Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems
Published: 2008-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires states and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal of 100 percent academic proficiency. To address tribes' needs for cultural preservation, NCLBA allows tribal groups to waive all or part of BIE's definition of AYP and propose an alternative, with technical assistance from BIE and the Department of Education, if requested. GAO is providing information on the extent of (1) BIE schools' adoption of BIE's definition of AYP; (2) tribal groups' pursuit of alternatives and their reasons as well as reasons other tribal groups have not done so; and (3) federal assistance to tribal groups developing alternatives. To obtain this information, GAO interviewed tribal groups, federal officials, and state education officials; conducted site visits to BIE schools; and reviewed laws, regulations, and other relevant documents.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Although almost all of the 174 BIE schools have officially adopted BIE's definition of AYP--the definition of AYP of the state where the school is located--BIE had not yet completed memoranda of understanding (MOU) to delineate BIE and state responsibilities concerning BIE schools' access to the states' assessment systems for 12 of the 23 states with BIE schools. Without MOUs, states could change their policies regarding BIE schools' access to assessments and scoring services. Officials from the Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium, and the Miccosukee Tribe have begun to develop alternatives to state AYP definitions, in part to make standards and assessments reflect their culture, while officials of other tribal groups have cited various reasons for not developing alternatives. The three tribal groups developing alternatives, representing about 44 percent of the 48,000 BIE students, have requested technical assistance in developing their alternatives. Other tribal officials cited a desire to maintain compatibility with public schools and/or cited challenges, such as a lack of expertise, as reasons not to pursue alternatives. The three tribal groups pursuing alternatives reported a lack of federal guidance and communication, although they have recently received some initial technical assistance from BIE and Education officials. These tribal groups reported receiving little guidance from BIE and difficulties in communicating with BIE because the Bureau did not always have internal response timelines or meet the ones it had. Moreover, BIE education line officers--the primary points of contact for information on the alternative provision--generally indicated that they had received no guidance or training on the provision. During the course of this review, BIE and Education officials began offering technical assistance to the tribal groups working to developalternatives

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The 174 schools funded by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior)  Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are required to measure their students’  academic progress, as are public schools across the country. However,  some Indian education experts express the view that the standards,  assessments, and measures of achievement designed for particular states’  public school students may not always address the unique needs of BIE  schools and the 48,000 Indian students they serve in 23 states. The  Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended and  reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), authorizes  federal aid to state and local education agencies, including BIE, for the  education of disadvantaged students. As a condition for receiving grants  under Title I-A of the act, states and BIE are accountable for the academic  achievement of students in all public and BIE schools, respectively.  Specifically, NCLBA requires that states and BIE develop academic  content and student achievement standards; measure student proficiency  in math, reading, and science with assessments aligned to these standards;  and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress  (AYP) toward meeting the goal that all students will meet or exceed the  state’s proficient level of academic achievement on the state assessments  by 2014. Recognizing that students at BIE schools may have unique needs  and special circumstances, NCLBA provides for tribal governments or  tribal school boards to waive all or part of BIE’s definition of AYP and  propose an alternative.
As required by NCLBA, BIE established a definition of AYP for BIE-funded  schools through the process of negotiated rulemaking, which involved  federal and tribal officials. BIE issued regulations in 2005 defining  adequate yearly progress for the BIE-funded schools as that of the state in  which the school is located. BIE has used agreements, or memoranda of  understanding (MOU), with the states to delineate the terms of accessing  state assessments and scoring arrangements. BIE’s regulations provide a  framework for tribal governments or tribal school boards—collectively  referred to as tribal groups throughout this report—to waive all or part of  the state’s definition of AYP, content standards, and assessments, and  propose an alternative definition. Such alternatives are subject to the  approval of the Secretaries of the Interior and Education. Upon request,  BIE is required to provide technical assistance—for which it has access to  federal funds designated to assist with assessment-related activities—to  tribal groups that seek to develop an alternative definition of AYP. An  agreement is in place between the Department of Education (Education)  and Interior governing the approval of alternatives. In this engagement, we  are providing information on the extent to which: (1) BIE schools have  adopted state definitions of AYP, content standards, and assessments; (2)  tribal groups have sought alternatives and their reasons as well as the  reasons other tribal groups have not done so; and (3) the federal  government has assisted the tribal groups developing alternatives.
To obtain information to address our research objectives, we conducted  site visits to BIE schools, reviews of relevant documents and laws, and  interviews with Indian associations and cognizant officials from BIE,  Education, tribal groups and BIE schools, and state departments of  education. We visited seven states—Arizona, California, Florida,  Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington, and interviewed  officials from 21 BIE schools across those states. We selected the schools  to provide perspectives from several tribes across the nation. The states  we visited collectively account for 133 of the 174 BIE schools and a  majority of BIE students. We also interviewed state education officials  from those seven states.
To determine the extent to which tribal groups have adopted state  definitions of AYP, content standards, and assessments, we reviewed BIE  documentation, including existing MOUs, and interviewed state education  officials from the seven states and BIE officials, including all 21 BIE  education line officers (ELO), who serve a role analogous to that of a  school district superintendent. To determine the extent to which tribal  groups have sought or adopted alternatives, the nature of the alternatives,  the rationale for seeking them, and the challenges the tribal groups faced,  we interviewed Indian education associations, BIE’s ELOs, as well as  officials representing those tribal groups that had proposed using some  alternative to a state definition of AYP, content standards, or assessments.  In addition, we spoke with officials representing tribal groups that had  neither administered their state’s assessment nor proposed an alternative.  We also interviewed officials of one tribal group that indicated its intent to  continue to use the state’s framework for AYP. We interviewed officials  from the Navajo Nation, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,  Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Oceti  Sakowin Education Consortium (OSEC), Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians,  as well as officials from the BIE off-reservation boarding school in  California and the eight BIE-funded schools in Washington State, which  serve students from multiple tribes. While our focus was on the standards,  assessments, and definitions of AYP tribal groups had adopted, we also  collected some information through our interviews on the extent to which  the adopted standards, assessments, and definitions of AYP had been  implemented—for example, the extent to which standards had been  incorporated into schools’ curricula. To assess the federal role in  providing assistance, we interviewed officials of the schools we visited as  well as the BIE education line officers and reviewed documentation of  guidance provided by BIE. In addition, we conducted interviews with  officials from Education and Interior and reviewed relevant federal laws  and regulations. We conducted our work from June 2007 to June 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Bureau of Indian Education
paragraphs: The federal government established education provisions for American  Indians through treaties dating back to the late 1700s. Since the early  1800s the federal government has funded schools to educate American  Indians, and Interior’s BIE currently administers this school system.  These federally funded schools were established in order to provide  educational opportunities for American Indian children who largely live in  remote areas.
Today, an estimated 10 percent of American Indian children attend the  174 schools and 12 dormitories that receive funding from the Department  of the Interior’s BIE. Although these schools are located in 23 states across  the nation (see fig. 1), the majority of BIE students (83 percent) attend BIE  schools in 6 states—Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota,  South Dakota, and Washington. According to BIE, in the 2006-07 school  year, educational opportunities were provided to approximately 48,000  students in these schools located across 63 reservations. According to BIE,  American Indian students enrolled in the BIE-funded schools represent  228 tribes, but the majority of students belong to a small number of  tribes.
The primary mission of BIE schools is to provide quality educational  opportunities that are compatible with tribes’ cultural and economic well- being and their wide diversity as distinct cultural and government entities.  To accomplish its mission, BIE’s elementary and secondary school system  is multifaceted, with schools located in a variety of settings, including  rural, town, suburban, and urban areas. However, the schools are located  primarily in rural areas and small towns and serve American Indian  students living on or near reservations. The BIE school system includes  day schools, on-reservation boarding schools, and off-reservation boarding  schools—which house and educate students from numerous tribes. BIE  schools also vary in size, with an average enrollment of approximately 280  students in school year 2006-07. While the BIE helps fund 174 schools and  12 dormitories, it does not operate all of them; in the 2006-07 school year,  67 percent of BIE schools were tribally operated under federal contracts  or grants (see table 1). Over the past 2 decades, these contracts and grants  have transferred the operation of BIE-funded schools to tribes and tribal  school boards, offering the potential for tribal groups to take greater  ownership of their children’s education.
section_title: BIE Organization
paragraphs: The BIE is organized into two major divisions, with one division located in  Albuquerque, New Mexico—called Central Office–West— and the other  division located in Washington, D.C.—called Central Office–East. The  Central Office–East division conducts research, policy analysis, and  planning, and houses the Division of Post Secondary Education, which  operates two post-secondary institutions and administers operating grants  for 24 colleges operated by tribes and tribal organizations. The BIE  performs some functions of a state education agency and receives grants  from Education. Further, at the time of our review, BIE Central Office– West had oversight responsibilities for 21 BIE education line offices  located in 10 states that provide assistance and/or oversight for the 186  schools and dormitories. Each education line office houses an ELO who  functions similarly to a public school district superintendent in managing  the schools and providing technical assistance to those schools that tribal  groups operate through grants or contracts with the BIE. Throughout this  report, we refer to officials from BIE’s Central Offices (East and West) as  “BIE officials” and, while we recognize that the ELOs are also BIE  officials, we refer to them as “ELOs.”
Under NCLBA states are required to establish performance goals and hold  their Title I schools accountable for students’ performance by determining  whether or not schools have made AYP. The act requires states to set  challenging academic content and achievement standards in reading or  language arts, mathematics, and science, and determine whether school  districts and schools make AYP toward meeting these standards. To make  AYP, schools generally must:    show that the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or  higher meets the state proficiency target for the school as a whole and  for designated student groups,   test 95 percent of all students and those in designated groups, and    meet goals for an additional academic indicator, such as the state’s  graduation rate.
NCLBA requires states to establish these performance goals so that all  students reach proficiency in reading/language arts, mathematics, and  science by 2014. Schools that have not met their states’ performance  goals for 2 or more consecutive years are identified for improvement and  must implement certain remedial actions that are meant to improve  student academic achievement.
NCLBA required the Secretary of the Interior to develop a definition of  AYP for BIE schools, through negotiated rulemaking. Interior established  a No Child Left Behind Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (committee) to  develop proposed rules to implement this requirement, among others. By  law, the committee was to be comprised of representatives of the federal  government and tribes served by BIE-funded schools. The committee  held a series of meetings from June 2003 through October 2003 to develop  its recommendations. After a public comment period, the final rule was  published in April 2005. Under the rule, each BIE school must adopt the  academic content standards, assessments, and definition of AYP of the  state in which the school is located beginning with the 2005-06 school  year. Moreover, if states do not give tribal groups access to their  assessments, the tribal groups are obligated to develop alternative  definitions of AYP. The regulations do not delineate how to determine AYP  in the cases in which schools cannot access state assessments and have  not developed an alternative. While NCLBA requires that states’  assessments be aligned with their standards, neither NCLBA nor BIE  regulations require that schools’ curricula be aligned with state standards  or assessments.
Under the Secretary’s definition of AYP—i.e., that of the state in which the  school is located—determining the AYP status of the 174 BIE schools  requires that BIE officials apply 23 different definitions of AYP. The  process is complex because of the many differences in assessments and  criteria for AYP determination across the states. For example, some states  assess students in additional areas, such as testing students in both  reading and language arts. In addition, the complexity of state statistical  formulas for calculating AYP also varies among states. Some states’  formulas include multiple confidence bands while other states use none;  some states reference students’ improvement over their past performance  while others use only current individual performance data on students.  Similarly, annual measurable objectives, alternate AYP indicators, and  formulas for calculating graduation rates also vary across states.
Under NCLBA, tribal governments or school boards (tribal groups) must  either adopt the Secretary’s definition of AYP—i.e., that of the state in  which they are located—or waive all or part of the definition and propose  an alternative. Specifically, tribal groups that waive all or part of the state’s  definition of AYP must submit a proposal for an alternative definition of  AYP within 60 days of the decision to waive. BIE regulations state that  BIE will notify the tribal group within 60 days of receiving the proposed  alternative definition whether the proposal is complete and, if complete,  an estimated timetable for the final decision. All proposed alternatives  are subject to the approval of the Secretaries of Interior and Education,  with the tribal groups obligated to use the state’s definition, content  standards, and assessments unless the alternative is approved. BIE is  required to provide technical assistance upon request, to a tribal group  that seeks to develop an alternative definition. Under BIE regulations, a  tribal group that requires assistance in developing an alternative must  submit a written request to BIE specifying the type of assistance it  requires. BIE must acknowledge receipt of the request for technical  assistance within 10 days of receiving the request. Within 30 days after  receiving the original request for technical assistance, the BIE must  identify a point of contact who will immediately begin working with the  tribal group. In providing technical assistance to tribal groups in  developing alternatives, the BIE can consult with Education.
Under BIE regulations, in providing assistance, BIE may use funds  provided by Education for assessment-related activities under section 6111  of the ESEA, as amended by NCLBA. According to BIE officials, BIE has  used some of these funds on professional development training,  development of a reporting system, and improvements to its student  information management and tracking systems, which are appropriate  uses of these funds. BIE officials stated they used most of these funds to  develop BIE’s student information tracking system—the Native American  Student Information System. In addition, BIE can use these funds to  provide technical assistance to tribal groups in developing AYP  alternatives.
With respect to achievement under NCLBA, in the 2006-07 school year,  BIE reported 51 of the 174 BIE schools made AYP as defined by the states  in which the schools are located. Schools that fail to meet AYP for 2  consecutive years must implement remedial actions as required under  NCLBA, although the requirements for BIE schools vary from those for  public Title I schools (see table 2). For a BIE-operated school,  implementation of required remedial actions is the responsibility of the  BIE, whereas for schools that are tribally operated through contracts or  grants, implementation of remedial actions is the responsibility of the  tribal group.
Unlike public schools, BIE schools that have an AYP status of school  improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are exempt from offering  public school choice and supplemental educational services. While the  remedial actions applied to public schools and BIE schools under NCLBA  may include change in governance, BIE officials told us that there was no  provision to implement such a change with retrocession—reverting from  grant or contract to BIE-operated status or from BIE-operated to another  status—based on continued failure to meet AYP.
section_title: BIE and BIE-Funded Schools Have Generally Used State Definitions of AYP, but BIE Has Not Taken Steps to Ensure Continued Access to All State Assessments
paragraphs: Almost all of the BIE schools adopted the definition of AYP, content  standards, and assessments of the state in which the school is located.  While BIE had signed MOUs delineating the terms of accessing and  scoring state assessments with 11 of the 23 states in which BIE schools are  located, it had not completed MOUs with the other 12, as of April 2008. In  addition, BIE experienced some challenges in applying the state  definitions to determine whether the 174 schools had met AYP, and some  schools, including about half of the schools we contacted, indicated they  had not aligned their curricula with the state content standards.
subsections: section_title: BIE Uses 23 State AYP Definitions to Make AYP Determinations; however, There Were Some Difficulties Applying the Various State Definitions
paragraphs: BIE officials told us that their schools generally use state definitions of  AYP, content standards, annual proficiency goals, and assessments.  Therefore, BIE makes AYP determinations for almost all 174 schools using  the AYP definition of the state in which the school is located. Using the 23  state definitions of AYP, BIE reported that in 2006-07, 51 of the 174 schools  had made AYP, 119 had not, and 4 did not have determinations. BIE  officials told us that the AYP determinations were made by applying the  criteria filed with Education by the relevant state, except in California  and Florida, where BIE schools did not take the state assessment, and in  Arizona and North Carolina where there was a data constraint.
BIE officials told us that it was challenging to apply the various definitions  of AYP and report their determinations to the schools prior to the  beginning of the subsequent school year. As of December 2007, 93 of the  174 schools had been notified of their AYP status for school year 2006-07.  By March 2008, the number of schools notified had increased to 146. BIE  officials told us that, while they were aware that schools should have been  notified of their AYP status prior to the beginning of the 2007-08 school  year, the delay in notification was prolonged due to staffing issues, as well  as schools and states missing deadlines to report assessment data. For  example, BIE officials told us that there was a delay getting assessment  results for the BIE schools in New Mexico due to a statewide scoring  delay. In addition, BIE officials told us that it had been hard to collect  attendance data and graduation data needed to make AYP determinations;  however, they stated that these data will be more readily available in their  new student information system—the Native American Student  Information System.
BIE officials told us that for the 2006-07 school year, they were unable to  apply one feature of Arizona and North Carolina’s new definitions of AYP  and made determinations for the 51 schools in Arizona and the 2 in North  Carolina using those states’ respective AYP definitions without this new  feature. In particular, BIE officials told us that Arizona and North Carolina  had recently begun to use a growth model, which BIE was unable to use,  as required by the states’ definition of AYP. Some growth models  measure individual student progress across time and require a student  data system that can link the individual students’ current test scores to  those of prior years. BIE officials told us that their new Native American  Student Information System has such capabilities, but had not been fully  implemented. Officials expressed optimism they would be able to  incorporate growth model-based components of AYP in the next round of  AYP determinations (2007-08).
In addition, BIE officials told us that four schools, two in California and  two in Florida, were not administering the state exams. These schools  were continuing to administer the standardized tests they had used in  prior years. Officials from all four schools told us that their schools had  adopted the academic content standards of their respective states, but had  not administered the state assessments for different reasons. In these  cases, BIE initially made AYP determinations for the 2005-06 school year  but has recently suspended the AYP determinations for the four schools  until issues regarding how to assess their students are resolved.
In terms of content standards, BIE’s ELOs and some school officials told  us that while the schools generally have access to state content standards  and reported adopting them, some schools have not aligned their curricula  to these standards. In particular, 10 of the 21 BIE ELOs stated that some  schools in their purview had not aligned their curricula to the state  standards for various reasons, including teacher turnover and resistance  to change. For example, one ELO told us that some teachers who had been  teaching the same material for over 40 years resisted changing the  curriculum and preferred to continue to teach as they had been doing for  years. Furthermore, officials from at least nine schools we contacted told  us that their schools had not fully aligned their curriculum with the state  content standards. For example, one school official told us that the  school’s elementary reading curriculum was aligned with state content  standards, but the elementary science curriculum was not.
section_title: BIE Lacked Completed Agreements with about Half of the States with BIE Schools, Which Can Affect Access to State Assessments
paragraphs: BIE uses MOUs with states to delineate the terms of BIE-funded schools’  access to the states’ assessment systems; however it had not completed  MOUs with 12 of the 23 states, including 5 we visited—Arizona, California,  Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico. The 12 states without signed  MOUs enroll about two-thirds of the students in BIE schools. BIE officials  told us that in 2005, BIE asked the ELOs to work with state officials to  establish MOUs with all 23 states in which BIE schools are located. By  March 2006, 11 agreements had been completed, and no new agreements  had been completed as of April 2008. The MOUs contain various aspects of  administering and scoring the assessment, including delineating  responsibilities for state and BIE officials (see table 3). For example,  under the MOUs, the state’s responsibilities include inviting BIE school  personnel to assessment-related training and informing the BIE of any  changes to the state’s AYP definition and assessment system. The BIE’s  responsibilities address, among other things, test security to ensure that  the contents of the test are not improperly disclosed and proper test  administration. BIE officials told us that they did not actively pursue  MOU’s with the remaining states, in part because BIE’s leadership had not  viewed the completion of the MOUs as a priority—most states were  allowing BIE schools to access state assessments and scoring  arrangements without such agreements.
While BIE schools in 9 of the 12 states without signed MOUs were given  access to the state assessments, BIE schools in California and, to a lesser  degree in Mississippi, have encountered issues in accessing the state  assessments. In particular, California state officials have not given the  two BIE schools in California access to the state assessments. State  officials in California told us that the state had invested millions of dollars  on test development and that a breach in security could undermine the  validity of the test. These officials also stated that several entities,  including private schools, had requested permission to administer the test  and that their approach was to restrict the test to public schools in  California. State officials were willing to make an exception for BIE  schools to administer the assessment, but requested a $1 million bond for  security reasons. BIE and Education officials told us that they were trying  to work with the state to resolve the issue. Education officials told us that  they were hopeful that a solution, such as having BIE students assessed at  public schools, could be worked out. Under BIE regulations, BIE schools  without access to their state’s assessment must submit a waiver to develop  an alternative definition of AYP. However, officials from the two BIE  schools in California stated that developing an alternative definition was  unreasonably burdensome and that they had no intention of submitting an  alternative assessment in the foreseeable future.
The eight BIE schools in Mississippi were able to administer the state  assessment in both 2005-06 and 2006-07; however, they were not initially  able to access a re-administration of the assessment in 2006-07 that some  students needed in order to graduate. Tribal officials explained that they  had to sign a special agreement personally guaranteeing the security of the  test to administer the test in that instance. State officials and school  officials told us that having a signed MOU in place could have expedited  access to the test.
In addition to concerns regarding test security, state officials we  interviewed cited the lack of tribal input as a reason for delaying or  rescinding an MOU (see table 4). For example, state officials in  Washington told us that when they received the request to sign the MOU,  they contacted tribal groups and realized that the tribal groups had been  informed of the MOU, but not consulted regarding its details. After  consulting with tribal groups, Washington state officials modified the  proposed MOU and signed it. In addition, BIE does not currently have a  valid MOU with New Mexico because the Governor of New Mexico  suspended the state’s MOU with BIE shortly after signing it, in part  because tribal groups indicated that they had not been consulted about the  terms of the MOU.
section_title: Three Tribal Groups Have Officially Begun Developing AYP Alternatives in Part to Integrate Culture or Language, While Other Tribal Groups Have Chosen Not to Do So, in Part Because of Substantial Potential Challenges
paragraphs: Officials from three tribal groups—the Navajo Nation, OSEC, and the  Miccosukee Tribe of Indians—have informed BIE officials that they wish  to pursue alternatives to state AYP definitions for a variety of reasons,  including the desire to ensure that standards and assessments include  components of native culture. However, the remaining tribal groups have  not indicated that they will waive state definitions of AYP, in an effort to  maintain compatibility with public schools or because of potential  challenges to developing alternatives. According to ELOs and the school  officials we interviewed, there are significant potential challenges involved  in developing alternatives, as well as advantages to using the state  assessments, including compatibility with public schools.
subsections: section_title: Three Tribal Groups, Representing about 44 Percent of BIE Students, Have Begun to Develop Alternatives to State Definitions of AYP, in Part to Ensure That Content Standards and Assessments Reflect Native Culture
paragraphs: As of March 2008, three tribal groups—Navajo Nation, OSEC, and  Miccosukee—had formally notified the BIE of their intent to develop  alternatives to state definitions of AYP. These tribal groups represent BIE- funded schools in five states and include about 44 percent of BIE students  (see table 5). The tribal groups began the process of developing  alternatives at different times, but all were still in the early stages of   doing so.
Officials from the Navajo Nation, with BIE schools in three states, have  requested technical assistance for developing an alternative definition of  AYP, citing the desire to include cultural components in the standards and  assessments and to compare the progress of Navajo students across  states. Navajo officials told us that they currently do not have a consistent  method of measuring the academic progress of their students across the  states in which they are enrolled. Navajo officials have recently (October  2007) requested technical assistance from BIE in their effort to develop an  alternative to the relevant states’ definition of AYP. In their proposal to  BIE, Navajo officials stated that while they are willing to work with  existing assessment procedures as much as possible, they were seeking to  develop a “Navajo specific” measure that would influence AYP  determination, regardless of the state.
OSEC, a consortium of tribal groups including representatives from 11  BIE-funded schools in South Dakota, has also requested technical  assistance as it seeks to develop an alternative definition of AYP, primarily  to improve student performance in its schools and to more accurately  reflect the length of time it takes some students to graduate. First, it plans  to define graduation rates differently from the state. In particular, South  Dakota uses a 4-year window to determine graduation rates. OSEC  officials told us that a definition of graduation rate that included those  who successfully completed high school within 6 years would more  accurately reflect the reality that many students take more than 4 years to  graduate. In addition, OSEC officials told us that they wanted to replace  the attendance component of the state’s definition of AYP with a language  and culture component.
Furthermore, OSEC would like to develop standards and assessments for its  students in subject areas currently covered by the state assessment, such as  reading, math, and science. To this end, the consortium has submitted a  proposal to BIE officials that provides a framework for developing academic  content standards for math, reading, and science, as well as developing an  assessment. OSEC officials consulted with BIE officials regarding the  proposal, and BIE has since forwarded the proposal to Education for review.  Education officials met with officials from BIE and OSEC in November 2007  to evaluate OSEC’s needs and offer technical assistance. Education officials  told us that they have a consultant who could help OSEC ensure that the new  standards and assessments meet Education’s guidelines.
Officials from the Miccosukee Tribe have informed BIE that, while they  have aligned their curriculum to Florida’s academic content standards,  they do not intend to administer the Florida state assessment system in  their school. Miccosukee tribal officials explained that they did not want  to implement the Florida assessment system because they thought it was  flawed and inferior to the Terra Nova—the standardized test they were  already using. They also told us that because attendance in the  Miccosukee School was not compulsory, they rejected the use of  attendance as an additional AYP indicator. After having met with  Education officials and a consultant, the Miccosukee told us that they  were considering various options in their development of an alternative  assessment, including augmenting the Terra Nova or developing a new  assessment based on a modified version of Florida’s academic content  standards. Officials also told us that they were working on developing  standards for Miccosukee culture and language to implement an  assessment that would serve as the additional AYP indicator in lieu of  attendance for their students in third through eighth grade.
section_title: Most Remaining Tribal Groups Have Not Pursued Alternatives for Various Reasons, including the Desire to Maintain Compatibility with Public Schools and Potential Challenges to Developing Alternatives
paragraphs: Officials representing BIE schools in California, Mississippi, and  Washington told us that it was important that their schools be compatible  with the local public schools. For example, officials from the BIE schools  in Mississippi told us that they wanted their students to take the same  tests as students attending Mississippi public schools, in part to ensure  that they received the same diploma. In addition, officials from one  California school explained that their students come from public schools  and may return to public schools in high school. These officials told us  that it made more sense for the students to take the state tests for  continuity. In addition, BIE school officials in California, Mississippi, and  Washington told us that because they followed the state curriculum, it  would be logical to administer the state assessment. However, while the  tribal groups representing the eight BIE schools in Washington have not  waived the state definition of AYP, they have proposed a technical change  that would affect how BIE officials determine AYP for these schools. In  particular, BIE considers the 2002-03 school year as the baseline for its  AYP determinations; however, officials representing the BIE schools in  Washington told us that the 2005-06 school year is a more appropriate  baseline, as it is the first year in which they administered the state  assessment for AYP purposes. While the Washington state superintendent  approved the schools’ request to change the baseline school year, BIE  officials have not done so. As a result, officials representing one of the  schools challenged BIE’s AYP determination for the 2005-06 school year.
School officials and education line officers identified several potential  challenges that tribal groups might encounter in their efforts to develop  alternative standards or assessments, including a lack of expertise, funding,  and time (see table 6). According to ELOs and school and Education  officials, the specialized knowledge needed to develop an alternative  definition of AYP is generally beyond the capacity of tribal groups. For  example, ELOs and Education officials stated that the technical expertise  needed to develop an assessment was not available among members of some  tribes and would need to be obtained through consultant contracts. School  officials from Mississippi and Washington agreed that developing such  alternatives would require expertise beyond that available within their tribal  groups. With regard to financing the development of alternatives, Education  officials stated that developing standards and assessments could cost tens of  millions of dollars—financial resources that are generally not available  among many tribal groups for this purpose.
Education officials and ELOs also agreed that developing alternatives  requires an extensive time commitment that may not be sustainable given  changes in leadership. In particular, Education officials told us that  developing, piloting, and testing alternative content standards or  assessments can take from 12 months to 3 years. Some of the education  line officers we interviewed volunteered that the required time  commitment could affect support for such a project. Five of the ELOs and  two school officials specifically noted that the time needed to develop an  alternative would be a challenge for their tribal groups or school boards,  with one school official citing the time commitment needed to help  teachers understand and incorporate alternative standards into their  lesson plans. One school official stated that changes in BIE leadership had  led to different interpretations of how to implement the NCLBA provision  related to developing alternatives.
section_title: Tribal Groups Considering Alternatives and School Officials Reported a Lack of Federal Guidance and Communication, but BIE and Education Have Recently Begun Providing Some Initial Assistance
paragraphs: Most tribal groups, school officials, and ELOs we spoke with said they had  little guidance about the process BIE uses to help tribal groups develop  alternatives. In addition, school officials and tribal groups we interviewed  reported communication problems with BIE, including lengthy delays and  a lack of response. Recently, however, BIE and Education officials have  offered both technical assistance and funds to those tribal groups seeking  to develop alternatives.
subsections: section_title: Tribal Groups, School Officials, and BIE’s ELOs Reported a Lack of Federal Guidance about the Process for Seeking or Developing an Alternative
paragraphs: Most tribal groups, ELOs, and school officials we spoke with said they had  received little guidance about the process BIE uses to help tribal groups  develop alternatives. Officials representing the two tribal groups and one  consortium that have formally requested technical assistance stated they  were uncertain about the BIE process for applying for an alternative.  Likewise, we found school officials were also unsure of BIE’s process for  applying for an alternative. For example, officials from the two BIE  schools in California said they had no knowledge of the BIE process to  assist tribal groups and school boards to develop alternatives. In addition,  officials from one school said they hired legal counsel to assist them with  their request because they were uncertain about BIE’s process for  applying for an alternative.
About half of the ELOs, despite being the first point of contact, told us  they did not have enough information to accurately describe the process a  tribal group would use to waive the Secretary of the Interior’s definition  and pursue development of an alternative definition of AYP. This may be  at least partly due to turnover among ELOs. Eight of the 21 ELOs said they  had been in their current position for 12 months or less while 7 had been  in their current position from 1 to 3 years. BIE officials told us that about  25 percent of the ELOs who attended training on the process to develop an  alternative were no longer employed in that position. According to BIE  officials, ELOs had received such training in 2005—although no requested  documentation of this training and guidance was provided to us. During  the course of our review, 19 of the 21 ELOs we interviewed also stated  they had not received any training or written guidance on the BIE’s policy  for approving a tribal groups’ request for an alternative, even though  providing technical assistance to tribal groups developing an alternative is  included in their job responsibilities. During our interviews, 11 of the 21  ELOs indicated they were knowledgeable about the NCLBA provision that  allows tribal groups to waive the Secretary’s definition and develop an  alternative and would be able to describe the provision to tribal groups.
During our interviews, almost all of the ELOs (19 of 21) told us that they  had not received any information from BIE officials on their role in  providing technical assistance to tribes in developing content standards,  assessments, or definitions of AYP. As a result, most tribal groups have  not received any information from ELOs on the availability of technical  assistance for developing alternatives. In particular, only 3 of the 21 ELOs  stated they had provided any information on the availability of technical  assistance for developing alternatives to tribal groups within their  jurisdiction.
BIE receives funds from Education that could be used to assist tribal  groups with the development of alternatives, but BIE’s ELOs told us they  had not been instructed that BIE funds were available for this purpose. All  21 ELOs told us they had not received any guidance from BIE on BIE  funds that might be used to assist tribal groups seeking to develop  alternatives.
section_title: Some School Officials and Tribal Groups Reported Lengthy Delays in Communicating with BIE
paragraphs: Some school officials and tribal groups we interviewed reported a lack of  response from the BIE or lengthy delays in responding to requests for  assistance related to development of alternative standards, assessments,  or definitions of AYP. For example, OSEC’s written request for technical  assistance in developing an alternative definition of AYP was not acted  upon for 8 months. In another case, the Miccosukee’s written request to  waive the state assessment and develop an alternative went unanswered  by the BIE from October 2006 to June 2007. BIE officials, in  acknowledging their slow response to the tribal groups’ requests for  technical assistance, stated that in some cases tribal groups’ written  requests were not always clear about what they wanted from the BIE or  had not adhered to the regulation that requires the waiver request be  submitted by either a tribal governing body or school board.
Other tribal groups we interviewed reported frustration in communicating  with BIE due to BIE’s failure to proactively initiate communication when  necessary. For example, officials from one of the BIE schools in California  stated that, although BIE officials were aware that the state had not given  the schools access to the state assessment, BIE had not communicated  with or offered any type of assistance to the schools. Further, OSEC  submitted to BIE a written request for guidance and funds to pay for the  development of assessment tools on developing an alternative definition of  AYP. In its response, the BIE denied the consortium’s written request  without further discussion or inquiry, noting that the request did not come  from either a school board or a tribal governing body but rather a  consortium of schools.
BIE officials told us that their prior focus had been on ensuring that BIE  schools were accessing and using the state standards and assessments and  therefore did not devote resources to assist those tribal groups who  sought to develop alternatives to the state systems. In addition, BIE  officials told us that BIE had not initially been proactive in working with  Education on issues related to alternative assessments.
section_title: Officials from BIE and Education Have Recently Begun to Offer Technical Assistance
paragraphs: To address tribal groups’ requests for technical assistance, BIE assigned a  staff person as the primary BIE contact for tribal groups that are  requesting technical assistance or seeking to develop alternatives.  However, this BIE staff person has several other key responsibilities  including responsibility for applying 23 state AYP definitions to calculate  the AYP status of BIE schools and responsibility for overseeing the special  education program for all BIE schools. In addition, BIE officials informed  Education officials in September 2007 of the OSEC and Miccosukee’s  requests for technical assistance, and in November 2007 of the Navajo’s  request for technical assistance.
In response to the requests, BIE and Education officials have recently  offered technical assistance to those tribal groups that are seeking to  develop alternatives. For example, officials from BIE and Education met  with the Miccosukee and OSEC in November 2007 to assess the type of  technical assistance needed in order for the tribe to pursue development  of its alternative. Likewise, officials from BIE and Education also met with  the Navajo Nation in March 2008 to assess their technical assistance needs  as they continue to pursue development of an alternative. In addition to  identifying the types of technical assistance needed by those tribal groups  that have formally submitted a request to waive state standards,  assessments, or definitions of AYP, Education officials told us they have  also sent a contractor to assist tribal groups as they pursue the  development of alternative assessments. Specifically, in Florida, the  Education contractor is charged with helping the Miccosukee to identify  the steps needed to ensure its assessment complies with relevant  regulations under NCLBA by reflecting Florida’s state standards—or any  modified standards that the Miccosukee may adopt. Similarly, in South  Dakota, the Education contractor is charged with working with the OSEC  consortium to identify the actions needed to ensure that its alternative  assessment will comply with NCLBA regulations.
As of February 2008, according to BIE officials, none of the funds provided  by Education to BIE under the NCLBA provision supporting assessment- related expenses had been spent to provide technical assistance to tribal  groups seeking to develop alternatives. The BIE reported receiving from  Education a total of $11.7 million for school years 2002-03 through 2007-08,  that was targeted to assessment-related expenses. According to BIE, all of  these funds had been obligated, primarily for improvements to BIE’s  student information and tracking systems and other assessment-related  uses, including professional development. In fact, some tribal groups told  us they were not aware that BIE received funds that might be available to  assist with development of alternatives. BIE officials stated that none of  these funds had been spent on technical assistance, but said that they  expected to spend some funds to provide technical assistance in the near  future.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In most cases, BIE schools that wish to adopt their state’s definition of  AYP, standards, and assessments, have had no problems doing so, but the  lack of MOUs between BIE and some states exposes the BIE schools in  those states to the potential risk of losing access to state assessments.  Under the existing MOUs, the state (or BIE) may terminate the agreement,  but notice is required. Additionally, the MOU ensures that tribes’ access to  tests is not dependent on decisions made by particular state officials or  administrations, who could otherwise terminate or impose conditions on  the sharing arrangements without notice. In part because BIE may have  little leverage in negotiating with state education departments, BIE may  encounter difficulty in reaching agreement on these MOUs, especially if a  state imposes challenging conditions. In addition, a large burden is placed  on tribal groups and schools that lack access to state assessments—in  terms of developing an alternative assessment that meets federal  guidelines. Without prompt assistance, such schools may lack appropriate  measures of what children know and can do that could support plans for  educational improvement. Similarly, lack of alignment between curricula  and standards or inability to promptly produce determinations of  performance can slow the pace of improvement for students and schools.
Clearly, if tribal groups wish to propose an alternative, they must  understand the process in place to pursue this option. Developing  alternatives requires clear and timely communication between BIE and  tribal groups, as well as between BIE and Education. To date, guidance  from BIE on developing alternatives has been limited and BIE’s  communication with tribal groups, BIE ELOs, and Education has been  slow or lacking. Without improved guidance to tribal groups and ELOs,  those tribal groups seeking to develop alternatives may lack information  or receive inaccurate information about how to develop an acceptable  alternative definition. Further, unless BIE establishes response time  frames and processes, the communication between BIE and those tribal  groups seeking alternatives will remain ineffective. As a result, these tribal  groups could continue to view BIE as a hindrance rather than a partner in  the process. While BIE and Education have recently begun offering  technical assistance, clear guidance from BIE and timely communication  between BIE and tribal groups could not only improve working relations,  but also facilitate the use of the provision allowing the alternatives to  address the unique cultural needs of the students.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve support for tribal governments and school boards in their  adoption of definitions of AYP, we are making the following four  recommendations. We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct  BIE to:    Coordinate with relevant tribal groups in pursuing negotiation of MOUs  with states that lack them, seeking facilitation from Education when  necessary and appropriate.
In close coordination with Education, provide prompt assistance to tribal  groups in defining assessment options, especially in instances in which  tribal groups are not accessing state assessments. Such assistance could  include delineating options—such as using an already established  assessment, augmenting an assessment, or incorporating cultural  components as an additional academic indicator—and their associated  costs.
Provide guidelines and training on the process for seeking and approving  alternatives to all tribal governments, tribal school boards, and education  line offices.
Establish internal response time frames and processes to ensure more  timely responses to all correspondence with tribal groups as well as  proactive communication with tribal groups and Education to resolve  issues related to waivers, requests for technical assistance, and  development of alternative definitions of AYP.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Interior and Education for review and  comment. Interior provided a written response to the report (see app. I);  Education did not. Both agencies provided technical comments, which we  incorporated in the report where appropriate.
Interior agreed with all of our recommendations. In responding to our first  recommendation, Interior explained that BIE is continuing to work jointly  with Education to facilitate agreements with the states to ensure access to  state assessments and to establish MOUs with those states where none  currently exist.
With respect to our second recommendation, Interior reported that the  BIE has established a Scope of Work that addresses the full range of  technical assistance needed to assist tribal groups that seek to waive all or  part of the state’s definition of AYP, content standards, or assessments.
In regard to our third recommendation, BIE stated that, in addition to  continuing to provide guidance and training to tribal groups and tribal  school boards,  it has developed information on the process for seeking  and approving alternatives that will be posted on its Web site as well as  distributed to tribal groups and tribal school boards.
In responding to our final recommendation, BIE stated it would continue  to be more proactive in its communication with tribal groups and  Education to resolve issues related to waivers of the state’s definition of  AYP, requests for technical assistance, and development of alternative  definitions of AYP. Moreover, as part of the project management with  tribal entities that have sought technical assistance, a consultant will  maintain a management document that identifies timelines, among other  things. In addition to the steps BIE has mentioned, we continue to believe  it is important for BIE to establish internal timelines to ensure more timely  responses to all correspondence with tribal groups.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education and  the Interior; the Director of the Bureau of Indian Education;  representatives of tribal groups identified in the report, relevant  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your  staff have any questions about this report. Contact points for our offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant Director, and Nagla’a El-Hodiri, Analyst- in-Charge, managed this assignment. Kris Trueblood and Tahra Nichols  made significant contributions to all aspects of the work. Nora Boretti,  Kimberly Granger, Angela Jacobs, Annamarie Lopata, and Sara Pelton  assisted with data collection. Charlie Willson and Jessica Orr provided  assistance in report preparation; Jeffery Malcolm provided expertise on  Indian issues; James Rebbe and Doreen Feldman provided legal support;  Jean McSween and John Mingus provided technical support; and Lise  Levie verified our findings.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the  Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of  Assistance. GAO-08-380. Washington, D.C.: February 29, 2008.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic  Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.  Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools: Expenditures in Selected Schools Are  Comparable to Similar Public Schools, but Data Are Insufficient to  Judge Adequacy of Funding and Formulas. GAO-03-955. Washington,  D.C.: September 4, 2003.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools: New Facilities Management  Information System Promising, but Improved Data Accuracy Needed.  GAO-03-692. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003.
Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information  Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington,  D.C.: May 8, 2003.