Bureau of Indian Education: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Aid Tribal Groups Developing Academic Accountability Systems
Published: 2008-09-09T00:00:00

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 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 for not pursuing alternatives; and (3) federal assistance to tribal groups pursuing alternatives. To prepare this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from a recent GAO report, GAO-08-679 , and contacted BIE officials for updates on actions taken in response to GAO's prior recommendations.
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 challenges, such as a lack of expertise, as reasons not to pursue 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 and the BIE 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 GAO's prior review, BIE and Education officials began offering technical assistance to the tribal groups working to develop alternatives. In response to GAO's recommendations in its June 2008 report that the Secretary of the Interior increase support, including technical assistance, guidance, training, and communication for tribal groups in their implementation of the provision for developing alternatives, BIE has taken several steps. In particular, BIE officials told GAO that they are in the process of working out the language for a memorandum of agreement with California state officials. In addition, BIE officials told GAO that the three tribal groups seeking alternatives were working closely with a contractor to develop proposals. With regard to the recommendation to provide guidelines and training on the process for pursuing alternative assessments, BIE officials told GAO that they have taken steps to develop a presentation on the process that they anticipated would be available in October 2008.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the extent to which the governing  bodies of some schools funded by the Department of the Interior have  sought or developed alternative methods of measuring children’s  academic progress and the challenges they have faced in doing so. The  Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is  responsible for the education of the 48,000 Indian students in 174 BIE- funded schools across 23 states. In school year 2006-07, about one-third of  these schools were operated directly by BIE and two-thirds by tribes  under federal contracts or grants, which offer the potential for tribal  groups to take greater ownership of their children’s education. As a  condition for receiving grants under the No Child Left Behind Act  (NCLBA), schools—including the BIE schools—must measure yearly  progress in meeting standards in math, reading, and science. In 2005, the  Secretary of the Interior determined that to measure such progress, each  BIE school would use the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) of  the state in which the school was located. Recognizing that students at  BIE schools may have unique needs and special circumstances, NCLBA  allows tribal groups to waive all or part of the Secretary’s authorized  definition of AYP and propose an alternative.
My testimony will focus on (1) the number of BIE schools that have  adopted state definitions of AYP; (2) tribal groups that have sought  alternatives and their reasons for doing so, as well as the reasons other  tribal groups have not done so; and (3) the role the federal government has  played in assisting those tribal groups developing alternatives. My  testimony is based largely on a recently issued GAO report, updated with  information provided by BIE officials including the status of actions taken  in response to our prior recommendations. To complete our review for  that report, we visited the tribal groups that were in the process of  developing alternative definitions of AYP—and some who were not doing  so. In particular, 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), and 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.  We interviewed state and federal education officials, as well as BIE  officials and representatives from Indian organizations. We reviewed  relevant documents, including regulations and existing memoranda of  understanding (MOU) between BIE and the states. Our work was  conducted 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 based on our audit objectives.
In summary, following the policy BIE established in 2005 for measuring  AYP, almost all of the 174 BIE-funded schools have measured academic  progress in accordance with their state’s definition of AYP, although three  tribal groups representing 44 percent of BIE students are in the process of  developing alternative definitions, as allowed under NCLBA. To establish  the terms under which BIE schools access assessments and scoring  arrangements, BIE has established agreements with about half of the  states that have BIE schools. The remaining states, with the exception of  California, have allowed BIE schools access to their assessments;  however, there is increased risk in these states that the terms of access  will change. The Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin Education Constortium  (OSEC), and the Miccosukee are seeking alternatives to state definitions  of AYP, in part to have more culturally relevant standards and  assessments. Other tribal groups are not developing alternatives, citing  potential challenges—such as a lack of resources—or a desire to maintain  compatibility with public schools with which they share students. The  three tribal groups seeking alternatives reported a lack of federal guidance  and communication, but they have more recently reported receiving some  assistance from BIE and Education officials. BIE’s education line officers  (ELO)—who are the tribal groups’ primary points of contact for  information on developing an alternative—generally indicated that they  had received no guidance or training on this provision. In communicating  with tribal groups regarding alternative AYP definitions, BIE did not  always have internal timelines or meet the ones it had, nor did BIE  consistently apply its processes for providing accurate and timely  responses.  In our June 2008 report we made recommendations to the  Secretary of the Interior aimed at increasing support, including improved  assistance, guidance, training, and communication for tribal groups in  their implementation of the provision for developing alternative  definitions of AYP.  Interior agreed with our recommendations and in  subsequent conversations reported taking actions in response to our  recommendations.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: NCLBA required the Secretary of the Interior to develop a definition of  AYP for BIE schools, but also allows tribal groups to waive all or part of  BIE’s definition of AYP and propose an alternative. After a process of  negotiated rulemaking, Interior issued regulations specifying that each  BIE school must adopt the standards, assessments, and definition of the  state in which the school is located. BIE has used agreements, or MOUs,  with the states to delineate the terms of accessing state assessments and  scoring arrangements. Tribal groups may submit an alternative proposal,  but are obligated to use the state’s definition, content standards, and  assessments until the alternative is approved by the Secretaries of Interior  and Education.
Tribal groups are obligated to develop alternative definitions of AYP if  states do not give tribal groups access to their assessments. However, the  regulations do not delineate how to determine whether a school has  achieved AYP in those cases in which schools cannot access state  assessments and have not developed an alternative. Under BIE  regulations, a tribal group that requires assistance in developing an  alternative must submit a written request to BIE. Then, within given time  frames, BIE must acknowledge receipt of the request for technical  assistance and identify a point of contact to work with the tribal group. In  providing such assistance to tribal groups, BIE has access to federal funds  designated to assist with assessment-related activities.
BIE determined that for school year 2006-07, just under one-third of the  174 schools had made AYP, two-thirds had not, and 4 schools were held  harmless, with no AYP determinations made. Under NCLBA, schools that  fail to meet AYP for 2 consecutive years must implement specific types of  remedial actions, although the requirements for BIE schools vary from  those for public Title I schools (see table 1). 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.
subsections: 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 their state’s definition of AYP,  content standards, and assessments, but BIE had signed MOUs that ensure  access to state assessments with only 11 of the 23 states in which BIE  schools are located, as of April 2008. In addition, BIE experienced some  challenges in applying the state definitions to determine whether the 174  schools had met AYP.
section_title: BIE Generally Uses 23 State AYP Definitions to Make AYP Determinations; however, There Were Some Difficulties Applying the Various State Definitions
paragraphs: Because BIE schools generally use state definitions of AYP, BIE officials  must apply 23 different state definitions. 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 administer the state assessment, and in Arizona and North Carolina  where there was a data constraint.
The process is complex: some states assess students in additional areas,  such as testing students in both reading and language arts, and the  statistical formulas for calculating AYP also vary among states. Some  states’ formulas include multiple confidence bands while other states use  none. Similarly, annual measurable objectives, alternate AYP indicators,  and formulas for calculating graduation rates also vary across states.
BIE officials told us that, for several reasons, schools were not always  notified of their AYP status 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 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 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.
In addition, BIE officials told us that four schools, two in California and  two in Florida, were not administering the state assessments for reasons  that are discussed in the next section. 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.
section_title: BIE Lacked Completed Agreements with about Half of the States with BIE Schools, Which Could 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, but BIE  officials told us that they did not actively pursue MOUs with these states,  in part because most states were allowing BIE schools to access state  assessments and scoring arrangements without such agreements. The  MOUs generally specify responsibilities for the state and BIE. For  example, states may be responsible for including BIE schools in relevant  training, informing BIE of changes to the state’s definition of AYP, and  scoring the BIE assessments. The MOUs also delineate responsibilities of  BIE such as ensuring that staff are properly trained and that the  assessments are administered according to state protocols.
However, California state officials told us they had neither signed an MOU  nor given BIE access to the state assessments because they feared a  breach in test security. They noted that such a breach in security could  undermine the validity of the test, in which the state had invested millions  of dollars to develop. California officials stated that several entities,  including private schools, had requested permission to administer the test  and that their approach was to administer the test only 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 as  security. 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.
Officials in other states also told us that they have delayed or rescinded  MOUs because tribal groups indicated that they had not been consulted  about the terms of the agreements (see table 2). 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.
subsections: 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: As of March 2008, three tribal groups—the 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 3). 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 have recently (October 2007) requested technical  assistance from BIE to develop an alternative “Navajo specific” measure  that would influence AYP determination, regardless of the state in which  the school was located.
OSEC, a consortium of tribal groups in South Dakota, seeks to develop  an alternative to improve student performance in its schools, to define the  graduation rate to include 6 years rather than 4, and to replace the  attendance component of the state’s definition of AYP with a language and  culture component. OSEC has submitted a proposal to BIE officials that  provides a framework for developing academic content standards for  math, reading, and science—the subject areas that must be covered in a  state assessment—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 they did not  want to implement the Florida assessment system because they thought it  was flawed and inferior to 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  current test, called 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 serve as the basis for an assessment  that would serve as the additional AYP indicator in lieu of attendance for  their students in third through eighth grade.
Most remaining tribal groups have not pursued alternatives for various  reasons, including the desire to maintain compatibility with public schools  in their state, and potential challenges and resources required to develop  alternatives. 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. Officials from the BIE schools in  Mississippi wanted to ensure that their students received the same  diploma as other children in the state. Further, school officials and BIE  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 4).  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. 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 some tribal representatives and BIE officials told  us are generally not available among many tribal groups. Education  officials and ELOs also agreed that developing alternatives requires an  extensive time commitment that may not be sustainable given changes in  leadership.
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, ELOs, and school officials we spoke with said they had  received little guidance about the process BIE uses to help tribal groups  develop alternatives and some expressed frustration with the pace and  quality of communication with BIE. 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 governing bodies and school boards to develop  alternatives.
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. 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. In addition, although BIE receives funds from  Education that could be used to assist tribal groups with the development  of alternatives, all 21 of BIE’s ELOs told us they had not been instructed  that BIE funds were available for this purpose.
Some school officials and tribal groups we interviewed reported slow  responses to requests for assistance and a lack of communication from the  BIE in other cases. 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. School  officials we interviewed reported frustration with BIE’s failure to 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.
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 in addition to other major responsibilities.
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 tribal groups to pursue  development of their alternatives. Likewise, officials from BIE and  Education also met with representatives of the Navajo Nation in March  2008 to assess their technical assistance needs as they continue to pursue  development of an alternative. Education officials told us they have also  sent a contractor to assist tribal groups as they pursue the development of  alternative assessments. Specifically, 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. 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. BIE officials stated that none of  these funds had been spent on technical assistance, as no fundable  requests had been received from the tribal groups developing alternatives.
However, the officials stated that they expected to spend some funds to  provide technical assistance in the near future.
section_title: Prior Recommendations and Current Status
paragraphs: Our June report recommended that, in order to improve support for tribal  governments and school boards in their adoption of definitions of AYP, the  Secretary of the Interior should 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.
In written comments, the Department of the Interior agreed with our  recommendations and indicated it had initiated steps to implement them.  In preparation for this testimony, we requested an update on BIE’s actions.   With regard to our recommendation about completing MOUs, BIE officials  told us that they are in the process of working out the language for a  memorandum of agreement with California state officials. BIE officials  told us that the agreement will include language to assure the state that  the assessment will be secured and properly administered. In addition,  BIE officials told us that the three tribal groups seeking alternatives were  working closely with a contractor, and BIE intended to release some  funding to them in late September 2008. With regard to the  recommendation to provide guidelines and training on the process for  pursuing alternative assessments, BIE officials told us that they have taken  a preliminary step by developing a presentation that should be available to  attendees of the National Indian Education Conference in October 2008.  Finally, they stated that the contractor that they have hired is also working  with them to establish a process that will include internal time frames to  ensure more timely communication with tribal groups.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may  have.
section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215. Betty Ward-Zukerman, Nagla’a El-Hodiri, and Kris  Trueblood made key contributions to this testimony.
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.