BIE’s mission is to provide Indian students quality education opportunities starting in early childhood in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being. Students attending BIE schools must be members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, or descendants of members of such tribes, and reside on or near federal Indian reservations. BIE’s Indian education programs derive from the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian tribes, a responsibility established in federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, and executive actions. BIE, formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs when it was part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was renamed and established as a separate bureau within Interior in 2006. Organizationally, BIE is under the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, and its director reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. The BIE director is responsible for the direction and management of education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, supervision of all program activities, and approval of the expenditure of funds for education functions. BIE is composed of a central office in Washington, D.C.; a major field service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico; 3 associate deputy directors’ offices located regionally (1 in the east and 2 in the west); 22 education line offices located on or near Indian reservations; and schools in 23 states. Of the 185 elementary and secondary schools BIE administers, 59 are directly operated by BIE (BIE- operated), and 126 are operated by tribes (tribally-operated) through federal contracts or grants. BIE provides funding on the same terms to tribally-operated schools as it does to BIE-operated schools based on the number of students attending the schools, among other factors. A local education line office manages the BIE-operated schools, functioning like a public school district superintendent’s office. It also provides technical assistance to tribally-operated as well as BIE-operated schools. While BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior, they receive annual formula grants from Education, similar to public schools. Like state educational agencies that oversee public schools in their respective states, BIE administers and monitors the operation of these Education grants. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended, holds recipient schools accountable for improving their students’ academic performance, using Education program funds they receive through BIE. Specifically, under ESEA, schools must be measured to determine whether they are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) in meeting standards in math, reading, and science. In turn, the performance information must be reported to parents. Interior determined that, to measure AYP, each BIE school would use the definitions used by the state in which the school was located. BIE and its predecessor, the Office of Indian Education Programs, have been through a number of restructuring efforts. Before 1999, BIA’s regional offices were responsible for most administrative functions for Indian schools. In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) issued a report, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, which identified management challenges within BIA. The report concluded that BIA’s management structure was not adequate to operate an effective and efficient agency. The report recommended centralization of some administrative functions. According to BIE officials, for a brief period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own administrative functions. However, in 2004, in response to the NAPA study, its administrative functions were centralized under the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M). More recently, in 2011, Indian Affairs commissioned another study— known as the Bronner report—to evaluate the administrative support structure for BIE and BIA. The report, issued in March 2012, found that organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. The report recommended that Indian Affairs adopt a more balanced organizational approach to include, among other things, shared responsibility, new policies and procedures, better communication, and increased decentralization. administrative structural realignment intended to address the Bronner report recommendations. Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for Support Functions (March 2012). Students in BIE schools have performed consistently below Indian students enrolled in public schools on national assessments administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) between 2005 and 2011. For example, in 2011, 4th grade estimated average reading scores were 22 points lower for BIE students than for Indian students attending public schools. For 4th grade mathematics, BIE students scored lower, on average, than Indian students attending public schools, but the gap was less than for reading scores—14 points in 2011. Figure 1 shows the trend in the estimated average 4th grade reading and math scores for students in BIE schools as compared to Indian students in public schools and the national average for non-Indian students. In 8th grade, BIE students also scored consistently lower, on average, on NAEP assessments than Indian students in public schools. However, for reading the performance gap was slightly less than it was for 4th grade. For example, in 2011, 8th grade estimated average reading scores were 19 points lower for BIE students than for Indian students attending public schools. Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have consistently scored lower on average than the national average of non- Indian students in 8th grade on both the math and reading NAEP assessments. Figure 2 shows the trend in estimated average 8th grade reading and math scores for students in BIE schools compared to Indian students in public schools and the national average for non-Indian students. Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have consistently scored lower on average than the national average for non- Indian students in 4th and 8th grades on both the math and reading NAEP assessments. Some of the difference in performance levels between Indian students and non-Indian students may be explained by factors such as poverty and parents’ educational backgrounds. For example, in 2011, larger percentages of Indian students were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (an indicator of low family income) in both grades 4 and 8 as compared to non-Indian students. In addition, the percentage of 8th grade Indian students reporting that at least one parent had some education beyond high school was smaller than the percentages of Black, White, and Asian students. In states we visited, BIE students also consistently underperformed Indian students in public schools on state reading and math assessments in 3rd and 7th grade, over the most recent 3-year period for which data are available. Specifically, in Mississippi and South Dakota, a lower percentage of students in BIE schools scored at the proficient level or above on 3rd and 7th grade state assessments compared to Indian students in public schools. In Arizona, the difference in the performance of students in BIE schools and Indian students in public schools was less marked, with a somewhat lower percentage of students in BIE schools scoring at the proficient or above levels. Finally, students attending BIE schools had relatively low high school graduation rates compared to Indian students enrolled in public schools in the 2010-2011 school year. Specifically, the graduation rate for BIE students for the 2010-2011 school year was 61 percent—placing BIE students in the bottom half among graduation rates for Indian students in states where BIE schools are located. student graduation rates ranged from 42 percent to 82 percent. Figure 3 shows the Indian student graduation rates for BIE and states where BIE schools are located. Our analysis of graduation rates covered 20 of the 23 states where BIE schools are located. At the time of our review, cohort graduation rate data were not available for 2 of the 23 states where BIE schools are located, and we excluded data from an additional state due to the small number of students in the Indian student subgroup for which the graduation rates were calculated. BIE’s administrative and internal control weaknesses have resulted in difficulty assessing the academic progress of its students and AYP for its schools as required under ESEA. In addition, BIE has delayed critical efforts to collaborate with Education. BIE’s efforts to assess student and school performance are not consistent with internal controls standards that can help agencies operate more effectively and help ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. BIE officials provided inaccurate guidance to some of its schools about which student assessment to administer in the 2011-12 school year, resulting in a lack of compliance with federal requirements. In that school year, BIE offered its schools in New Mexico the ability to administer an assessment—in lieu of the state assessment—that was not approved by Education for use as an accountability tool for determining whether schools made AYP under ESEA. Education officials told us they did not approve any BIE schools to use assessments other than those required by Interior’s regulation.ESEA accountability requirements, Education has an external group of experts to evaluate the assessment. This evaluation ensures that the assessment is aligned with the state academic content and achievement standards taught in the classroom and is valid and accessible for use by the widest possible range of students—such as students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. However, BIE did not submit a request to Education to review the assessment through this To determine whether an assessment meets process. As a result of BIE’s guidance, 21 of BIE’s 42 schools in New Mexico administered an alternative assessment that Education was unable to use to hold schools accountable for student performance under ESEA. Further, BIE did not act within the scope of its authority when providing this option to schools. Under an Interior regulation, BIE schools are generally required to administer the same academic assessments used by the 23 respective states where the schools are located. While this regulation allows BIE schools to use alternative assessments for the purposes of ESEA, the Secretaries of Education and Interior must first provide approval.