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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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