Bureau of Indian Education Schools
Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems Gao ID: GAO-08-679 June 27, 2008The 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
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-679, Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-679
entitled 'Bureau Of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior‘s
Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic
Accountability Systems' which was released on June 27, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2008:
Bureau Of Indian Education Schools:
Improving Interior‘s Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement
Academic Accountability Systems:
GAO-08-679:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-679, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Figure: BIE Schools Are Located in the 23 Shaded States:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United State indicating by shading states
where BIE schools are located.
Sources: Copyright © Corel Corp. All rights reserved (map); GAO.
[End of figure]
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 develop
alternatives.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO made several recommendations to the Secretary of Interior aimed at
increasing support, including improved assistance, guidance, training,
and communication for tribal groups in their implementation of the
provision for developing alternatives. Interior agreed with GAO‘s
recommendations. GAO also received technical comments from both
Interior and Education.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-679]. For more
information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or
ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
BIE and BIE-Funded Schools Have Generally Used State Definitions of
Adequate Yearly Progress, but BIE Has Not Taken Steps to Ensure
Continued Access to All State Assessments:
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:
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:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: BIE-Funded School Facilities by Type, School Year 2006-07:
Table 2: Remedial Actions for Public Title I and BIE Title I Schools
That Fail to Make Adequate Yearly Progress:
Table 3: Features of Completed MOUs:
Table 4: Issues Encountered in Establishing MOUs in the Seven States We
Visited:
Table 5: Student Data for Tribal Groups Seeking Alternatives and Status
of Request:
Table 6: Key Potential Challenges That Tribal Groups Could Face When
Developing an Alternative Definition of AYP:
Figure:
Figure 1: BIE-funded Schools Are Located in 23 States:
Abbreviations:
AYP: adequate yearly progress:
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
BIE: Bureau of Indian Education:
ELO: education line officer:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
MOU: memoranda of understanding:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
OSEC: Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium:
SES: Supplemental Educational Services:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 27, 2008:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dale E. Kildee:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Raśl M Grijalva:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:
House of Representatives:
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), [Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 2]
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. [Footnote 3]
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.[Footnote 4] 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),[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6] 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.
Results in Brief:
BIE and almost all of the 174 BIE schools have adopted state
definitions of AYP, which generally incorporate reference to specific
state content standards and assessments; however, BIE has not completed
agreements with several key states delineating the terms of BIE-funded
schools‘ access to the state assessment systems. While almost all of
the 174 BIE schools currently use the state definitions of AYP, not all
BIE schools had fully aligned their curricula with the state standards,
which could compromise students‘ opportunity to learn the material that
is covered on the state assessment. [Footnote 7] Almost all BIE schools
are currently using the states‘ assessments, the results of which BIE
then uses for AYP determinations. However, for 12 of the 23 states with
BIE schools, BIE has not completed MOUs to delineate BIE‘s and the
states‘ responsibilities concerning BIE‘s access to the states‘
assessment system.[Footnote 8] While 9 of the 12 states without signed
MOUs have voluntarily given the BIE schools full access to the
assessments and scoring services, these states could readily change
their policies with respect to BIE schools‘ access to their assessments
and scoring services. In addition, BIE has encountered difficulty in
completing MOUs with some states, and this has affected BIE-funded
schools‘ access to state assessments in California and Mississippi.
[Footnote 9] If a state does not provide access to the state‘s
assessment, the BIE-funded school must submit a waiver for an
alternative definition of AYP.[Footnote 10] However, officials from the
two schools in this situation stated that developing an alternative
definition of AYP was unreasonably burdensome and they had no intention
of developing alternative assessments.
Officials from the Navajo Nation, the OSEC, and the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians have begun to develop alternatives to state AYP definitions,
standards, and assessments in part to reflect their unique culture.
Other tribal groups have opted to use state definitions, either because
of potential challenges in developing alternatives or a desire to
maintain compatibility with public schools. The tribal groups
developing alternatives to the state definitions of AYP represent about
44 percent of the 48,000 BIE students. The Navajo Nation and OSEC are
each trying to develop culturally-relevant standards, as well as
assessments aligned with these standards. Officials from the Miccosukee
tribe have informed BIE and Education that they prefer the assessment
they are currently using to Florida‘s state assessment, although they
have implemented Florida‘s content standards. Officials from other
tribal groups told us that they preferred to use state content
standards and assessments for various reasons, including a desire to be
compatible with the public schools and the presence of potential
challenges, such as the lack of resources needed to develop
alternatives. For example, school officials and BIE ELOs cited a number
of potential challenges to developing alternatives, including need for
expertise in developing assessments or standards, limited tribal funds
available, as well as the lengthy time commitment needed to undertake
such a project.
Tribal groups seeking alternatives reported a lack of federal guidance
and communication; however, two tribal groups have more recently
reported receiving some initial assistance from BIE and Education
officials. Similarly, in our interviews, BIE ELOs”who were the primary
points of contact for information on developing an
alternative”generally indicated that they had received no guidance or
training on the provision for doing so. In particular, about half of
BIE‘s education line officers told us they were not knowledgeable about
the process to seek an alternative, and eight of the ELOs had been in
their current position for 1 year or less. In addition, all three
alternative-seeking tribal groups reported difficulties in
communicating with BIE. In reviewing their requests, 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. For example, one tribal group alerted BIE of its intent to
use an alternative assessment as early as October 2006 but did not
receive any response from BIE until June 2007 and technical assistance
was not provided until November 2007. Delays caused some tribal
officials to conclude that BIE‘s focus on technical points was intended
to hinder their progress, rather than facilitate their requests for
technical assistance or to waive the state assessment. During the
course of our review, BIE and Education officials began offering
technical assistance to the tribal groups working to develop
alternatives. For example, officials from BIE and Education have
visited the Navajo Nation, OSEC, and the Miccosukee to assess their
needs.
To improve support for tribal governments and school boards in their
development and implementation of AYP definitions, we are making
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior related to BIE‘s
ensuring access to state assessments, as well as improving assistance
in defining assessment options, guidance and training on the process
for seeking alternatives, and communication with tribal groups seeking
alternative definitions of AYP by establishing internal time frames and
processes.
We provided copies of this report to Interior and Education for review
and comment. In responding to a draft of this report, Interior agreed
with our recommendations. Interior‘s comments are in appendix I;
Education did not provide comments on our recommendations. We received
technical clarifications from both the Departments of the Interior and
Education, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
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.
[Footnote 11] 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 [Footnote 12] of American Indian
children attend the 174 schools and 12 dormitories [Footnote 13] 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. [Footnote 14]
Figure 1: BIE-funded Schools Are Located in 23 States:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States indicating the location of
BIE-funded schools.
Source: GAO analysis of BIE data.
[End of figure]
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.
Table 1: BIE-Funded School Facilities by Type, School Year 2006-07:
School type: Day schools;
Responsibility for operations: BIE: 31;
Responsibility for operations: Grant/contract: 89;
Total: 120.
School type: Boarding schools, on-reservation;
Responsibility for operations: BIE: 24;
Responsibility for operations: Grant/contract: 21;
Total: 45.
School type: Boarding schools, off-reservation;
Responsibility for operations: BIE: 4;
Responsibility for operations: Grant/contract: 3;
Total: 7.
School type: Dormitories[A];
Responsibility for operations: BIE: 1;
Responsibility for operations: Grant/contract: 13;
Total: 14.
School type: Total;
Responsibility for operations: BIE: 60;
Responsibility for operations: Grant/contract: 126;
Total: 186.
Source: GAO analysis of BIE data.
[A] Two of the dormitories also provide educational services to some
students.
[End of table]
BIE Organization:
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.“
NCLBA:
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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16]
NCLBA required the Secretary of the Interior to develop a definition of
AYP for BIE schools, through negotiated rulemaking.[Footnote 17]
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.[Footnote 18] 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.[Footnote 19] 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. [Footnote 20] 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.
[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] All proposed
alternatives are subject to the approval of the Secretaries of Interior
and Education,[Footnote 23] with the tribal groups obligated to use the
state‘s definition, content standards, and assessments unless the
alternative is approved.[Footnote 24] BIE is required to provide
technical assistance upon request, to a tribal group that seeks to
develop an alternative definition.[Footnote 25] 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. [Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28] 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.
Table 2: Remedial Actions for Public Title I and BIE Title I Schools
That Fail to Make AYP:
AYP: First year missed;
School status in the next year: Not applicable;
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: None;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Analyze AYP data and consider
consultation with outside experts.
AYP: Second year missed;
School status in the next year: Public school choice (first year of
improvement);
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Required to develop a
school improvement plan and offer public school choice;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Required to develop a school
improvement plan. Not required to offer public school choice.
AYP: Third year missed;
School status in the next year: Supplementary Educational Services
(SES) (second year of improvement);
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Required to offer public
school choice and SES;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Continue revising or
modifying school improvement plan. Not required to offer either public
school choice or SES.
AYP: Fourth year missed;
School status in the next year: Corrective action (third year of
improvement);
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Implement certain
corrective actions and offer public school choice and SES;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Implement certain corrective
actions. Not required to offer either public school choice or SES.
AYP: Fifth year missed;
School status in the next year: Planning for restructuring (fourth year
of improvement);
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Plan for a change in
governance (restructuring) and offer public school choice and SES;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Prepare a restructuring plan.
Not required to offer either public school choice or SES.
AYP: Sixth year missed;
School status in the next year: Implementation of restructuring (fifth
year of improvement);
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Implement a change in
governance (restructuring) and offer public school choice and SES;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Implement the restructuring
plan. Not required to offer either public school choice or SES.
AYP: Seventh year missed (and beyond);
School status in the next year: Restructuring;
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Continue implementation of
the restructuring plan until AYP is met for 2 consecutive years;
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Continue implementation of
the restructuring plan until AYP is met for 2 consecutive years.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA and Education‘s regulations.
[End of table]
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.
[Footnote 29] 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. [Footnote 30]
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:
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 Uses 23 State AYP Definitions to Make AYP Determinations; however,
There Were Some Difficulties Applying the Various State Definitions:
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,[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32] 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 Lacked Completed Agreements with about Half of the States with BIE
Schools, Which Can Affect Access to State Assessments:
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. [Footnote 33] 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.
Table 3: Features of Completed MOUs:
Responsibilities: Under the MOU, the state will:
* Invite BIE-funded schools to all assessment related public school
training (including security).
* Assure BIE-funded schools access to the same scoring arrangements as
all schools in the state.[A]
* Ensure that BIE receives all pertinent data (achievement level cut
scores, high school graduation goal, other indicators used to determine
AYP).
* Inform BIE of changes to any data points, indicators, or the
assessment system.
* Recognize there is no transfer of authority from BIE to the state.
* Send all electronic and other reports to the BIE ELO.[B]
Responsibilities: The BIE will:
* Ensure that BIE funded schools will administer the state assessments.
Ensure that officials of BIE funded schools attend assessment related
training.
* Ensure principal and faculty understand their responsibility to
administer the assessment appropriately, inform the state of any
violations, and perform onsite inspections to ensure compliance.
* Secure the assessments – adhere to state guidelines for securing,
packaging and shipping for scoring. BIE will perform onsite inspections
to ensure compliance.
* Recognize that the MOU does not affect preexisting or future
agreements between the BIE-funded schools and the local school
districts.[C]
Source: GAO analysis of MOUs.
[A] The MOU with Iowa does not specify a scoring arrangement.
[B] Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The remaining MOUs do not
specify who receives these reports.
[C] Washington.
[End of table]
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. [Footnote 34] 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. [Footnote
35] 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. [Footnote 36] 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.
Table 4: Issues Encountered in Establishing MOUs in the Seven States We
Visited:
State: Arizona;
Signed MOU: No;
Issues in establishing the MOU: Impasse regarding language of the MOU;
If issues were resolved, how so? Unresolved.
State: California;
Signed MOU: No;
Issues in establishing the MOU: Concerns about test security, Request
for $1 million bond;
If issues were resolved, how so? Unresolved.
State: Florida;
Signed MOU: No;
Issues in establishing the MOU: Tribal groups do not wish to take
Florida state test;
If issues were resolved, how so? Unresolved.
State: Mississippi;
Signed MOU: No;
Issues in establishing the MOU: Test security; Release of results;
If issues were resolved, how so? Added additional language, currently
being reviewed.
State: New Mexico;
Signed MOU: No;
Issues in establishing the MOU: Rescinded–tribal groups expressed that
they had not been involved in the process;
If issues were resolved, how so? Unresolved.
State: South Dakota;
Signed MOU: Yes;
Issues in establishing the MOU: No issues in establishing MOU; however,
a state education official told us that he informed BIE that the state
will not cover the $140,000 costs for the assessments beginning with
the 2009-10 school year.[A]
If issues were resolved, how so? May need to renegotiate current MOU.
State: Washington;
Yes;
Issues in establishing the MOU: Initially tribal groups had not been
included in the process;
If issues were resolved, how so? State brought tribal groups into the
discussion. State and tribal groups worked together closely.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] The negotiated MOUs do not include specific language with regard to
fees for accessing the state assessments.
[End of table]
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:
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 [Footnote 37] 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.
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:
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.
Table 5: Student Data for Tribal Groups Seeking Alternatives and Status
of Request:
Tribal group: Navajo Nation;
Number of schools: 60;
Number of students (SY 2006-07):
Progress to date: Met with BIE and Education: 16,598
Progress to date: Tribes report technical assistance had started:
No[A];
Progress to date: Funding requested: [Check];
Progress to date: Funding received[B]: No;
States in which affected BIE-funded schools are located: Arizona, New
Mexico, Utah.
Tribal group: OSEC;
Number of schools: 11;
Number of students (SY 2006-07): 4,442;
Progress to date: Met with BIE and Education: [Check];
Progress to date: Tribes report technical assistance had started:
[Check];
Progress to date: Funding requested: [Check];
Progress to date: Funding received[B]: No;
States in which affected BIE-funded schools are located: South Dakota.
Tribal group: Miccosukee;
Number of schools: 1;
Number of students (SY 2006-07): 152;
Progress to date: Met with BIE and Education: [Check];
Progress to date: Tribes report technical assistance had started:
[Check];
Progress to date: Funding requested: No;
Progress to date: Funding received[B]: No;
States in which affected BIE-funded schools are located: Florida.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] In March 2008 a meeting took place with officials from Education,
Interior, and the Navajo Nation to discuss technical assistance needs.
However, a representative of the Navajo Nation declined to characterize
the focus of the meeting as technical assistance, stating that
Education officials did not seem to want to consider the factors the
Navajo had identified, such as a school‘s remoteness or a child‘s
mental health, in making AYP determinations.
[B] The BIE, in technical comments on our draft report, stated that BIE
cannot transfer funds for continued technical assistance to a tribal
group until a fundable request has been developed. BIE‘s comments
indicated that no request that it regarded as fundable had been
received from any tribal group as of June 12, 2008.
[End of table]
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. [Footnote
38] 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. [Footnote 39] 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.
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:
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. [Footnote 40] 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 [Footnote 41] 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 [Footnote 42]
”financial resources that are generally not available among many tribal
groups for this purpose.
Table 6: Key Potential Challenges That Tribal Groups Could Face When
Developing an Alternative Definition of AYP:
Challenge[A]: Financing the development of an assessment or standards
would be burdensome for tribes;
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 14.
Challenge[A]: Expertise for developing assessments or cultural/language
standards generally not available among tribal members;
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 14.
Challenge[A]: The process for developing, piloting, and testing an
assessment is lengthy;
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 8.
Challenge[A]: The BIE process for waiving state definitions of AYP and
proposing and implementing alternatives is burdensome;
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 6.
Challenge[A]: Changes in tribal leadership or BIE leadership could
erode support for such a project due to changes in priorities;
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 5.
Challenge[A]: Financing data collection and scoring of assessments
would be burdensome;
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 3.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] These challenges, with the exception of ’Financing data collection
and scoring of assessments would be burdensome,“ were also identified
by some school officials during our interviews.
[B] Among 21 ELOs responding to an open-ended question.
[End of table]
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.
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:
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.
Tribal Groups, School Officials, and BIE‘s ELOs Reported a Lack of
Federal Guidance about the Process for Seeking or Developing an
Alternative:
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. [Footnote 43] 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 Reported Lengthy Delays in
Communicating with BIE:
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. [Footnote 44] 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.
Officials from BIE and Education Have Recently Begun to Offer Technical
Assistance:
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. [Footnote 45] 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. [Footnote 46]
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. [Footnote
47] 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. [Footnote 48] 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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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
[hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240 :
June 12, 2008:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
44I G Street, NW:
Washington D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office Report entitled, Bureau Of Indian
Education Schools: Improving Interior's Assistance Would Help Some
Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability," (GAO-08-679). Indian
Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) agree with the
Recommendations for Executive Action provided on page 33 of the draft
report.
The BIE provides the following information in response to the
recommendations as follows:
Recommendation 1: Coordinate with relevant tribal groups in pursuing
negotiation of MOUs with states that lack them, seeking facilitation
from Education when necessary and appropriate.
Response: The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) agrees. The BIE has
established MOUs with some states and is pursuing establishing
additional MOUs with states where no MOUs currently exist. The BIE has
a good working relationship with the Department of Education and is
working jointly with the Department of Education to facilitate
negotiating agreements with the states to ensure access to state
assessments and establish agreements. The BIE and the Department of
Education are committed to continuing this effort.
Recommendation 2: 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.
Response: The Bureau of Indian Education agrees. The BIE has provided
an initial technical assistance (TA) session for each tribe during
which an external Education identified consultant provided all basic
information surrounding an accountability system, including
assessments. The BIE has established a Scope of Work (SOW) which
addresses the full range of technical assistance that could be
requested or otherwise identified as being needed to assist tribal
entities in fully understanding all of the requirements for any portion
of the alternate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) definition or criteria
they may wish to waive. The SOW specifies the external consultant must
have a high level of knowledge and expertise in the development of
standards, assessments, and accountability at a state level. The
provision of TA at this level is designed to help the tribal groups
develop an alternate definition of AYP that will meet the stringent
requirements identified under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The
consultant must have extensive experience in all aspects of compliance
and the Peer Review process. They must also have knowledge in
expectations for alternate AYP as identified in 25 CFR, Part 30.
Recommendation 3: Provide guidelines and training on the process for
seeking and approving alternatives to all tribal governments, tribal
school boards, and education line offices.
Response: The BIE agrees. The BIE continues to provide guidance and
training at national meetings and conferences throughout the United
States. A few examples are: the National Indian School Board sessions,
National Indian Education Association sessions, Navajo School Board
sessions, Grant School Board meetings and other places as requested.
The Education Line Officers have also received information during
Education Line Officers specific meetings.
Included in the SOW mentioned in the response to Recommendation 2,
above, is the development of a PowerPoint type of document that the BIE
can post on its website as well as distribute to the tribal groups and
tribal school boards. The BIE will continue to have a presence at the
education related meetings and conventions that have an audience of
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Recommendation 4: Establish internal response timeframes 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.
Response: The BIE agrees. The BIE will continue to do or will implement
the following:
* Log all correspondence and responses, including all e-mails.
* Upon receipt of a request for technical assistance (TA), a BIE
contact will be identified who will coordinate all subsequent TA
requests.
* After the initial session with the tribal entity, a consultant will
provide guidance; and, in a collaborative effort, the consultant will
develop and maintain a project management document that identifies the
activities and timelines for the TA with the tribal entity.
* A progress report will be required at regular intervals. The schedule
will depend on the activity.
* Education Line Officers will receive initial training on standards,
assessments and accountability expectations for alternate definitions
of AYP. Each ELO will be informed of the process for requesting TA.
The enclosure provides specific comments on the full report grouped by
subject area.
If you have any questions concerning the response, please communicate
with Mr. Stanley Holder. BIE Chief, Division of Performance and
Accountability, at 505-563-525I.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
George T. Skibine:
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & Economic Development:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting
of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-692]. Washington, D.C.: July
31, 2003.
Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-389]. Washington, D.C.: May 8,
2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
[2] See 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2) and 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g).
[3] NCLBA allows a tribal governing body or school board to waive the
BIE‘s definition of AYP ’in part or in whole.“ (20 U.S.C. §
6316(g)(1)(B)) BIE regulations state that this waiver applies to the
definition of AYP, academic content and achievement standards, and
assessments. (25 C.F.R. § 30.105)
[4] 70 Fed. Reg. 22178 (Apr. 28, 2005).
[5] The OSEC is a consortium of school boards and includes schools from
the Lakota- and Dakota-speaking tribes.
[6] The off-reservation boarding school has students from several
tribes from across the country. In Washington, we attended a conference
with officials from all eight BIE schools, which enroll students from
more than 90 tribes. We also visited one school affiliated with the
Puyallup tribe as well as two schools affiliated with the Lummi tribe.
[7] NCLBA requires that states develop academic content standards and
develop assessments to measure the progress of their students on these
standards in the areas of math, reading, and science. 20 U.S.C. §
6311(b).
[8] As of April 2008.
[9] The BIE does not have a signed MOU with Florida and the BIE schools
in Florida have chosen not to use the Florida assessment.
[10] 25 C.F.R. § 30.125(b).
[11] Until recently, the schools were under the purview of Interior‘s
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). However in 2006, the Secretary of the
Interior established the BIE as a co-bureau along with BIA.
[12] The Congressional Research Service reported in 2007 that it is
commonly estimated that BIE schools serve roughly 10 percent of Indian
students, public schools serve roughly 90 percent, and private schools
serve 1 percent or less. These general percentages, however, are not
certain.
[13] These 12 dormitories house American Indian students who attend
nearby local public schools. Two additional dormitories provide
schooling for some students and are required to be counted as schools
for AYP purposes.
[14] As of April 4, 2008, there were 562 federally recognized Indian
tribes in the continental United States and Alaska, 73 Fed. Reg. 18553
(Apr. 4, 2008). There are no BIE-funded schools in Alaska.
[15] 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(F).
[16] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b).
[17] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(1)(A).
[18] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(1)(A)(i) and 25 U.S.C. § 2018(b)(3). There
were 19 tribal representatives.
[19] 70 Fed. Reg. 22178 (Apr. 28, 2005).
[20] In such cases, BIE has recently determined that it will not change
the school‘s AYP status from the prior year.
[21] 25 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(1)(B) and 25 C.F.R. § 30.106.
[22] 25 C.F.R. § 30.113(b).
[23] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(1)(B) and 25 C.F.R. § 30.113.
[24] 25 C.F.R. § 105.
[25] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(1)(C).
[26] 25 C.F.R. § 30.110.
[27] 25 C.F.R. § 30.109. Section 6111 of the ESEA, as amended by NCLBA
(20 U.S.C. § 7301), authorizes grants to states for assessment-related
activities.
[28] In addition to collecting student data, the system is also a full-
scale management system for the BIE schools, according to BIE
officials. Although BIE officials indicated the system is now
operational, they expressed concern about the quality of the data being
entered into the system because it is self-reported at the school
level. Officials stated they have been working on developing a student
information system intermittently since the late 1970s.
[29] 42 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(2).
[30] Under NCLBA, there are several ways to implement the alternative
governance arrangements: reopening the schools as public charter
schools, replacing all or most school staff who are relevant to the
failure, entering into a contract with a private management company to
operate the school, turning the operation of the school over to the
state, or ’any other major restructuring of the school‘s governance
arrangement that makes fundamental reforms... to improve student
academic achievement... and that has substantial promise of enabling
the school to make [AYP]....“ 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(8)(B). NCLBA states,
however, that these actions as applied to BIE schools should ’take into
account the unique circumstances and structure of [BIE schools] and the
laws governing that system.“ 20 U.S.C. § 6316(g)(4)(B).
[31] Education required states to file accountability workbooks to
detail the basic elements of the state‘s NCLBA accountability system.
[32]’Growth model“ is a term that refers to a variety of methods for
tracking changes in proficiency levels or test scores over time.
[33] The other seven states without signed MOUs are Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin.
[34] The two BIE schools in Florida have chosen not to take the Florida
assessment and therefore have not requested access to the test.
[35] According to these officials, such a breach could cost the state
millions of dollars to develop a new assessment and California students
would not be tested while the state developed this assessment.
[36] 25 C.F.R. § 30.125(b).
[37] In addition, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which operates one BIE-
funded school, has not administered the Florida state assessment. While
officials from the tribe have notified BIE that they will not
administer the state assessment, they have not formally requested
technical assistance from BIE.
[38] Navajo children attend public, private, or BIE-funded schools in
Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. There are no BIE-funded
schools in Colorado. Currently, the students are assessed using the
various state assessment systems.
[39] NCLBA requires schools to have at least one other academic
indicator for AYP. The law requires that the additional indicator be
graduation rates for high schools, but does not specify the indicator
for grades 3 through 8.
[40] While Interior‘s regulations required that BIE-funded schools use
their state‘s assessment beginning in 2005-06, they did not change the
baseline year for calculating AYP. Schools that implemented the state
assessment for the first time in 2005-06 could not show improvement in
test scores from the prior year, which put them at a relative
disadvantage, as they could not make AYP using the safe harbor
provisions that year because they did not have 2 years of consistent
assessment data available. Safe harbor provisions allow a school to
make AYP if the percentage of students in designated groups who were
not proficient decreased by 10 percent from the prior year, and the
group makes progress on another academic indicator. 20 U.S.C. §
6311(b)(2)(I)(i).
[41] Some education line officers and school officials we interviewed
told us they are also members of a tribal group.
[42] In 2003, GAO estimated that test development costs under NCLBA
would range from $12 million to $17 million per state.
[43] The other two ELOs could not specifically recall whether they had
received any such information.
[44] In 2005-06, BIE mistakenly allowed one of the California schools
to make AYP despite administering the wrong assessment. By March 2007,
BIE was aware that the California schools were not administering the
state assessment, but did not offer guidance on how to resolve the
situation. School officials began contacting BIE in response to BIE‘s
2007 determination that the school had failed to make AYP for 2 years,
and needed to submit a school improvement plan. At the time of our
visit (December 2007), school officials had not heard back from BIE.
[45] BIE officials also sent Education‘s: ’Standards and Assessments
Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting the
Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001“ to a tribal group
in an effort to respond to its request for technical assistance.
[46] The Memorandum of Agreement between Education and Interior does
not specify a timeline for BIE to seek assistance from Education after
receiving requests for technical assistance, or after acknowledging
that the technical assistance needed is beyond the BIE‘s realm of
expertise.
[47] BIE regulations provide that funds provided by Education under
NCLBA section 6111 may be used in providing technical assistance. 25
C.F.R. § 30.109.
[48] We requested accountings of BIEs expenditure of section 6111 funds
from both BIE and Education. Education officials told us that they did
not specifically require that BIE report on the expenditure of these
funds and BIE officials had not provided GAO a thorough accounting by
the end of our audit. Rather, they provided a spreadsheet indicating
the funds had been primarily obligated for BIE‘s student information
system.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
