who need it in a 

form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their internal 

control and other responsibilities. For an entity to run and control its 

operations, it must have relevant, reliable, and timely communications.28

According to BIE officials, many of their challenges informing schools of 

their AYP status in a timely manner stem from having to determine the 

performance scores and AYP status for schools in 23 different states, 

each with its own accountability system. In 2008, we reported that BIE 

officials told us that, given the work involved, it was challenging to 

Without such timely communication, BIE and school officials were unable 

to make informed decisions about additional actions that might be needed 

to support educational reforms.

 

28GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

calculate and report proficiency levels to schools before the start of the 

subsequent school year.29 Further complicating their efforts, BIE officials 

noted that state calculations of AYP are not crafted with BIE schools in

mind. BIE officials cited Arizona as an example. According to these 

officials, based on Arizona’s formula for calculating AYP, BIE schools 

typically do not have enough students in each grade to be able to use the 

state’s formula. Additionally, BIE officials said that the varied locations of 

BIE schools make it difficult to compare academic achievement across 

states, address student achievement issues, and provide technical 

assistance. BIE officials told us they found it especially challenging in 

calculating AYP results for the 2011-12 school year because Education 

granted waivers to several states—including states where BIE schools 

are located—that allowed these states to change the performance targets 

used to assess their schools’ yearly progress (accountability systems).30

BIE officials plan to address their challenges by transitioning to a unified 

accountability system which uses the same indicators to determine AYP 

for all BIE schools. To accomplish this, Interior must first change its 

regulation that generally requires BIE schools to use the assessments of 

the states in which they are located. Interior has begun the process for 

making this change, but the process could take several months to a year, 

according to a BIE official. This process requires Interior to undertake a 

negotiated rulemaking, which includes the formation of a negotiated 

rulemaking committee with members from the federal government and 

tribes served by BIE schools. In January 2013, Interior announced its 

intent to establish such a committee (which will recommend specific 

changes to the regulation) and invited tribes to nominate prospective 

members.

For example, BIE had developed a method for comparing academic 

achievement across states, but is no longer able to use this method to 

calculate achievement across states because of these Education waivers.

 

29GAO, Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help 

Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems, GAO-08-679 

(Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2008).

30The Department of Education invited each state educational agency to request flexibility 

regarding specific requirements of ESEA, as amended, in exchange for rigorous and 

comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all 

students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction. 

Bureau of Indian Education, ESEA Flexibility Request for Window 3, Submitted to the 

Department of Education June 7, 2012. OMB-1810-0581.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

In December 2012, the Departments of the Interior and Education 

established a memorandum of understanding (MOU), required by an 

Executive Order.31

BIE officials in the field who provide technical assistance to schools, as 

well as Education officials, noted that some tribally-operated schools 

need to improve their administrative and technical capacity to comply with 

requirements for schools receiving Education grants. Such grants include 

those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that 

support services to students with disabilities, and ESEA. For example, a 

senior BIE official said the local education line offices she is responsible 

for supervising frequently receive questions from tribally-operated school 

administrators about education laws and regulations. The official 

commented that this situation is particularly problematic as there is 

frequent turnover among some tribal school administrators in her region, 

so the local education line offices must educate new administrators on 

federal education requirements whenever a change in leadership occurs. 

BIE officials told us that they face challenges holding some triballyoperated schools accountable for compliance with federal education laws 

and regulations because those schools are under the purview of the 

tribes. BIE’s past problems holding its schools accountable led Education 

to impose an ongoing corrective action plan on BIE to improve its schools’ 

compliance with IDEA and ESEA requirements.

The MOU is to, among other things, take advantage of 

both Departments’ expertise, resources, and facilities and address how 

the Departments will collaborate. The MOU created a BIE-Education 

Committee to facilitate communication between the two agencies. Among 

other goals, the BIE-Education Committee seeks to improve the 

academic performance of Indian students. The Committee is charged with 

exploring ways to promote more effective school reform efforts and build 

support for BIE’s efforts to monitor and enforce compliance with 

Education program requirements for which schools receive funding, 

particularly tribally-operated schools. The Committee is also to examine 

options to support BIE responsibilities, including the option of having 

Education establish conditions on the funding it provides to BIE consistent 

with applicable laws.

32

 

31See Executive Order 13592, Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational 

Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities, signed by the President 

on December 2, 2011.

As a part of this plan, 

32This plan is referred to as the Program Improvement and Accountability Plan.

Critical BIE and Education 

Collaborative Efforts Have 

Been Delayed
 

Page 17 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

BIE is required to submit quarterly progress reports to Education on how 

it is implementing the plan, and there are special conditions on its IDEA 

funding, such as additional documentation requirements. Although BIE 

officials can provide information to tribally-operated schools about 

Education grant requirements, they stated that unlike with BIE-operated 

schools, it is difficult to compel these schools to follow the requirements.

The BIE-Education Committee has not yet begun grappling with issues 

such as improving BIE schools’ services for students or holding schools 

accountable for Education funding requirements because Interior has not 

designated officials to serve on the committee. Consequently, as of mid 

July 2013 the Committee had not met although the MOU calls for it to 

meet at least once every three months. According to Education officials, 

the committee is expected to meet some time in August 2013. In the 

absence of committee meetings, the activities outlined in the MOU have 

not yet been undertaken, such as exploring ways to help BIE’s ability to 

monitor and enforce compliance with Education grant programs. We have 

previously concluded that collaboration can benefit from formal written 

agreements, like an MOU, but ineffective implementation of an MOU may 

contribute to the sporadic and limited amount of collaboration between

agencies.33

Challenges such as a fragmented administrative structure and frequent 

turnover in leadership have prompted Indian Affairs to undergo an 

administrative structural realignment. DAS-M staff, who provide 

administrative services, have been detailed to BIA’s regional offices and 

now report to BIA regional directors. The realignment is intended to 

improve efficiency in the delivery of services to BIE, among others. 

However, the process Indian Affairs followed to develop the realignment, 

and its lack of a strategic plan and workforce analysis, run counter to key 

practices for organizational transformations, as well as principals for 

strategic workforce planning.

Until July 2013, Indian Affairs’ DAS-M was responsible for BIE’s 

administrative functions, including handling school contracting needs, 

 

33GAO, Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012). 

Poor Management 

and Communication 

Hinder Support for 

BIE Operations

BIE Faces Fragmented 

Administrative Services
 

Page 18 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

facilities, and budget issues. However, as we noted in our February 2013 

testimony, poor communication, incompatible procedures and a lack of 

clear roles for BIE and DAS-M staff, and leadership turnover have 

hampered efforts to improve Indian education.34

According to school officials we interviewed, communication between 

Indian Affairs’ leadership and BIE is poor, resulting in confusion about 

policies and procedures. Working relations between BIE and DAS-M’s 

leadership are informal and sporadic, and BIE officials reported having 

difficulty obtaining timely updates from DAS-M on its responses to 

requests for services from schools. In addition, there is a lack of 

communication between Indian Affairs’ leadership and schools. For 

example, a high-ranking BIE official noted there are no clear procedures 

regarding school maintenance and facilities matters and agreed it is 

confusing for schools not to have a process to follow when requesting 

assistance concerning these matters. Additionally, BIE and school 

officials in all four states we visited reported that they were unable to 

obtain definitive answers to policy or administrative questions from BIE 

leadership in Washington D.C. and Albuquerque. For example, school 

officials in one state we visited reported that they requested information 

from BIE’s Albuquerque office in the 2012-13 school year about the 

amount of IDEA funds they were due to receive. The Albuquerque office 

subsequently provided them three different dollar amounts. The school 

officials were eventually able to obtain the correct amount of funding from 

their local education line office. Similarly, BIE and school officials in three 

states reported that they often do not receive responses from BIE’s 

Washington D.C. and Albuquerque offices to questions they pose via 

email or phone. Further, one BIE official stated that meetings with BIE 

leadership are venues for conveying information from management to the 

field, rather than opportunities for a two-way dialogue.

BIE schools have encountered delays in contracting due to DAS-M’s lack 

of knowledge about the needs of schools and the laws and regulations 

regarding educational institutions. BIE does not have a specific 

contracting team assigned to it, although the contracting needs of schools 

are different than those of a federal agency. Purchasing items for schools 

in a timely manner, for instance, is critical to ensure that all supplies and 

 

34GAO, Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to Improve 

Indian Education, GAO-13-342T (Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012). 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

textbooks are delivered before the start of the school year. However, 

DAS-M’s procurement process has caused delays in textbook delivery to 

some schools. In another instance, DAS-M processes led to the 

termination of a contract held by an experienced speech therapist serving 

a BIE school in favor of a less expensive contract with another therapist. 

However, the new therapist was unable to travel to the schools being 

served to provide therapy to students. As a result, the schools were 

unable to implement students’ individualized education programs in the 

timeframe required by IDEA. In addition, although BIE accounts for 

approximately 34 percent of Indian Affairs’ budget, several BIE officials 

reported that improving student performance is often overshadowed by 

other Indian Affairs priorities. DAS-M staff’s focus on supporting other 

offices within BIA, such as the Office of Trust Services, hinders staff from 

seeking and acquiring expertise in education issues.

Leadership turnover in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, DAS-M, and BIE has exacerbated the various challenges created 

by administrative fragmentation. For instance, the tenure of acting and 

permanent assistant secretaries in Indian Affairs has ranged from 16 days 

to 3 years, and the post was vacant from August 2003 through February 

2004 (see fig. 4). In previous reports about other agencies, we found that 

frequent changes in leadership may complicate efforts to improve student 

achievement,35 and that lack of leadership negatively affects an 

organization’s ability to function effectively and to sustain focus on key 

initiatives.36

 

35GAO, District of Columbia Public Schools: Important Steps Taken to Continue Reform 

Efforts, But Enhanced Planning Could Improve Implementation and Sustainability, 

GAO-09-619 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009).

36GAO, Recovering Servicemembers and Veterans: Sustained Leadership Attention and 

Systematic Oversight Needed to Resolve Persistent Problems Affecting Care and 

Benefits, GAO-13-5 (Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2012) and GAO, Architect of the 

Capitol: Committed, Sustained Leadership Needed to Continue Progress, GAO-07-407 

(Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2007).
 

Page 20 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Figure 4: Leadership of Offices that Support BIE Schools

a

Two Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs served in an acting capacity in January 2001. 

b

The office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management was created in January 2003. 

c

Before 2006, the Office of Indian Education Programs fulfilled the responsibilities of the current BIE. 

Indian Affairs underwent an administrative structural realignment on July 

1, 2013, and DAS-M administrative staff responsible for BIE 

administrative functions have been detailed to BIA’s regional offices 

based on their current geographical duty station. These DAS-M staff will 

now be reporting to BIA regional directors, who will have authority over 

most of BIE’s administrative functions, including acquisitions, budget, 

facilities management, financial management, and property. DAS-M will 

continue to be responsible for information technology and human 

resource functions. In addition, DAS-M will continue its responsibilities 

overseeing and monitoring BIE activities, including updating its policies 

and procedures and providing technical assistance to administrative staff 

in the field.

Indian Affairs’ recent realignment—approved by the cognizant 

congressional committees in late May 2013—is intended to improve 

efficiency in the delivery of services to Indian Affairs stakeholders, 

including BIE schools. According to information we received from Indian 

Affairs in June 2013, the provision of administrative functions by BIA 

regional offices would be governed by service-level agreements 

specifying the services provided to BIE and the responsible parties based 

on BIE’s needs. However, although Indian Affairs officials told us these 

agreements would be signed and in place before the realignment took 

effect, the agreements were not in place as of late July 2013.

Indian Affairs’ 

Realignment May Not 

Adequately Address Needs 

of BIE and Its Schools
 

Page 21 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

The process Indian Affairs followed to develop the realignment plan is 

unclear and Indian Affairs did not consult BIE officials on the specific 

changes outlined in the realignment request it submitted to Congress. For 

example, it did not consult with BIE on transferring the responsibilities for 

most of BIE’s administrative functions to BIA regional offices. Additionally, 

although Indian Affairs informed Congress that the realignment would be 

overseen by an Executive Implementation Oversight Board, several 

senior BIE officials, including an acting BIE Director, reported that they 

were not asked for input into the new plan. Indian Affairs officials 

acknowledged that their office had not consulted with BIE officials on 

potential organizational changes since before the Bronner report was 

issued in March 2012. The Bronner report recommended that Indian 

Affairs, among other things, develop new policies and procedures and 

increase decentralization,37 but does not address the specific changes 

entailed in the realignment. Key practices for organizational 

transformation include employee involvement in organizational change to 

help create the opportunity to increase employees’ understanding and 

acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and gain ownership 

for new policies and procedures. Such involvement also allows 

employees to share their experiences and shape policies.38

In addition to implementing its realignment without seeking input from key 

stakeholders, Indian Affairs’ leadership does not appear to have broadly 

communicated information about the realignment to BIE schools or BIE 

officials in the field. For example, although the realignment was already in 

effect, two BIE school administrators and the director of a BIE education 

line office with responsibility for a large number of schools told us on July 

8, 2013 that they had no knowledge of the realignment. Another BIE 

school administrator said she had just recently found out about it. As a 

result, these school administrators were unaware that BIA regional 

In addition, 

while Indian Affairs conducted tribal consultations in April and May 2012 

on the findings of the Bronner report, Indian Affairs did not formally 

consult with tribes on the specific changes entailed in the realignment 

before it took effect on July 1, 2013. Indian Affairs’ main method of 

obtaining information from tribes is through tribal consultations.

 

37Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for 

Support Functions (March 2012). 

38GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2003).
 

Page 22 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

offices, rather than DAS-M, would be responsible for carrying out their 

administrative functions, including acquisitions, budget, and financial 

management. This information is important to school administrators to 

have because they have experienced problems with administrative 

services, such as acquisition of textbooks. According to one high-ranking 

BIE official, improvements under the realignment are not likely, in part, 

because there is little communication between BIE and BIA regional office 

officials. These reactions may stem from the insufficient involvement of 

BIE and school officials in planning for the realignment and could 

undermine support for the change.

Indian Affairs officials acknowledged that the office has not established a 

strategic plan with specific goals and measures for itself or for BIE or a 

strategy for communicating with stakeholders. Key practices for 

organizational transformation suggest that effective implementation of a 

results-oriented framework, such as a strategic plan, requires agencies to 

clearly establish performance goals for which they will be held 

accountable, measure progress towards those goals, determine 

strategies and resources to effectively accomplish the goals, and use 

performance information to make the decisions necessary to improve 

performance. In addition, communicating information early and often 

helps to build an understanding of the purpose of planned changes and 

builds trust among employees and stakeholders.39 Although Interior as a 

whole has a strategic plan, BIE’s inclusion in the Interior plan consists of 

two performance measures to improve Indian education,40

Key practices for organizational transformation also suggest that 

performance goals and measures are an important part of the strategic 

but it does not 

detail how BIE will achieve these goals. Indian Affairs and BIE officials 

were unable to provide us with a more specific plan articulating the 

strategies they will use to achieve BIE’s mission of improving education 

for Indian students. BIE officials commented that a strategic plan would 

help BIE leadership and staff pursue goals in a consistent manner and 

collaborate to achieve them.

 

39GAO-03-669. 

40The Interior 2011-2016 strategic plan includes BIE as part of “Goal #1: Meet Our Trust, 

Treaty, and Other Responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives.” Under the 

plan, BIE is to strengthen Indian education as measured by (1) the percent of BIE schools 

achieving AYP (or comparable measure) and (2) the percent of BIE school facilities in 

acceptable condition as measured by the Facilities Condition Index.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

planning process. Specifically, performance measures allow an 

organization to demonstrate its progress toward meeting performance 

goals. Performance goals and measures are part of a broader system 

that creates a “line of sight” showing how team, unit, and individual 

performance can contribute to overall organizational results.41 Interior’s 

fiscal year 2008 Performance and Accountability Report lists two 

performance measures that relate to BIE school construction42

According to key principles for workforce planning, another element of an 

effective strategic plan is a clear strategy for maintaining and improving 

an agency’s workforce.

and nine 

measures for BIE relating to individual student performance, cost per 

student, and teacher qualifications. However, there are no measures for 

how internal departments, such as DAS-M and BIA, are fulfilling their 

responsibilities to provide administrative and facilities support to BIE 

schools. In a response to questions from Congress, Interior stated that its 

realignment plan requires the development and execution of performance 

measures for the delivery of administrative support functions, but it is not 

yet clear what specific measures will be adopted because the service 

level agreements between BIE and BIA regional offices have not yet been 

negotiated. Without such performance measures, BIE and BIA staff 

cannot be held accountable for meeting agency goals.

43 Key principles for effective strategic workforce 

planning include: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program 

with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and (2) 

developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining 

staff to achieve programmatic goals.44

 

41

The appropriate geographic and 

organizational deployment of employees can further support 

organizational goals and strategies. Effective deployment strategies can 

GAO-03-669. 

42The report includes performance measures for (1) percentage of replacement schools 

and major improvement and repair projects constructed within 2 years of commencement 

of the project; and (2) percent of BIE school facilities in acceptable condition, as measured 

by the Facilities Condition Index. 

43GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003).

44GAO-04-39. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

enable an organization to have the right people, with the right skills, doing 

the right jobs, in the right place, at the right time.45

While Indian Affairs’ most current workforce plan is for 2008-2013, it was 

based on workforce data from fiscal years 2003-2007. Therefore, the data 

in the plan would not reflect recent changes in the workforce or current 

workforce needs. As a result, Indian Affairs’ recent realignment may result 

in an imbalance in BIA regions’ workload in supporting BIE schools. For 

example, under the realignment, 11 of the 12 BIA regional directors are 

responsible for providing administrative support to BIE schools in their 

regions.46

Table 2: BIE Schools in Each BIA Region with Schools, Excluding Dormitories

However, BIE schools are unevenly distributed among the 11 

BIA regions, with the regions containing between 2 and 65 schools (see 

table 2). Therefore, it is important to ensure that each BIA regional office 

has an appropriate number of staff who are familiar with education laws 

and regulations and school-related needs to be prepared to support the 

schools in that region.

BIA Region

BIE-operated 

schools

Tribally-operated 

schools Total schools

Eastern 0 16 16

Eastern Oklahoma 0 4 4 

Great Plains 8 25 33

Midwest 0 11 11

Navajo 31 34 65

Northwest 1 9 10

Pacific 1 3 4 

Rocky Mountain 1 4 5 

Southern Plains 1 1 2 

Southwest 8 8 16

Western 8 11 19

Total 59 126 185 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Interior.

 

45GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, 

D.C.: March 15, 2002), 21.

46BIA’s Alaska region does not have any BIE schools.
 

Page 25 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

In addition, DAS-M records show that almost 250 employees in BIE and 

BIA left the agency in recent months using the Voluntary Early Retirement 

Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments offered by 

Interior, which agency officials told us were prompted by the 

sequestration.47 Indian Affairs recent realignment as well as its employee 

early-out and buy-out efforts in the first half of 2013 highlights the 

importance of workforce planning. Staff departures can affect 

organizational capacity, and in this instance, may affect implementation of 

the realignment. Current information on attrition rates and geographic and 

demographic trends could be used to estimate the number of employees 

with specific skills and competencies and the bureau’s staffing needs 

going forward.48

Further, some tribes are planning to convert BIE-operated schools to 

tribally-operated schools in the future. For example, the Navajo Nation 

intends to convert its remaining 31 BIE-operated schools to triballyoperated schools. Should this occur, only 15 percent of BIE schools 

would remain BIE-operated. While such a shift would decrease BIE’s 

administrative responsibilities, BIE’s oversight, monitoring and technical 

assistance responsibilities would remain. We have previously reported 

that it is essential that agencies determine the skills and competencies 

that are critical to achieving their missions and goals, especially when 

factors change the environment within which agencies operate.

Further, a revised workforce plan could focus on the 

strategic deployment of staff with educational expertise to regions with a 

large number of BIE schools and education-specific training for DAS-M 

and BIA staff with responsibilities in support of Indian education.

The federal government, through the Department of the Interior, has a 

trust responsibility for the education of Indian students. However, the 

extent to which Interior is effectively meeting its responsibilities is 

 

47Sequestration is the cancellation of budgetary resources under a presidential order. 

GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2005). On March 1, 2013, the President ordered a 

sequestration of $85 billion of discretionary appropriations and direct spending, consistent 

with section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as 

amended. 2 U.S.C. § 901a. OMB calculated that the sequestration required a 5.0 percent 

reduction in nonexempt discretionary appropriations and a 5.1 percent reduction to 

nonexempt direct spending programs. OMB, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint 

Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013 (March 1, 2013).

48 GAO-04-39. 

Conclusions
 

Page 26 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

questionable considering students’ relatively poor academic performance 

and BIE’s myriad administrative and management challenges. BIE lacks 

clear procedures for decision-making, which has resulted in it acting 

outside the scope of its authority, undermining school officials’ ability to 

assess student performance under ESEA and potentially affecting their 

compliance with federal regulations. Further, while Indian Affairs has 

reported the benchmark for the quality of education BIE provides to its 

students is whether its schools meet AYP goals, BIE’s ongoing 

challenges calculating AYP and reporting this information to schools may 

exacerbate poor school performance. Also, given the significant 

challenges BIE and Indian schools face in improving student academic 

performance, it is critical that Interior leverage existing resources and 

opportunities to improve communication. For example, as of late July 

2013, Interior had not yet appointed members to the BIE-Education 

Committee. Unless BIE collaborates with partner agencies and provides 

schools information that affects student instruction in a timely and 

consistent manner, it will be difficult for BIE to be well-positioned to 

improve student academic performance in the future.

While Indian Affairs has undertaken another realignment of its 

administrative functions, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the changes 

will result in improved services for BIE and schools. For instance, Indian 

Affairs implemented the realignment without seeking input from a broad 

range of stakeholders. Further, it did not develop a strategic plan with 

specific goals and measures for itself or BIE or strategies to achieve 

these goals. In addition, it has not updated its workforce plan or assessed 

Indian Affairs’ realignment and its impact on BIE to ensure it has the right 

people in place with the right skills to effectively meet the needs of BIE 

schools. In addition, BIE did not develop a strategy for communicating 

key decisions to stakeholders, including schools. Rather than contribute 

to improved administrative functions, the lack of planning and 

communication efforts may ultimately undermine them. Therefore, 

undertaking these steps as well as developing a comprehensive, 

systematic approach to providing technical assistance would help 

improve school officials’ administrative capacity and technical expertise, 

especially related to BIE compliance with Education requirements.

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant 

Secretary-Indian Affairs to take the following five actions:

• Develop and implement decision-making procedures for BIE that 

specify who should be involved in the decision-making process for key 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 27 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

decisions that affect BIE and its schools to ensure that BIE has 

effective management controls, is accountable for the use of federal 

funds, and comports with federal laws and regulations. Such 

procedures should be clearly documented in management directives, 

administrative policies, or operating manuals.

• Develop a communication strategy for BIE to inform its schools and 

key stakeholders of critical developments that impact instruction in a 

timely and consistent manner to ensure that BIE school officials 

receive information that is important for the operation of their schools.

• Appoint permanent members to the BIE-Education committee and 

ensure that the committee meets quarterly as required by the MOU to 

improve collaboration between BIE and Education and address the 

challenges that Indian schools face in improving student performance.

• Develop a strategic plan that includes detailed goals and strategies for 

BIE and for those offices that support BIE’s mission, including BIA, to 

help Indian Affairs effectively implement its realignment. Development 

of the strategic plan should incorporate feedback from BIE officials 

and other key stakeholders. To gather stakeholder input, we 

recommend that the plan include a comprehensive communications 

strategy to improve communication within Indian Affairs and between 

Indian Affairs and BIE staff.

• Revise its strategic workforce plan to ensure that employees providing 

administrative support to BIE have the requisite knowledge and skills 

to help BIE achieve its mission and are placed in the appropriate 

offices to ensure that regions with a large number of BIE schools have 

sufficient support.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Interior and 

Education for review and comment. Education chose not to provide 

comments. Interior’s comments are reproduced in appendix I.

Interior concurred with all of our recommendations. Interior stated that the 

report’s findings and recommendations will aid its efforts to move forward 

with improving the quality of education in Indian country. For example, 

Interior noted that it is obtaining advice from Education and other subjectmatter experts on how to improve BIE’s structure and systems. 

Interior agreed with our recommendation about the need to develop and 

implement procedures for key decisions affecting BIE to ensure it has 

effective management controls and makes decisions that comport with 

federal laws and regulations. Interior said that as part of Indian Affairs’ 

realignment, it will need to refine and redefine some of the roles and 

responsibilities of BIE and BIA and noted it is currently finalizing a plan 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 28 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

driven by these changes. To reflect changes in the roles of BIE and BIA 

as a result of the realignment, Interior acknowledged the importance of 

updating its policy documents, such as departmental manuals. In addition 

to these actions, we believe it is important for Interior to review existing 

policies to understand what additional controls are needed to ensure BIE 

activities comply with relevant laws and regulations.

Interior agreed with our recommendation to develop a communication 

strategy. Interior said that BIE should develop and follow set 

communications protocols within its schools and field offices to ensure 

that each entity understands its roles and responsibilities. In response to 

our recommendation to appoint permanent members to the BIEEducation Committee, Interior stated that it had appointed members to 

the Committee in late July 2013 and that the first Committee meeting was 

held in mid-August 2013. As Interior and Education move forward with 

the Committee, we believe it is important to ensure that it meets on a 

regular basis and that the Departments evaluate and monitor the extent to 

which it is achieving its stated goals. 

In response to our recommendation that BIE develop a strategic plan, 

Interior stated that it has established a committee—composed of key 

Indian Affairs offices—to develop a comprehensive communication plan 

for BIE. Interior plans to seek input from key stakeholders on the plan, 

including the States and tribal Departments of Education. In addition 

these actions, we believe it is important that this plan include specific 

goals and measures for Indian Affairs and BIE that align to BIE’s mission 

of improving the quality of Indian students’ education. 

Lastly, in response to our recommendation on the need for strategic 

workforce planning, Interior stated it had completed a workforce plan that 

served as the foundation for the current Indian Affairs’ realignment. 

However, the workforce plan was based on workforce data from fiscal 

years 2003-2007 and would not reflect recent changes in the workforce or 

current workforce needs. As a result, we believe it is important to revise 

the strategic workforce plan to reflect current staffing needs. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional 

committees, the Secretaries of Interior and Education, and other 

interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 

GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

George A. Scott, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

the Interior

Page 30 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

the Interior

Page 31 GAO-13-774 Indian Education
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

the Interior

Page 32 GAO-13-774 Indian Education
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

the Interior

Page 33 GAO-13-774 Indian Education
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements

Page 34 GAO-13-774 Indian Education

George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Sirois (Assistant 

Director), Ramona L. Burton, Sheranda Campbell, Rachel Miriam Hill, 

and Matthew Saradjian made key contributions to this report. James E. 

Bennett, Holly A. Dye, Alexander G. Galuten, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean L. 

McSween, Kathy Peyman, Vernette G. Shaw, and Sarah E. Veale 

provided support.

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(131191)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.