    BIA and DOD Schools: Student Achievement and Other
    Characteristics Often Differ from Public Schools' (28-SEP-01,
    GAO-01-934).

    Unlike public schools, where federal funding constitutes a small
    portion of total resources, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and the Department of Defense (DOD) school systems depend almost
    entirely on federal funds. Although the two school systems have
    this feature in common, their histories and settings are quite
    different.  The academic achievement of many BIA students as
    measured by their performance on standardized tests and other
    measures is far below the performance of students in public
    schools. BIA students also score considerably below national
    averages on college admissions tests. BIA school officials
    indicate that nearly all BIA teachers are fully certified for the
    subjects or grade levels they teach, although officials said that
    some schools experience considerable difficulties recruiting and
    retaining qualified staff. In terms of educational technology,
    access levels to computers and the Internet reported by BIA
    school administrators exceeded those of public schools, but
    technical support to maintain computers and to assist teachers
    with using technology in the classroom was more limited. Problems
    with school facilities were reported by many school
    administrators. Estimated per-pupil expenditures for BIA schools
    vary widely by school type (for example, day or boarding), but
    are generally higher than for public schools nationally. The
    academic achievement of DOD students, as measured by their
    performance on standardized tests and their plans for enrolling
    in college, generally exceeds that of elementary and secondary
    students nationwide. On college admission tests, DOD students
    score at or near national averages. DOD school administrators
    indicated that nearly all their teachers are fully certified for
    the subjects or grade levels they teach, and about two-thirds
    have advanced degrees. Access levels to computers and the
    Internet were better than public schools, and nearly all
    administrators reported that technical support is available in
    their school. Many DOD administrators reported some problems with
    their school facilities, but overall the conditions of their
    buildings did not vary greatly from those reported by public
    schools in 1999. Estimated per-pupil expenditures at DOD schools
    located overseas were higher than expenditures for those located
    in the U.S.  DOD records show that a substantial part of the
    difference is related to moving and housing costs for teachers
    and staff in overseas schools. DOD's domestic schools, which
    generally do not have these expenses, are much closer to national
    per-pupil expenditures.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-934
        ACCNO:   A01447
      TITLE:     BIA and DOD Schools: Student Achievement and Other
    Characteristics Often Differ from Public Schools'
         DATE:   09/28/2001
      SUBJECT:   Academic achievement
    	     Comparative analysis
    	     Computers
    	     Educational facilities
    	     Elementary schools
    	     Federal funds
    	     Public schools
    	     Secondary schools
    	     Teachers
    	     American College Test
    	     Dept. of Education National Assessment
    	     of Educational Progress

    	     Dept. of Education Safe and Drug-Free
    	     Schools and Communities Program
    	     Dept. of Education Title I Program
    	     National School Breakfast Program
    	     National School Lunch Program
    	     Scholastic Assessment Test

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-01-934

    BIA AND DOD SCHOOLS

    Student Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public
    Schools? Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

    September 2001 GAO- 01- 934

    Page i GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools Letter 1

    Results in Brief 2 Background 3 The BIA School System 12 The DOD School
    System 34 Agency Comments 45

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology 47 Student Achievement 48 Teacher Staffing
    and Educational Technology 50 Facilities 51 Estimated Per Pupil Expenditures
    53

    Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 56

    Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 57 GAO Comments 68

    Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 74 GAO Contacts 74 Staff
    Acknowledgments 74

    Tables

    Table 1: Performance of Students in BIA and Public Schools on State
    Assessments in School Year 1999- 2000 13 Table 2: 1999- 2000 BIA Graduates?
    Performance on SAT and ACT

    Compared With National Averages 14 Table 3: Technology Statistics for BIA
    and Public Schools 20 Table 4: Reported Facility Deficiencies for BIA
    Schools and

    Dormitories and Public Schools 25 Table 5: Selected Reported Deficiencies
    and Estimated Repair

    Costs for BIA Schools and Dormitories 29 Table 6: Comparison of Per- Pupil
    Expenditures at BIA and Public

    Schools, 1997- 98 32 Table 7: National Percentile Rankings for Students in
    DOD Schools

    on the TerraNova Multiple Assessments Standardized Tests for School Year
    1999- 2000 35 Contents

    Page ii GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Table 8: Average SAT and ACT Scores for DOD and Public School Students
    Graduating in 2000 36 Table 9: Median Class Sizes at DOD Schools 38 Table
    10: Technology Statistics for DOD and Public Schools 39 Table 11: Reported
    Facilities Deficiencies for DOD and Public

    Schools 42 Table 12: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair

    Costs for DOD Schools 44 Table 13: Comparison of Per- Pupil Expenditures at
    DOD and

    Public Schools, 1997- 98 45

    Figures

    Figure 1: Locations of BIA Schools in School Year 1999- 2000 4 Figure 2:
    Locations of DOD Europe Area Schools in School Year

    1999- 2000 7 Figure 3: Locations of DOD Pacific Area Schools in School Year

    1999- 2000 8 Figure 4: Locations of DOD Domestic and Cuba Schools in School

    Year 1999- 2000 9 Figure 5: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a
    Majority of

    Teachers Received Various Types of Training 17 Figure 6: Percentage of BIA
    Schools Reporting That a Majority of

    Teachers Assign Students Computer or Internet Work at Least Once Per Week
    for Various Classroom Activities 22 Figure 7: Percentage of BIA Schools
    Reporting That Various Work

    Spaces and Equipment Are Insufficient 27 Figure 8: Percentage of DOD Schools
    Reporting That a Majority of

    Teachers Received Various Types of Training 37 Figure 9: Percentage of DOD
    Schools Reporting That a Majority of

    Teachers Assign Students Computer or Internet Work At Least Once Per Week
    for Various Classroom Activities 40 Figure 10: Percentage of DOD Schools
    Reporting That Various

    Work Spaces and Equipment Are Insufficient 43

    Abbreviations

    ACT American College Test AIMS Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards AME
    Applied Management Engineering, Inc. BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Page iii GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    DOD Department of Defense DODEA Department of Defense Education Activity
    NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress NCES National Center for
    Education Statistics NRC National Research Council OIEP Office of Indian
    Education Programs SAT Scholastic Assessment Test USDA U. S. Department of
    Agriculture

    Page 1 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    September 28, 2001 The Honorable Robert C. Byrd The Honorable Ben Nighthorse
    Campbell The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye United
    States Senate

    The federal government has direct responsibility for two school systems
    serving elementary and secondary students- the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) school systems. Unlike public
    schools, where federal funding constitutes a small portion of total
    resources, the BIA and DOD school systems depend almost entirely on federal
    funds. Although the two school systems have this feature in common, their
    histories and settings are quite different. Because these school systems are
    a federal responsibility, the Congress is interested in ensuring that
    children attending BIA and DOD schools are receiving a quality education.

    To better understand the quality of the educational environments in BIA and
    DOD schools, you asked us to provide information about several aspects of
    both school systems. Our study provides information on student academic
    performance, teacher staffing, access to educational technology, the
    condition of facilities, and expenditure levels for each system. This study
    also provides comparative data for public schools when these data were
    available.

    The scope of our review included BIA day schools and boarding schools, and
    DOD schools located both in the United States and overseas. To the extent
    possible, we excluded from our analyses BIA peripheral dormitories on
    reservations- which house Indian students who attend nearby public schools-
    because they generally do not have academic programs. Information for this
    review was gathered primarily from agency data obtained from BIA and DOD,
    and from a mail survey of administrators at all BIA and DOD schools covering
    the 1999- 2000 school year. Survey response rates were 81 percent and 92
    percent for BIA and DOD schools, respectively. We also obtained data on
    student performance on achievement tests and college entrance examinations
    from states and college testing organizations for students in BIA schools.
    Data needed to precisely compute per- pupil expenditures for both BIA and
    DOD schools were not available. Therefore, our calculations are estimates
    based on BIA and DOD agency data and federal expenditure information from
    tribal

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    Page 2 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    audit reports submitted under the Single Audit Act. We also conducted site
    visits to nine BIA schools located in South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota, and
    Washington, and seven DOD schools located at three military installations in
    the United States- Maxwell Air Force Base, in Alabama; and Fort Benning and
    Robins Air Force Base, in Georgia. For further details about our scope and
    methodology, see appendix I. We did not verify information collected for
    this study but obtained supporting documentation where appropriate. We
    conducted our work between June 2000 and July 2001 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    The academic achievement of many BIA students as measured by their
    performance on standardized tests and other measures is far below the
    performance of students in public schools. BIA students also score
    considerably below national averages on college admission tests. Academic
    performance has been strongly associated with educational and income levels
    of parents, and students in BIA schools often come from family settings
    where education, employment, and earning levels are lower than the national
    average. BIA school administrators indicate that nearly all BIA teachers are
    fully certified for the subjects or grade levels they teach, although
    several officials said that some schools experience considerable
    difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff. In terms of
    educational technology, access levels to computers and the Internet reported
    by BIA school administrators exceeded those of public schools, but technical
    support to maintain computers and to assist teachers with using technology
    in the classroom was more limited than in public schools. Problems with
    school facilities were reported by many school administrators. For example,
    administrators at more than 60 percent of responding BIA schools reported
    having at least one building in inadequate condition compared with about a
    quarter of administrators at public schools surveyed by the Department of
    Education (Education) in 1999. Finally, our estimated per- pupil
    expenditures for BIA schools vary widely by school type (for example, day or
    boarding), but are generally higher than for public schools nationally. A
    number of factors distinguish BIA schools from public schools, which may add
    to their costs. For example, a high proportion of BIA students have special
    needs, and BIA schools support a broader infrastructure (such as sewer and
    water systems) than most public schools.

    The academic achievement of DOD students, as measured by their performance
    on standardized tests and their plans for enrolling in college, generally
    exceeds that of elementary and secondary students nationwide. Results in
    Brief

    Page 3 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    On college admission tests, DOD students score at or near national averages.
    DOD school administrators indicated that nearly all their teachers are fully
    certified for the subjects or grade levels they teach, and about two- thirds
    have advanced degrees. Access levels to computers and the Internet reported
    by these administrators were better than public schools, and nearly all
    administrators reported that technical support is available in their school.
    Many DOD school administrators reported some problems with their school
    facilities, but overall the conditions of their buildings did not vary
    greatly from those reported by public schools in 1999. Our estimated per-
    pupil expenditures at DOD schools located overseas were higher than
    expenditures for those located in the U. S. DOD records show that a
    substantial part of the difference is related to moving and housing costs
    for teachers and staff in overseas schools. DOD?s domestic schools, which
    generally do not have these expenses, are much closer to national per- pupil
    expenditures.

    The BIA and DOD school systems are unlike public school systems in a number
    of ways and are also distinct from each other. Information on the schools,
    the students and families they serve, the settings in which they operate,
    and other fundamental aspects of these systems helps put our findings into
    context.

    BIA schools serve less than 10 percent of all Indian students enrolled in
    elementary and secondary schools in this country. 1 In school year 1999-
    2000, the total enrollment was 47,080 students in the 171 2 schools funded
    by BIA. BIA schools are located in 23 states; however, over 70 percent of
    the schools are in four states- Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South
    Dakota (see fig. 1). The schools are located primarily in rural areas and
    small towns and serve Indian children living on or near reservations.
    Individual school enrollments range in size from 14 to over 1,000 students,
    but a little over half of the schools enroll fewer than 250 students; most
    are combined schools spanning both elementary and secondary grades. A

    1 According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),
    approximately 541,000 American Indian/ Alaska Native children were enrolled
    in public elementary and secondary schools in the 50 states and the District
    of Columbia in school year 1999- 2000.

    2 In addition, BIA supports 14 peripheral dormitories which served 1,689
    children in school year 1999- 2000. Two of the 14 peripheral dormitories
    offered kindergarten- only programs in school year 1999- 2000. We considered
    peripheral dormitories to be outside the scope of this report and excluded
    them from our analyses where possible. Background

    BIA Schools

    Page 4 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    unique feature of the BIA school system is that almost one- third of the
    schools have a residential component; that is, they board at least a portion
    of the students who attend the school. In total, about 17 percent of BIA
    students reside in school dormitories. Some students board because their
    homes are so far away or inaccessible that daily transportation is
    impractical. However, an increasing proportion of students reside in the
    dormitories for other reasons; for example, some students live in boarding
    schools to separate them from dysfunctional or severely impoverished home
    environments.

    Figure 1: Locations of BIA Schools in School Year 1999- 2000

    Source: Data are from BIA?s Office of Indian Education Programs. School
    locations are indicated by stars, but some stars represent more than one
    school.

    Education programs and activities of BIA schools are administered by the
    BIA?s Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP); however, in general, the
    organization of BIA schools is highly decentralized. Each school is

    Page 5 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    governed by its own independent school board, which has authority over
    functions such as hiring personnel, adopting budgets, and setting policy.
    Another important aspect of the BIA school system is the agency?s support
    and encouragement of tribal control of school programs. In school year 1999-
    2000, 108 schools, or about two- thirds of all BIA- funded schools, were
    operated by tribes or tribal organizations under grants, contracts, or
    compacts with BIA; the remainder were operated by BIA.

    In fiscal year 2001, BIA received a total of $777.6 million to support the
    operations of its schools and address educational facility needs. 3 This
    represented a substantial (30 percent) increase over fiscal year 2000
    funding levels. Nearly all of the increase was for repair or replacement of
    school facilities; funding for school operations increased only moderately.
    4 Like many public schools, BIA schools also receive funding from Education
    programs, such as Title I and Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities.
    Funds from these programs are provided to BIA and passed through to schools.
    5 Fiscal year 2000 funding from Education programs totaled $132 million. BIA
    schools also participate in the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s (USDA)
    child nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch and Breakfast
    programs, which provide free or reducedprice meals for children living in
    families earning below certain income levels.

    DOD operates schools for the children of military and civilian DOD personnel
    overseas and on certain military bases in the United States. 6 In total, DOD
    operated 224 elementary and secondary schools in school year 1999- 2000,
    with an enrollment of almost 108,000 students. A little over

    3 Funding for BIA schools comes primarily from two BIA appropriations:
    Operation of Indian Programs and Construction. 4 Funding for school
    facilities repair and replacement- which comprises a smaller portion of
    BIA?s education budget- increased by 121 percent. Funding for school
    operations, the majority of the budget, increased by about 5 percent. Taken
    together these increases in fiscal year 2001 raised funding 30 percent over
    the previous year.

    5 Under an agreement with Education, BIA receives flow through funds for
    several Education programs and is permitted to retain 1. 5 percent of these
    funds to perform administrative responsibilities similar to those performed
    by state education agencies.

    6 The schools are organized into two separate but parallel systems:
    Department of Defense Dependents Schools overseas, and the Department of
    Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools in the United
    States. We refer to schools in both systems as DOD schools. DOD Schools

    Page 6 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    two- thirds of DOD schools are located overseas, concentrated in several
    countries in Europe and in Japan, Korea, and Cuba (see figs. 2 and 3). About
    74,280 students were enrolled in DOD overseas schools in school year 1999-
    2000. 7 The domestic schools are located on military bases in seven states
    concentrated in the Southeast and in Guam and Puerto Rico (see fig. 4) and
    enrolled about 33,690 students in school year 1999- 2000. 8 Individual
    school enrollments range in size from 32 to over 1,300 in the two DOD
    systems, with the median school size being about 450 students. According to
    a DOD official, nearly all eligible children of military parents overseas
    attend DOD schools. However, most children of military parents in the U. S.
    attend public schools. DOD officials estimate that about 15 percent of
    school age military dependents in total attend DOD schools abroad and in the
    United States.

    7 In addition, DOD pays tuition for about 2, 080 eligible students overseas
    to attend non- DOD schools in countries where no DOD schools are available.
    8 In addition, DOD pays tuition and/ or transportation costs for
    approximately 2, 085 DOD students enrolled in public schools operated by the
    local education agency in four states.

    Page 7 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Figure 2: Locations of DOD Europe Area Schools in School Year 1999- 2000

    Source: Data are from DODEA 1999- 2000 Accountability Report. (Arlington,
    Va.: Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA)). Some locations may
    have more than one school.

    AFRICA EUROPE

    A T L A N T I C O C E A N

    Page 8 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Figure 3: Locations of DOD Pacific Area Schools in School Year 1999- 2000

    Source: Data are from DODEA 1999- 2000 Accountability Report. Some locations
    may have more than one school.

    A S I A

    P A C I F I C O C E A N

    Page 9 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Figure 4: Locations of DOD Domestic and Cuba Schools in School Year 1999-
    2000

    Source: Data are from DODEA 1999- 2000 Accountability Report. Some locations
    may have more than one school.

    Cuba Guam Puerto Rico

    Page 10 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Education programs and activities of DOD schools are managed and directed by
    the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). The overseas and
    domestic schools are organized into 24 districts, each managed by a
    superintendent and other district staff, such as curriculum coordinators and
    maintenance supervisors.

    In fiscal year 2001, DOD schools received a total of $1.3 billion to support
    school operations and address facility needs. 9 Overall, this represented
    level funding since fiscal year 2000, although funding for school operations
    and maintenance rose slightly while funding for school construction
    decreased. DOD schools are not authorized to receive grants from federal
    programs, including those administered by Education; however, DOD schools do
    participate in the USDA child nutrition programs.

    While the federal government has responsibility for both the BIA and DOD
    school systems, the two systems are very distinct from each other,
    particularly with respect to the types of students and families they serve.
    The proportion of students who have special needs is much higher in BIA
    schools than DOD schools. For example, according to agency records, about 1
    in every 5 BIA students is enrolled in special education, compared with 1 in
    every 12 DOD students; and nearly 60 percent of BIA students have limited
    English proficiency compared with just 6 percent of DOD students. Students
    in the two systems also differ in terms of their economic need. Eligibility
    for the USDA?s free or reduced- price lunch programs is often used as an
    indicator of poverty. While data on the proportion of children eligible for
    free or reduced- price lunch were not complete for BIA schools, available
    data for 123 of the 171 schools showed that over 80 percent of students were
    eligible, compared with about onethird of students at DOD schools.

    Specific information on the education levels and employment status of
    parents of BIA and DOD students was not available, but other information
    suggests significant differences between the two. For example, unemployment
    on or near Indian reservations is very high- over 40 percent in 1999. In
    contrast, students attending DOD schools are generally military dependents
    and, by virtue of that fact, have at least one parent

    9 Funding for DOD schools comes from Military Construction Appropriations,
    DefenseWide; and Defense Appropriations- Operations and Maintenance,
    Defense- Wide, and Procurement, Defense- Wide. Characteristics of BIA and

    DOD Students and Their Families Differ

    Page 11 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    who is employed. With respect to education, about one- third of Indian
    adults do not have high school diplomas, according to Census Bureau data for
    1990; in contrast, nearly all DOD active military personnel have completed
    high school. Moreover, a number of factors can affect parental involvement
    in BIA schools, including long distances between home and school, language
    barriers, and parents? poor associations with schools due to past federal
    policies emphasizing the assimilation of Indian children. In comparison,
    military communities have a tradition of supporting military families, and
    this support extends to their schools. Parental involvement is highly
    emphasized in DOD schools, with some base commands providing release time to
    military personnel to volunteer in schools.

    At various times, the Congress has considered the question of whether there
    is a need for BIA and DOD schools in locations where public school systems
    are close by. Since 1794, when the first treaty providing for any form of
    Indian education was signed, the federal government has provided education
    services for Indian children, and has carried it out almost exclusively
    through the BIA. However, in the 20th century, the states began providing
    for Indian education and currently provide schooling for the majority of
    Indian elementary and secondary students. During the latter part of the
    1970s, the Congress reviewed the need to construct certain BIA schools close
    to public schools to determine if BIA was properly ranking schools on its
    school construction list. Though Indian families can choose where to send
    their children to school, BIA?s policy at that time was to have children
    attend nearby public schools with adequate facilities instead of building
    new BIA schools to serve these students. However, in 1988, the Congress
    decided that proximity to a public school could not be the primary reason
    for rejecting a BIA school construction project.

    The need for DOD domestic schools also has been reviewed a number of times,
    specifically to determine whether transferring schools to nearby public
    school districts is feasible. DOD domestic schools were established to
    provide education to military children in communities where the local
    schools were deemed unable to provide a suitable education. After 1950,
    schools were added to the system to allow military children to attend
    integrated schools in locations where local schools remained segregated.
    Since that time, however, more and more schools have been transferred to
    public school districts, in part because of the integration of public
    schools and Education?s emphasis on state and local responsibility for the
    education of military children. Thus, while at one time there were about 100
    installations with DOD- operated schools, now there are 14 located in Need
    for BIA and DOD

    Schools

    Page 12 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    the 50 states. According to a DOD official, most children of military
    parents in the U. S. attend public schools.

    The academic achievement of many BIA students falls far below that of public
    school students. As in most public schools, nearly all BIA teachers are
    certified and class sizes in BIA schools are smaller than national averages,
    even though officials report some difficulty recruiting staff. BIA students
    have greater access to computers and Internet connections than public school
    students generally, though a smaller proportion of BIA schools than public
    schools has technology support staff to maintain equipment and assist
    teachers in integrating technology into classrooms. BIA administrators
    report extensive facilities problems and agency records show a deferred
    maintenance and repair backlog approaching $1 billion. Estimated per- pupil
    expenditures vary widely among different types of BIA schools, such as
    boarding schools and day schools, and are higher than per- pupil
    expenditures at public schools. It is difficult to draw conclusions about
    differences in expenditure levels between BIA and public schools, in part
    because of cost factors that affect some BIA schools, such as higher
    proportions of students who have special needs, broader infrastructure
    responsibilities, longer distances to transport children, and the cost of
    residential programs in boarding schools.

    In school year 1999- 2000, BIA students scored far below public school
    students on state assessments in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arizona-
    three states with large numbers of BIA schools. 10 As shown in table 1, the
    average national percentile rankings for BIA students on North Dakota?s
    statewide assessment, for all grades and subject areas tested, ranged from
    the 25th to the 33rd percentiles in school year 1999- 2000. (By definition,
    the national average on the norm- referenced tests used in North Dakota and
    South Dakota is the 50th percentile.) The corresponding averages for public
    school students in North Dakota ranged between the 64th and 71st
    percentiles. Similarly, in South Dakota, the average national percentile
    rankings for BIA students on South Dakota?s statewide assessment were much
    lower than the averages for public school students

    10 We were able to obtain data for all BIA schools in North Dakota and South
    Dakota and for 19 of the 50 BIA schools in Arizona that participated in the
    state?s assessment program. About 36 percent of all BIA students attend the
    schools to which our data relate. Data were not available for BIA schools in
    New Mexico, which has about one- quarter of all BIA students. The BIA School

    System Academic Performance of Many BIA Students is Below That of Public
    School Students

    Page 13 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    in the state, both overall and for specific skill areas such as language
    arts, reading, and math. Finally, in Arizona, a smaller proportion of BIA
    students met state standards than public school students. In school year
    1999- 2000, in reading, writing, and math, at each grade level tested, the
    proportion of BIA students who met or exceeded the standards was far lower
    than the proportion of public school students. (See table 1.)

    Table 1: Performance of Students in BIA and Public Schools on State
    Assessments in School Year 1999- 2000

    Average performance of BIA students Average performance of public

    school students

    North Dakota a 25th- 33rd percentile 64th- 71st percentile South Dakota b
    25th- 28th percentile 60th- 67th percentile Arizona c 0- 27 percent met or
    exceeded

    standards 15- 71 percent met or exceeded standards

    Note: The table shows the range of scores on these assessments for all grade
    levels and subject areas tested. a North Dakota uses the TerraNova Basic
    Multiple Assessments as an assessment tool at grade 4, and the TerraNova
    Complete Battery Plus at grades 6, 8, and 10. Scores shown are total scores.
    b South Dakota uses the Stanford Achievement Test as an assessment tool at
    grades 2, 4, 8, and 11.

    Scores shown are for the complete battery. c Arizona uses an assessment test
    called the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) in

    grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11. AIMS classifies students into four categories in
    relation to the standards- Falls Far Below, Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds.

    For Arizona and North Dakota, data for public school students by ethnicity
    were available. These data indicate that Indian students in public schools
    in these two states score below state averages but higher than BIA students
    in those states.

    In addition to standardized testing, BIA schools assess students?
    proficiency in language arts and math using a combination of other measures
    including ?authentic assessment.? Authentic assessment involves evaluating
    student achievement based on a review of multiple items such as portfolios
    illustrating students? work, grades, and work samples as well as teacher
    observations. Many school districts and states have been incorporating
    aspects of authentic assessment into their student assessment programs.
    Authentic assessment often requires students to demonstrate problem- solving
    skills and is thought to reflect real- world situations. Some researchers
    consider authentic assessment more appropriate for minority students than
    standardized testing because standardized tests have been criticized as
    being culturally biased. In particular, because of the diversity of
    languages and cultures among

    Page 14 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Indian students, some educators have found these authentic assessment
    methods more useful. These assessments are reported annually by all
    BIAfunded schools. Using authentic assessment approaches, about half of BIA
    students have been assessed as proficient or advanced, in both math and
    language arts, each year over the last 3 years.

    Other measures often used as indicators of students? academic success
    include dropout rate, college admissions test scores, and the proportion of
    students planning to attend college. On these measures, BIA students perform
    less well than public school students. For example, in their annual reports,
    BIA high schools report dropout rates- the proportion of high school
    students who leave school and do not enroll in another school during the
    year- averaging about 10 percent. This is higher than the national average
    dropout rate (about 5 percent) and slightly higher than dropout rates for
    other ethnic minority groups. In addition, BIA students score significantly
    below national averages on college admission tests. As shown in table 2, BIA
    students who take the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American
    College Test (ACT)- two widely used college entrance examinations- score
    below students nationally in both verbal/ English and math assessments. They
    also score below students from low- income families on these tests. Finally,
    in our survey, BIA school officials estimated that about 28 percent of their
    graduates planned on enrolling in college after graduation, about evenly
    split between 4- year and 2- year colleges. Nationally, in 1999, a little
    less than two- thirds of high school graduates were enrolled in college the
    year after they completed high school- about 40 percent in 4- year colleges
    and 24 percent in 2- year colleges. For students from low- income families,
    the percentage who were enrolled in college the year after they graduated
    was around 50 percent.

    Table 2: 1999- 2000 BIA Graduates? Performance on SAT and ACT Compared With
    National Averages

    SAT scores a ACT scores b Verbal Math English Math

    BIA students 383 382 14.7 15.9 National average 505 514 20.5 20.7

    Note: A small number of BIA seniors (fewer than 70) take the SAT. Far more
    BIA students (about 800) take the ACT because BIA schools are located in
    areas of the country where the ACT is the predominant college admission
    test. a Data provided by the College Board.

    b Data provided by the American College Testing Service.

    Page 15 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    While the academic achievement of BIA students is low relative to students
    nationally, to some extent the performance of BIA students may be associated
    with conditions that are beyond a school system?s control. Higher student
    outcomes have been strongly associated with higher educational and income
    levels of parents. BIA students come from environments where family
    education levels are low and unemployment and poverty rates are high. For
    example, 1990 Census Bureau data show that one- third of Indians age 25 or
    older do not have high school diplomas compared with one- quarter of all
    adults nationally; and for Indians living on reservations or trust lands,
    the proportion of adults who are not high school graduates is over 45
    percent. Indians living on or near reservations also experience high rates
    of unemployment. Data from BIA?s Indian Labor Force Report show that 43
    percent of the potential labor force living on or near reservations remained
    unemployed in 1999. Poverty rates are also high among Indian families, with
    27 percent having incomes below the poverty level, compared with 10 percent
    of all families. Other data suggest that the proportion of families with
    incomes below the poverty level is even higher for those living on
    reservations and trust lands. Finally, the issue of alcohol and substance
    abuse is significant for Indian communities; the death rate due to
    alcoholism is about 7 times higher for Indians than for all races. Parental
    substance abuse has been identified as an environmental risk factor
    associated with learning problems, learning disabilities, and developmental
    delays in children. In a previous Education survey, almost 60 percent of BIA
    teachers considered parental alcohol or drug abuse a serious problem in
    their schools, compared with about 13 percent of teachers in public schools
    with low Indian student enrollment. 11

    BIA officials noted that the agency has developed programs to begin to
    moderate the influences of economic and family conditions on students?
    academic performance. These include early childhood and family literacy
    programs as well as a therapeutic residential model aimed at achieving
    positive changes in attitude, behavior, and the academic performance of
    students attending boarding schools. In addition, in its Annual Performance
    Plan, BIA has established several goals that address student academic
    performance. These goals concern student proficiency in language arts and
    math, student attendance, teacher proficiency in new assessments and
    technology, school accreditation, and number of degrees

    11 NCES, Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education:
    Results From the 1990- 91 and 1993- 94 Schools and Staffing Surveys, NCES
    97- 451 (Washington D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, March 1997).

    Page 16 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    conferred on Indian students at tribally controlled community colleges and
    at BIA?s two post- secondary schools. 12

    According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), one of the
    major elements that characterizes teacher quality is teacher preparation and
    qualifications. This refers to certification, education, and continuing
    learning. Results from our survey indicate that nearly all teachers in BIA
    schools were certified in school year 1999- 2000. Typically, about 95
    percent of teachers in BIA schools were fully certified in the subjects or
    grades they taught and another 3 percent had temporary or provisional
    certification. About 92 to 93 percent of public school teachers in general
    were fully certified in the subjects they taught. 13 Teachers in BIA-
    operated schools were slightly more likely to be fully certified than
    teachers in tribally operated schools. In addition to certification,
    teachers are being encouraged to pursue advanced degrees in order to gain a
    more advanced understanding of their discipline. About one- fourth of
    teachers in BIA schools had advanced degrees, compared to about 46 percent
    of public school teachers generally. 14 The proportion of teachers with
    advanced degrees in BIA- operated schools was about 33 percent, while in
    tribally operated schools it was about 21 percent.

    BIA teachers have access to various kinds of professional development and
    BIA schools support professional development in several ways. For example,
    93 percent of the BIA schools that responded to our survey reported that the
    majority of their teachers received in- service training provided by the
    school during the 1999- 2000 school year. Other types of training widely
    used included in- service training provided by the agency and workshops
    provided by professional associations, as shown in figure 5.

    12 BIA receives funds for two post- secondary schools: Haskell Indian
    Nations University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. 13
    1998 data as reported in The Condition of Education 2000, Table 47- 3, NCES
    (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, June 2000). 14 1998 data
    from Fast Response Survey System as reported in The Condition of Education
    2000, Table 47- 1, NCES (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education,
    June 2000). Teacher Staffing at BIA

    Schools Is Comparable to That of Public Schools Despite Some Recruiting
    Difficulties

    Page 17 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Figure 5: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers
    Received Various Types of Training

    Source: GAO survey.

    BIA schools facilitate their teachers? professional development in a variety
    of ways. The following supports were each reported by nine out of ten survey
    respondents: permitting time off to participate in training, setting days
    aside for training, paying travel or per diem for training, and paying
    tuition or fees. Such training and supports for professional development are
    comparable to the situation for public school teachers generally, nearly all
    of whom report having some professional development in the previous year
    with similar kinds of support from their schools. 15

    While nearly all teachers at BIA schools were certified, officials at some
    schools we visited, particularly tribally operated schools, recounted some
    difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff. At one tribally
    operated school in Washington, the chief school administrator said it was
    difficult to attract teachers because the school could not compete with

    15 NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993- 94, a national sample survey
    (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education).

    010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 College Courses in Teaching Methods

    or Assessment College Courses in Subject Matter

    Professional Association Workshop In- Service Provided by Agency

    In- Service Provided by School 93 66 38 11 13 Percentage of Schools Type of
    Training

    Page 18 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    compensation packages offered by nearby urban districts. 16 The 2000- 2001
    school year was the first year the school was able to pay teachers at the
    state salary scale, but the school offered limited retirement benefits. As a
    result, the administrator said the school tended to attract beginning
    teachers or retired teachers who had pensions from their public school
    careers. Other officials noted that the remote locations of some schools
    hinder recruiting. Many BIA schools are located in settings with few
    amenities to attract teachers and other staff. For example, at one school we
    visited in Arizona, the closest town offering major shopping and banking
    services was 96 miles away, and the principal said the community?s isolation
    and lack of amenities contributed to teacher turnover. In many locations,
    basic housing is not even available for staff to purchase or rent, so BIA
    has constructed employee quarters for which staff pay rent. About one- third
    of all BIA schools and 45 percent of tribally operated schools had teacher
    turnover rates of 25 percent or higher in school year 1999- 2000; the
    average turnover rate was 18 percent. Nationwide, about 87 percent of full-
    time public school teachers remain at the same school from one year to the
    next, implying a turnover rate of about 13 percent. 17

    A teacher?s ability to effect student learning may be influenced by the
    number of students in the classroom, and various studies have associated
    smaller class sizes with higher student achievement. Class sizes reported by
    BIA administrators are generally smaller than national averages, with
    tribally operated schools reporting smaller classes than BIA- operated
    schools. Nationally, in 1998 the average class size for general elementary
    classrooms was 23 students and in departmentalized settings (those in which
    a teacher?s main assignment is in one particular subject area, such as
    English or social studies) it was 24 students. 18 The median number of
    students per classroom reported by BIA- operated schools was about 20 to 22
    in grades K through 8 and about 17 in grades 9 through 12. Tribally operated
    schools had about 17 to 18 students per classroom in grades K

    16 BIA- operated schools use a uniform salary schedule comparable to the
    salary schedule used by the Department of Defense. This was implemented in
    part in an effort to recruit and retain quality staff. However, tribally
    operated schools determine salaries independently and there are no summary
    data available about their teachers? salaries.

    17 NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993- 94 and Teacher Follow- up
    Survey, 1994- 95

    (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education). 18 NCES, Teacher
    Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School
    Teachers, NCES 1999- 080 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education,
    Jan. 1999). Departmentalized settings are most often at the secondary level.

    Page 19 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    through 6 and about 16 students per classroom in grades 7 through 12. Our
    survey did not ask specifically about multiple grades in a classroom.
    However, some BIA schools are very small and have fewer full- time teachers
    than grade levels taught in the school. For example, there are five BIA
    schools with 51 or fewer students in grades ranging from K to 6 and K to 12.
    Four of these five schools have fewer full- time teachers than the number of
    grades in the school, suggesting that multiple grades are being taught in
    some classrooms.

    BIA schools appear to be in step with schools around the country in making
    technology available as an integral tool for learning. Based on our survey
    results, BIA students have greater access to computers than public school
    students nationwide. BIA administrators reported having about 1
    instructional computer for every 3.5 students overall, although access
    levels varied somewhat from school to school, ranging from 1 computer for
    every student to 1 computer for every 18 students. In comparison, the
    national average for public schools is 1 computer for every 5 students, as
    reported by NCES for 2000. 19 A major goal set by Education is that schools
    have 1 modern multimedia computer for every 5 students. 20 We do not know
    about the quality or capacity of the computers in BIA or public schools, but
    46 percent of the computers in BIA schools were reported to be 3 years old
    or older.

    In some respects BIA schools provide their students with greater access to
    the Internet than public schools. According to a BIA official, all 171 BIA
    schools are connected to the Internet. Nationally, nearly all public schools
    now have Internet access. However, BIA school officials reported that 1
    computer with Internet access was available for every 4.3 students, a ratio
    appreciably better than the 1 to 7 ratio for public schools nationwide. Some
    policymakers have stressed the importance of not only connecting every
    school to the Internet but eventually connecting every classroom. A little
    over 80 percent of BIA instructional rooms have at least one computer with a
    connection to the Internet. This number is also slightly above the national
    average for public schools. However, as with some public schools, some BIA
    schools still use the lowest- speed connections

    19 NCES, Internet Access in U. S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994- 2000,
    NCES 2001071 (Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, May 2001). 20
    U. S. Department of Education, 1999 Performance Report and 2001 Annual Plan

    (Washington, D. C.: 2000). Access to Computers and

    the Internet Reported by BIA Schools Is Greater Than Public Schools, but
    Technology Support Is More Limited

    Page 20 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    for their primary connection to the Internet, and thus cannot access complex
    computer applications and resources. Table 3 summarizes the information on
    students? access to technology at BIA schools based on our survey and for
    public schools nationally.

    Table 3: Technology Statistics for BIA and Public Schools BIA schools a
    Public

    schools b

    Number of students per instructional computer 3.5 5 Number of students per
    instructional computer with Internet access 4.3 7 Percentage of schools
    connected to the Internet 100 98 Percentage of instructional rooms with
    Internet access 81 77 Percentage of schools using dial- up connections to
    the Internet c 10 11 a Data for BIA schools come from GAO?s survey, with the
    exception of the percentage of schools connected to the Internet, which was
    provided by a BIA official. Data represent technology access in BIA schools
    at the time of our survey, which was administered in Nov. 2000. b Public
    school data are for school year 1999- 2000 and come from NCES? Internet
    Access in U. S.

    Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994- 2000, NCES 2001- 071 (Washington, D.
    C.: U. S. Department of Education, May 2001). c Other types of connections
    schools may be using include dedicated line, cable modem, and wireless
    connection.

    While computers and the Internet are generally available at BIA schools, a
    smaller proportion of the schools have paid (versus volunteer) technology
    support staff than public schools. In a survey conducted by Education,
    nearly all (95 percent) of public schools reported having some paid staff,
    either full- or part- time, to support advanced telecommunications (for
    example, networked computers and computer hardware and software) in their
    school in 1999. In our survey, we asked whether schools had (1) staff who
    provided technical support or performed maintenance on computers and (2)
    staff who assisted teachers in using computer software or the Internet to
    instruct students. The results indicated that more than onequarter of BIA
    schools did not have paid technical support and about onethird did not have
    paid staff to help teachers use computers for instruction in 2000. Evidence
    suggests that technology support of this kind has a positive impact on
    teacher use of technology in the classroom. 21 According to an NCES report,
    research in general shows that public school teachers

    21 A. Ronnkvist, S. Dexter, and R. Anderson, Technology Support: Its Depth,
    Breadth, and Impact in America?s Schools, Teaching, Learning and Computing:
    1998 National Survey

    (Irvine, Calif.: June 2000).

    Page 21 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    view the lack of technology support for integrating telecommunications into
    the classroom and the lack of technical assistance in schools to be
    obstacles to their effective use of technology. 22 Our survey results show
    that these areas of support are not available in many BIA schools. One
    reason why technology staff is more limited in BIA schools, according to one
    BIA official, is that the high turnover rate for technology coordinators is
    a problem throughout the BIA school system. He indicated that these
    technology coordinators often receive training for the work and then leave
    the schools for higher- paying positions.

    BIA school administrators reported that their computers are used regularly
    for learning activities. Although there is evidence to suggest that the
    effective use of technology in the classroom can improve student learning,
    the research on what types of classroom activities are best served by
    technology applications is not conclusive. 23 Nonetheless, studies on the
    uses of technology in schools tend to distinguish more basic uses of
    computers- such as for drill and practice, which the research shows can be
    effective for learning- from more pedagogically complex uses of computers-
    such as using the Internet in small groups for class projects, where the
    research data are less extensive. In our survey, we asked school
    administrators to estimate the portion of their teachers who routinely
    engaged their students in the use of computers for certain activities. As
    shown in figure 6, many of the teachers at BIA schools regularly engage
    students in the use of computers for practice drills and for learning
    subject matter. Fewer BIA teachers are using them on a regular basis for
    student research or to develop student skills in problem solving.

    22 NCES, Teachers? Tools for the 21st Century, A Report on Teachers? Use of
    Technology,

    NCES 2000- 102 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, Sept.
    2000). 23 H. Wenglinsky, Does It Compute? The Relationship Between
    Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics (Princeton, N.
    J.: Educational Testing Service, Sept. 1998).

    Page 22 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Figure 6: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers
    Assign Students Computer or Internet Work at Least Once Per Week for Various
    Classroom Activities

    Source: GAO survey.

    BIA schools appear to be making substantial investments in school
    technology. Administrators reported to us that in 1999- 2000 they spent an
    average of $401 per student to support educational technology in their
    schools. In comparison, according to a national survey, public school
    districts planned to spend $113 per student on educational technology in the
    2000- 2001 school year. 24 These expenditures covered all aspects of
    supporting educational technology, such as purchasing computer hardware and
    software, installing and upgrading local and wide area networks, paying for
    technical support and training for teachers, and paying for
    telecommunications access.

    24 Quality Education Data, Inc., Technology Purchasing Forecast 2000- 2001,
    6th Edition

    (Denver, Colo.: 2000).

    010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Problem Solving or Data Analysis

    Research Learning Subject Matter

    Computer Applications Practice Drill Work 40

    38 52 32 17 Percentage of Schools Classroom Activities

    Page 23 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Most of the BIA school administrators responding to our survey reported
    significant problems with the condition of their facilities. They noted
    problems with specific building features, such as roofs and plumbing, and
    with certain environmental conditions, such as indoor air quality. In
    addition, they indicated that work spaces for teachers and students, such as
    classrooms and libraries, were insufficient. The extent of the concerns they
    reported in the survey are reflected in BIA?s backlog of maintenance and
    repair needs. Among the backlog of such needs, which was recently verified
    by an independent engineering firm, is more than $960 million in needed
    repairs for school facilities and dormitories. A contributing factor to the
    facility needs of BIA schools is their isolation. Many schools are located
    in remote areas where, in addition to maintaining school buildings and
    grounds, facilities managers must also maintain other components of the
    infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, electric utilities, and fire
    stations- systems normally provided by local municipalities for most public
    schools. The Congress has recently increased funding used to address the
    backlog. However, budget allocations for the maintenance and repair of
    facilities have generally been less than amounts recommended by national
    guidelines.

    Compared to an earlier survey of administrators in public schools,
    significantly more BIA school administrators responding to our survey
    reported that the overall condition of their buildings and specific building
    features was inadequate. As shown in table 4, administrators at 65 percent
    of BIA schools reported that one or more of their school buildings was in
    less- than- adequate condition and 76 percent of boarding schools reported
    the same for their dormitory buildings. 25 In comparison, in a 1999
    Education survey on the condition of public school buildings, 26
    administrators at about one- quarter of public schools reported that one or
    more of their buildings was in less- than- adequate condition. Looking back

    25 Our survey asked school administrators to rate the condition of original
    buildings, attached or detached permanent additions to original buildings,
    and temporary buildings such as portables or trailers.

    26 NCES, Condition of America?s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000-
    32 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, June 2000). Extensive
    Problems With

    BIA School Facilities Reported

    BIA School Buildings, Features, and Work Spaces Reported To Be Less Than
    Adequate

    Page 24 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    to reported conditions in 1994, the conditions of both BIA and public
    schools appear to have generally improved. 27

    Administrators also reported that specific features of school buildings and
    dormitories, such as the plumbing system or roof, needed substantial repair
    or replacement. Overall, more than 70 percent of responding BIA schools
    reported that one or more of the features of school buildings was in less-
    than- adequate condition and 87 percent of boarding schools reported the
    same for dormitory buildings. In contrast, administrators at half of public
    schools reported that one or more of the features in their school buildings
    was inadequate. As shown in table 4, for many of the features listed, BIA
    administrators were at least twice as likely as public school administrators
    to report that their school buildings and dormitories had inadequate
    building features.

    27 GAO conducted a survey of public school and BIA school building
    conditions in 1994. Our current survey (2000) asked questions similar to
    those used in our 1994 survey and Education?s 1999 survey of public schools.
    For results from our previous study, see School Facilities: Condition of
    America?s Schools (GAO/ HEHS- 95- 61, Feb. 1995) and School Facilities:
    Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools Funded by the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (GAO/ HEHS- 98- 47, Dec. 1997). It should be noted that the
    results of our 1994 study of BIA schools reflect the reported conditions of
    responding schools; survey response rates were too low (41 percent) to
    permit generalization to all BIA schools.

    Page 25 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Table 4: Reported Facility Deficiencies for BIA Schools and Dormitories and
    Public Schools Percentage of schools reporting inadequacy Building
    deficiencies BIA schools a BIA dormitories a Public schools b Onsite school
    buildings

    One or more buildings in less- than- adequate condition (original buildings,
    additions to original buildings, and temporary buildings) 65 76 24

    Features of onsite buildings

    One or more inadequate building features 72 87 50 Roofs 48 50 22 Framing,
    floors, foundation 41 61 14 Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors 49 57
    24 Interior finishes, trim 39 58 17 Plumbing 47 66 25 Heating, ventilation,
    air conditioning 54 76 29 Electric power 43 66 22 Electrical lighting 34 65
    17 Safety features such as sprinklers, fire alarms, smoke detectors 37 53 20

    a Source: GAO survey. b Source: NCES, Condition of America?s Public School
    Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000- 32 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of
    Education, June 2000).

    Administrators responding to our survey also indicated that some
    environmental conditions were a problem in their schools. For example, over
    40 percent reported unsatisfactory indoor air quality, acoustics or noise
    control, or physical security in their buildings. Administrators at over 70
    percent of responding boarding schools reported the same for dormitory
    buildings. In comparison, these environmental conditions were a problem for
    20 percent or less of public schools in 1999.

    During our site visits, school officials indicated various problems with
    their school buildings. For example, the principal of a school in Washington
    said that in one portable classroom building the roof and windows leaked,
    and in two buildings there was a continuous problem with mold in the walls,
    which was difficult to control due to the wet climate. She said that the
    mold was a health problem for children with certain allergies. In a South
    Dakota school, a teacher expressed concerns about aging asbestos floor tiles
    in her classroom that had to be partially removed due to cracking, leaving
    other tiles exposed. Asbestos floor tiles, which are present in more than 90
    of BIA?s schools, can be a threat to the

    Page 26 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    health of students and staff if the asbestos fibers are disturbed, released
    into the air, and inhaled. 28

    In addition to questions about the condition of buildings and aspects of
    their environment, our survey asked administrators about the sufficiency of
    work spaces for students and teachers, such as classrooms, libraries, labs,
    and eating areas. We also asked whether some of these work spaces were
    adequately equipped- for example, whether libraries had sufficient numbers
    of books or whether buildings were adequately wired to support technology
    needs. As shown in figure 7, many BIA school administrators responding to
    our survey reported that various work spaces and equipment were insufficient
    at their school. For example, administrators at 55 percent of responding
    schools reported that the number of classrooms was insufficient and over 60
    percent reported the space in their libraries was a problem. Insufficient
    classroom space was noted by officials at some schools we visited. For
    example, at a large K- 12 school in South Dakota, officials said that the
    number of students in the high school building exceeded capacity. According
    to school officials, the building was intended to house 250 students, but
    they currently had about 400 students enrolled. In an Arizona school,
    because there was no other space, the school held special education classes
    in an area previously used for storage and teachers used partitions to
    separate the different groups of students.

    28 Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was used widely from the 1950s through
    the early 1970s in construction materials, such as shingles for roofing and
    siding, pipe and boiler insulation, floor tiles, ceiling panels, coatings,
    and gaskets. It is present in most BIA schools in the form of floor tiles
    and/ or insulation. A danger occurs when tiny asbestos fibers are released
    into the air and can be inhaled or swallowed, increasing the potential for
    conditions such as lung cancer.

    Page 27 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Figure 7: Percentage of BIA Schools Reporting That Various Work Spaces and
    Equipment Are Insufficient

    Source: GAO survey.

    A large proportion of BIA schools (60 percent) also reported that the
    capacity of the building?s telephone and electrical wiring systems to
    support computers, the Internet, and telephones was inadequate for their
    buildings. For BIA schools with insufficient telephone and electrical
    wiring, the age of the buildings may be a factor. Almost half of the
    buildings are more than 30 years old and almost 15 percent are between 50
    and 100 years old. The principal of an Arizona school built in the 1930s
    said that most of the electrical wiring in the school is original and as new
    technology has been added, they have had frequent problems with system
    overloads. He said that this is likely to get worse as more new technology
    is added.

    010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Telephone and Electrical Wiring

    Size of Eating Area Number of Science Labs

    Number of Computer Labs Number of Library Books

    Library Space Size of Classrooms

    Number of Classrooms 55 29

    62 64 38 31

    44 60

    Percentage of Schools Work Space and Equipment

    Page 28 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Administrators? concerns about the condition of their facilities are
    reflected in the BIA backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs. 29 This
    backlog is a catalog of deficiencies- related to buildings, surrounding
    grounds, and other infrastructure- identified by architects, engineers,
    facilities managers, and safety officers over the years. The inventory
    describes in detail individual work items required in schools to meet
    national standards and codes such as the Uniform Building Code and National
    Fire Codes. The backlog contains a description of the work that needs to be
    done and the estimated cost for each item. The deficiencies may involve
    safety and health, access for persons with disabilities, or noncompliance
    with building codes. Recently, BIA?s backlog was validated by an independent
    engineering firm. 30 According to BIA officials and representatives from the
    engineering firm, this process included on- site inspections of each BIA
    school building. Based on their inspections, the engineers validated current
    projects and their cost estimates, removed items that had already been
    addressed, and added new deficiencies they identified.

    As of February 2001, BIA?s backlog for educational facilities totaled $962
    million 31 -an increase of almost $270 million (in current dollars), or 39
    percent, since October 1997. 32 Table 5 shows estimated costs from BIA?s
    backlog to address deficiencies related to certain building features at BIA
    schools. BIA school administrators often indicated problems with these
    features in our survey. For example, the cost to address all deficiencies

    29 Maintenance is generally defined as the upkeep of property and equipment
    and includes the adjustment, cleaning, or lubrication of equipment;
    replacement of parts; painting; and other actions to assure continuing
    service and prevent breakdown. Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was
    not performed when it should have been or when it was scheduled to be and
    which, therefore, is put off or delayed for a future period. Repair is work
    to restore damaged or worn- out property to a normal operating condition.
    Repairs are curative, while maintenance is preventive.

    30 The review of BIA?s backlog was conducted by Applied Management
    Engineering, Inc. (AME). In addition to the validation of the backlog, AME
    developed a process for BIA to ensure the consistency and quality of
    information going into the backlog. AME is also conducting a study on the
    adequacy of operations and maintenance funding for BIA schools and an
    assessment of their facilities with respect to educational program needs,
    according to AME?s general manager.

    31 According to a BIA official, in some cases, the backlog may include both
    the deficiencies for a certain building and the estimated cost for planning,
    design, and/ or construction to replace that same building.

    32 See School Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools
    Funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs (GAO/ HEHS- 98- 47, Dec. 31, 1997). BIA
    Reports Needing More

    Than $960 Million To Address Educational Facilities Deficiencies but Funding
    Has Been Increasing

    Page 29 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    related to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in schools
    totaled more than $63 million at the time of this review. Administrators at
    more than half of the schools responding to our survey indicated problems
    with these systems. One school we visited in Arizona did not have a central
    cooling system, so each classroom had an air conditioner or evaporative
    cooling unit. The principal said the units were quite old and so noisy that
    they disrupted the students? learning environment. 33

    Table 5: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair Costs for BIA
    Schools and Dormitories

    Building features often indicated as inadequate a Estimated cost to repair
    related

    deficiencies b (dollars in millions)

    Heating, ventilation, air conditioning $63.2 Plumbing 31.6 Roofs 24.5 a
    Source: GAO survey.

    b Source: BIA backlog data as of February 2001.

    More than $127 million of the backlog total represents deficiencies related
    to the health and safety of students, and a significant portion of this ($
    44 million) relates to fire safety alone. For example, the backlog lists
    buildings at more than 100 schools that need to have their fire alarm
    systems replaced or upgraded because they are old, not working, or missing.
    At one school we visited, the facilities manager said that the fire alarm
    system on the school campus was no longer reliable, and that it was so old
    that buying replacement parts was becoming difficult. With respect to
    sprinkler systems, the BIA Chief of Safety and Risk Management said that it
    is BIA?s goal to have sprinkler systems and smoke detectors in all
    dormitories to ensure the safety of the residents. However, at the time of
    our review, the backlog showed that more than half of the 54 boarding
    schools? dormitories needed sprinkler systems either to be installed or
    upgraded. None of the boarding schools we visited had sprinkler systems in
    student dormitories. In addition, a dormitory at one school was closed due,
    in part, to fire- related safety deficiencies, according to the school
    superintendent.

    33 Some studies have concluded that school facility conditions, such as
    inadequate ventilation, faulty heating systems, and excessive noise, can
    affect student learning as well as the health and morale of staff and
    students. However, overall, the research is inconclusive and many scholars
    say that more research is needed to establish a link between school facility
    conditions and student performance.

    Page 30 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    A contributing factor to BIA school facility needs and the backlog is that
    BIA schools have to support a more extensive infrastructure than most public
    schools. Because many BIA schools are located in isolated areas, they
    maintain their own water and sewer systems, electric utilities, fire
    stations, and other important services that are generally provided to public
    schools by municipalities. Among the 171 BIA schools and 14 peripheral
    dormitories, 146 sites (79 percent) had responsibility for maintaining some
    kind of water infrastructure such as wells, water distribution lines, and/
    or water treatment facilities; 138 (75 percent) had responsibility for sewer
    infrastructure, such as sewage lagoons and sewage lines; and 52 schools (30
    percent) operated and maintained fire trucks.

    BIA officials indicated that providing and maintaining this additional
    infrastructure was a considerable drain on resources. For example, at a K- 8
    school we visited in Arizona, the facilities manager said that his staff
    must maintain a water system that includes five wells with distribution
    lines, pumps, pump houses, and water storage tanks; a sewer system that
    includes sewer lines, a lagoon, and a lift station; a fire station, fire
    truck, and hydrants; and a landfill. The facilities manager said the school
    has chronic problems with the sewer system, and an independent engineering
    firm has recommended that the sewer mains and service lines be replaced. For
    water and sewer systems alone, deficiencies in BIA?s backlog for educational
    facilities totaled almost $56 million.

    BIA?s infrastructure also includes dormitory facilities for boarding
    students and housing for staff and their families. In total, BIA schools
    support 157 dormitory buildings for students and 1,879 single- family
    quarters and 194 apartment buildings for employees. However, we did not
    include employee housing in the scope of our study because the rent paid by
    staff is meant to cover the upkeep of these facilities.

    Funding from BIA?s construction budget that is used largely to address the
    backlog was increased substantially by the Congress last year. This funding
    more than doubled from $40 million in fiscal year 2000 to $110 million in
    fiscal year 2001. BIA uses this funding to support a wide range of facility-
    related activities, including minor projects, such as the replacement of
    boiler systems, and major projects, such as the replacement of a natural gas
    line or the renovation of a school office building. In addition, the
    Congress provided even greater increases for replacement school construction
    the last 2 years. Funding rose from $17 million in fiscal year 1999 to $141
    million in fiscal year 2001. This funding can reduce the backlog when new
    facilities are constructed to replace

    Page 31 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    those that cannot accommodate current education programs or are beyond
    repair.

    While funding has increased during the last few years for certain
    facilityrelated line items in BIA?s budget, we attempted to look more
    closely at funding available specifically for maintenance and repair needs.
    Adequately funding maintenance and repair is important because deferral of
    these tasks can increase the backlog. One guideline set forth by the
    National Research Council (NRC) 34 considers maintenance and repair budgets
    in terms of the current replacement value of buildings. 35 The NRC has
    recommended that budget allocations for routine maintenance and repair be in
    the range of 2 to 4 percent of the current replacement value of buildings.
    36

    Using NRC?s definitions, we extracted and combined pieces of BIA?s budget to
    identify funding available for the maintenance and repair of buildings and
    other infrastructure and determined that funding levels were below those
    recommended by the NRC. From 1997- 2000, funding requested for and allocated
    to the maintenance and repair of BIA schools was between 1.5 percent and 1.8
    percent- below the lower end of the recommended range of 2 to 4 percent.
    Funding increased in fiscal year 2001, resulting in maintenance and repair
    budget allocations providing about 2.5 percent of current replacement value
    that year. However, based on discussions with recognized experts in
    budgeting and facilities operations and maintenance, even with this
    increase, budget allocation levels over the past 5 years have been too low.
    37 These experts suggested that because of the extensive infrastructure
    beyond buildings that BIA must support, the isolation of the schools which
    dramatically increases maintenance and repair costs, and the age of BIA
    facilities, BIA schools

    34 NRC is the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
    Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing advisory
    services in science and technology to the federal government and other
    entities.

    35 Current replacement value is the amount in current dollars it would cost
    to duplicate the facility. 36 NRC, Committing to the Cost of Ownership:
    Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings (Washington, D. C.: National
    Academy Press, 1990). 37 The experts we spoke with included a member of the
    National Academy of Engineering, two engineering consultants, and a retired
    director of facilities for a historical society with past experience
    developing capital and facilities operations budgets for the Congress. BIA
    Funding for Maintenance

    and Repair Is Less Than National Guidelines

    Page 32 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    likely require maintenance and repair funding in the range of 4 to 6 percent
    of current replacement value.

    Estimated per- pupil expenditures for BIA day schools were $9,647 in 1997-
    98. 38 In comparison, the national average per- pupil expenditure for public
    schools was $6,189 in 1997- 98, the latest year for which national data were
    available at the time we did our work. It is important to note that per-
    pupil expenditures can range widely. Within the 50 states, per- pupil
    expenditures for public schools in 1997- 98 ranged from $4,288 in
    Mississippi to $9,643 in New Jersey.

    Estimated per- pupil expenditures at BIA schools also varied widely
    depending upon the type of school. As shown in table 6, BIA boarding school
    expenditure estimates were almost $2,000 more per pupil than BIA day schools
    overall; the additional estimated expenditures for the boarding schools were
    likely due to their residential components. Among BIA day schools, estimated
    expenditures per pupil were higher for tribally operated schools than BIA-
    operated schools.

    Table 6: Comparison of Per- Pupil Expenditures at BIA and Public Schools,
    1997- 98 BIA- funded schools

    Estimated per pupil expenditure Public schools Per- pupil

    expenditure b

    Day schools $9,647 All schools $6,189 BIA- operated 7,677 Rural schools
    5,817 Tribally operated 10,423 Large city schools 6,293 Boarding schools a
    $11,643 a Includes BIA- operated and tribally operated boarding schools.

    b Data are from the National Public Education Financial Survey, Fiscal Year
    1998, as cited in NCES?

    Statistics in Brief: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and
    Secondary Education: School Year 1997- 98, NCES 2000- 348 (Washington, D.
    C.: U. S. Department of Education, May 2000).

    One reason for the difference between estimated per- pupil expenditures for
    day schools operated by BIA and those by tribes is that tribally operated
    schools bear higher administrative costs- each school must

    38 Our analysis of expenditures at BIA schools considered expenditures from
    federal funding sources alone. According to BIA officials, federal funds
    constitute by far the largest part of funding for BIA schools. The national
    per- pupil expenditure figures include funding from federal, state, local,
    and private sources. Estimated Expenditures

    Per Pupil for BIA Schools Are Higher Than Public Schools?, and Vary
    Substantially Between Categories of Schools

    Page 33 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    provide its own accounting and other support services that otherwise would
    be provided by BIA for a comparable BIA- operated school. To support these
    additional operating expenses, BIA provides administrative cost grants to
    tribally operated schools, which averaged about $1,400 per student in 1997-
    98.

    In comparing BIA and public school per- pupil expenditures, it is difficult
    to draw meaningful conclusions because the many factors that distinguish BIA
    schools from public schools may add to their educational costs. Special-
    needs students generally require additional educational resources and, as
    mentioned previously, a high proportion of BIA students have special needs.
    For example, according to BIA records for the 2000- 2001 school year, about
    21 percent of BIA students are enrolled in special education compared with
    13 percent of public school students, and 58 percent of BIA students have
    limited English proficiency, compared with 8 percent of public school
    students. 39 Available data also indicate that a high proportion of BIA
    students are poor. 40 The student populations of BIA schools in fact may be
    more similar to those of large city or rural public schools, where higher
    proportions of students tend to have special needs.

    Other characteristics of BIA schools may lead to increased expenditures. The
    isolation that results in additional infrastructure needs for BIA schools
    also results in higher costs in other areas, such as transportation. For
    example, the number of miles transported per student for BIA schools in
    school year 1999- 2000 was about 296, while that of public schools was about
    165 for school year 1998- 1999. Many of the miles traveled by BIA students
    are on unimproved roads or roads in poor condition, which increases wear and
    tear on vehicles. BIA also provides long- distance transportation four times
    a year for many of the 8,000 students living in boarding schools. Because
    BIA schools are generally small and often far

    39 Data on the proportion of public school students in special education are
    for 1998- 99 and are from Digest of Education Statistics 2000 (Washington,
    D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, Jan. 2001). Data on the proportion of
    public school students who are considered to have limited English
    proficiency are for 1996- 97 and are from the National Clearinghouse for
    Bilingual Education Summary Report of the Survey of the States? Limited
    English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services
    1996- 97 (Washington, D. C.: George Washington University, Graduate School
    of Education and Human Development, Sept. 1998).

    40 As noted earlier, available data for 123 of the 171 BIA schools show that
    over 80 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced- price lunch
    for school year 1999- 2000. According to data from USDA, about 40 percent of
    students enrolled in schools nationwide are approved for free or reduced-
    price lunch.

    Page 34 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    from each other, it can be difficult for them to achieve economies of scale.
    Many, for example, must have their own facility maintenance shops and
    garages; in contrast, public school districts generally have such facilities
    that serve several schools.

    DOD students? academic achievement generally exceeds that of elementary and
    secondary students as measured by national standardized tests. DOD school
    administrators indicated that nearly all teachers in DOD schools are
    certified in the subjects or grades they teach, and the majority of teachers
    hold advanced degrees- this proportion is greater than the national average
    for public school teachers. Students? access to computers reported by DOD
    school administrators is greater than that reported for public schools
    nationwide. In addition, the vast majority of DOD schools provide their
    teachers with technical and instructional assistance for using computers in
    the classroom. Many DOD school administrators reported some problems with
    their school facilities and some reported that work spaces for teachers and
    students were not adequate. However, overall the conditions of facilities
    reported by DOD schools and public schools in 1999 were not substantially
    different. The estimated per- pupil expenditure for DOD schools is higher
    than the national average, and the estimated per- pupil expenditure is
    higher for overseas schools than for domestic schools.

    On standardized achievement tests, DOD students on average score at or above
    national norms. DOD schools use the TerraNova Multiple Assessments to assess
    students in grades 3 through 11. In math and language arts, DOD students?
    average national percentile rankings ranged from the 61st percentile to the
    72nd percentile (see table 7). Overseas and domestic schools scored in a
    comparable range. By definition, the national average is the 50th
    percentile. At most grade levels, the rankings for overseas schools were a
    few points higher than those for domestic schools. For both boys and girls,
    and for various ethnic groups, DOD students were at or above national
    averages. On the National Assessment The DOD School

    System Academic Performance of DOD Students Exceeds That of Students
    Nationally

    Page 35 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    of Educational Progress (NAEP), another standardized test, DOD students
    scored at or above national benchmarks. 41

    Table 7: National Percentile Rankings for Students in DOD Schools on the
    TerraNova Multiple Assessments Standardized Tests for School Year 1999- 2000

    National percentile rankings Grade Language arts Math

    3 6361 4 6464 5 6463 6 6865 7 6665 8 6862 9 7066 10 72 72 11 68 67

    Source: DOD data.

    On other measures that are often used as indicators of students? academic
    achievement, such as college admissions tests and plans to attend college,
    DOD students generally perform as well as or better than public school
    students. A high proportion of DOD students take college admissions tests,
    scoring at or near national averages. (See table 8.) In addition, DOD school
    administrators reported that about three- quarters of DOD graduates plan to
    pursue higher education. Nationally, just under two- thirds of high school
    graduates are enrolled in college the year after they complete high school.
    DOD administrators responding to our survey also estimated that about 60
    percent of their graduates planned to enter 4- year colleges and another 15
    percent planned to enter 2- year colleges. Nationally, about 40 percent of
    high school graduates enroll in 4- year colleges the year after they
    graduate and about 24 percent enroll in 2- year colleges.

    41 The NAEP is a nationally administered test that assesses students?
    proficiency in different subject areas, such as reading, math, and writing,
    in different years. We examined DOD data on students? performance on the
    NAEP in math (1996), reading (1998), and writing (1998).

    Page 36 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Table 8: Average SAT and ACT Scores for DOD and Public School Students
    Graduating in 2000

    SAT scores ACT scores Verbal Math English Math

    DOD students 504 500 21.3 20.8 National average 505 514 20.5 20.7

    Source: DOD data.

    The academic achievement of DOD students may be influenced by socioeconomic
    factors and a ?common culture? engendered by military service. Education
    research has strongly associated student academic achievement with parental
    education, income levels, and family structure. In each of these areas,
    military families fare relatively well. For example, nearly all military
    enlistees are high school graduates and relatively high proportions of the
    parents of DOD students have attended or graduated from college. Moreover,
    while a considerable portion of children in DOD schools are eligible for
    free or reduced- price lunch programs (32 percent), this is less than the
    proportion in public schools (40 percent); in addition, military families
    receive benefits, such as tax- free housing allowances or free housing on
    base, that are not considered in eligibility determinations for the lunch
    programs. Finally, nearly 90 percent of military school- age children reside
    in two- parent families compared with 70 percent of children in public
    schools, although DOD families are affected by the absence of parents
    deployed away from home.

    In addition to these socioeconomic factors, DOD schools receive unique
    support from the military and its culture. Military commands support the
    schools in their jurisdictions and encourage their staffs to do so as well-
    for instance, by making parent- teacher conferences a duty or fostering
    volunteer work in the schools. Staff at DOD schools are sensitive to the
    unique circumstances of military families, such as the deployment of
    military parents away from home and frequent family moves to new duty
    stations. According to a recent study, military children move through an
    average of six school districts between kindergarten and the completion of
    high school. Therefore, DOD is developing standardized curricula in its
    schools that are intended to help overcome some problems associated with
    high student mobility.

    Page 37 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Administrators responding to our survey indicated that virtually all
    teachers in DOD schools are certified in the subjects or grades they teach,
    both in domestic and overseas schools. About two- thirds of teachers in DOD
    schools have advanced degrees compared to about 46 percent of public school
    teachers generally. Again, this proportion was about the same for both
    domestic and overseas schools.

    DOD teachers have access to various kinds of professional development, and
    DOD schools support professional development in several ways. For example,
    95 percent of the DOD schools that responded to our survey reported that the
    majority of their teachers received in- service training provided by the
    school during the 1999- 2000 school year. Other types of training are shown
    in figure 8.

    Figure 8: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers
    Received Various Types of Training

    Source: GAO survey.

    DOD schools facilitate their teachers? professional development in several
    ways. Nearly all DOD schools reported allowing time off to participate in
    training and setting days aside for training. In addition, nearly nine out
    of ten schools reported paying travel or per diem for training; about half
    reported paying tuition or fees. These types of training and supports for
    DOD Teachers Are

    Certified and Most Have Advanced Degrees

    010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 College Courses in Teaching Methods

    or Assessment College Courses in Subject Matter

    Professional Association Workshop In- Service Provided by District

    In- Service Provided by School 95 71 6 7 5 Percentage of Schools Type of
    Training

    Page 38 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    professional development are comparable to those for public school teachers
    generally, nearly all of whom reported having some professional development
    with similar kinds of support from their schools. 42

    DOD officials related few problems attracting teachers to domestic schools
    but noted that recruiting was somewhat more difficult in certain overseas
    locations, particularly in parts of Asia. To ease recruiting, DOD often pays
    moving expenses for teachers it hires in the U. S. to work in overseas
    schools. DOD provides transportation for the employees and their family
    members, and ships their household goods to and from the overseas area.
    Applicants recruited in the U. S. for overseas posts also receive housing
    allowances to cover rent and utility costs. 43

    Class sizes reported by DOD administrators are close to national averages
    with no consistent pattern between domestic and overseas schools.
    Nationally, in 1998, the average class size was 23 students for general
    elementary classrooms and 24 students for teachers in departmentalized
    settings. The median number of students per classroom reported by DOD
    schools was in the low 20s in grades K through 8 and in the high teens in
    grades 9 through 12, as shown in table 9.

    Table 9: Median Class Sizes at DOD Schools Median number of students per
    class Grades

    K to 3 Grades

    4 to 6 Grades

    7 to 8 Grades

    9 to 12

    Overseas schools 22 24 20 19 Domestic schools 20 23 23 19

    Source: GAO survey.

    Beginning in school year 1999- 2000, DOD obtained additional funding to
    reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 in order to enhance learning
    opportunities and improve the quality of instruction. The target is a
    pupilteacher ratio of 18 to 1. Reduced class sizes were to be implemented in
    18 overseas schools and 25 domestic schools, with all DOD schools phased in
    over the next 6 years.

    42 NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993- 94 (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
    Department of Education). 43 According to a DOD official, a small number of
    staff in DOD overseas schools live in government- provided quarters, but the
    majority receive allowances intended to cover the cost of housing in the
    areas where they choose to live.

    Page 39 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Based on the responses of DOD school officials to our survey, DOD students
    appear to have greater access to computers, including computers connected to
    the Internet, than do public school students nationwide. These
    administrators reported having about 1 instructional computer for every 3.7
    students. This ratio is slightly better than the national average reported
    by NCES for 2000. (See table 10.) We do not know about the quality or
    capacity of computers in DOD schools, but a significant portion of these
    computers (59 percent) are 3 years old or older.

    Administrators at DOD schools reported that students had 1 computer
    connected to the Internet available for every 4.8 students. This ratio also
    is better than the ratio for public schools nationwide (1 computer for every
    7 students). In addition, DOD administrators reported that almost 90 percent
    of instructional rooms in their schools have at least one computer with a
    connection to the Internet. This figure exceeds the national average in 2000
    by more than 10 percentage points.

    Table 10: Technology Statistics for DOD and Public Schools DOD schools a
    Public

    schools b

    Number of students per instructional computer 3.7 5 Number of students per
    instructional computer with Internet access 4.8 7 Percentage of schools
    connected to the Internet 100 98 Percentage of instructional rooms with
    Internet access 89 77 Percentage of schools using dial- up connections to
    the Internet c 5 11 a Data for DOD schools come from GAO?s survey, with the
    exception of the percentage of schools

    connected to the Internet, which was provided by a DOD official. Data
    represent technology access in DOD schools at the time of our survey, which
    was administered in Nov. 2000. b Public school data are for school year
    1999- 2000 and come from NCES? Internet Access in U. S. Public Schools and
    Classrooms: 1994- 2000, NCES 2001- 071 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department
    of Education, May 2001). c Other types of connections schools may be using
    include dedicated line, cable modem, and wireless

    connection.

    DOD schools also appear to have greater staff support for technology than
    public schools nationwide. Almost all DOD school administrators reported
    that in 2000 they had paid (versus volunteer) staff that maintained
    technology and provided technical assistance. In addition, 98 percent of DOD
    schools have paid staff to support teachers in using technology for
    instruction. In a survey conducted by Education in 1999, 95 percent of
    public schools reported having some paid staff to support advanced
    telecommunications in their school. A school technology administrator at
    Technology Access and

    Support Reported by DOD Schools is on Average Greater Than Public Schools

    Page 40 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    one Army base told us that each school on the base has a technologist
    available to instruct teachers on how to use technology in the classroom,
    and that, as a result, teachers were integrating the technology into the
    curriculum on a daily basis. At one school in this district, first graders
    were learning how to create and deliver PowerPoint presentations.

    As previously noted, though research suggests that effective use of
    technology in the classroom can improve student learning, research is
    inconclusive concerning what types of classroom activities are best served
    by technology. In responding to our questions concerning teachers? use of
    computers in the classroom, about half of DOD school administrators reported
    that the majority of their teachers regularly engage students in the use of
    computers to learn subject matter, conduct research, and learn computer
    applications. Fewer DOD administrators reported that a majority of their
    teachers are routinely using computers to develop student problem- solving
    or data- analysis skills or for drill and practice purposes. (See fig. 9.)

    Figure 9: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That a Majority of Teachers
    Assign Students Computer or Internet Work At Least Once Per Week for Various
    Classroom Activities

    Source: GAO survey. 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

    Problem Solving or Data Analysis Research

    Learning Subject Matter Computer Applications

    Practice Drill Work 40 47

    54 48 25 Percentage of Schools Classroom Activities

    Page 41 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    DOD schools appear to be making significant investments in educational
    technology. According to agency records and estimates, the DOD school system
    obligated about $356 per student for educational technology in fiscal year
    2000 for domestic and overseas schools. By comparison, according to a
    national survey, public school districts planned to spend $113 per student
    on educational technology in the 2000- 2001 school year. 44

    Many DOD school administrators responding to our survey reported problems
    with their school facilities but, for the most part, their responses were
    not substantially different from those reported nationally by public school
    administrators in 1999. 45 As shown in table 11, 32 percent of the school
    administrators reported that they had one or more buildings in less than
    adequate condition; in 1999, 24 percent of public school administrators
    responding to a national survey reported that they had one or more buildings
    in less than adequate condition. Looking at specific building features, such
    as roofs and plumbing, administrators at about half of both DOD and public
    schools reported having at least one inadequate feature. For many features,
    about the same proportion of DOD and public schools reported problems. For
    some features, including electric power, electrical lighting, and safety
    features, fewer DOD schools reported problems than public schools.

    44 Quality Education Data, Inc., Technology Purchasing Forecast 2000- 2001,
    6th Edition

    (Denver, Colo.: 2000). 45 NCES, Condition of America?s Public School
    Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000- 32 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of
    Education, June 2000). Administrators Report

    Some Problems With DOD School Facilities

    Page 42 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Table 11: Reported Facilities Deficiencies for DOD and Public Schools
    Percentage of schools reporting

    inadequacy DOD schools a Public

    schools b Building deficiencies Onsite school buildings

    One or more buildings in less than adequate condition (original buildings,
    additions to original buildings, and temporary buildings)

    32 24

    Features of onsite buildings

    One or more inadequate building features 52 50 Roofs 21 22 Framing, floors,
    foundation 15 14 Exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors 20 24 Interior
    finishes, trim 14 17 Plumbing 22 25 Heating, ventilation, air conditioning
    29 29 Electric power 14 22 Electrical lighting 11 17 Safety features such as
    sprinklers, fire alarms, or smoke detectors 14 20 a Source: GAO survey.

    b Source: NCES, Condition of America?s Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES
    2000- 32 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, June 2000).

    When asked about the condition of certain environmental factors in DOD
    schools, such as indoor air quality, again about the same proportion of
    administrators at DOD schools as public schools reported unsatisfactory
    conditions. About 20 percent or less of administrators at DOD and public
    schools reported that indoor air quality, acoustics or noise control, or
    physical security were inadequate in their buildings.

    Some DOD schools reported that various work spaces and equipment for
    students and teachers were insufficient at their schools: 29 percent of
    schools reported that the number of classrooms was insufficient; about the
    same proportion reported inadequate library space (see fig. 10). The
    principal of a 40- year- old school we visited that had not been renovated
    said that the lack of space for storage was a major problem. In addition, 40
    percent of DOD schools reported that the telephone and electrical wiring in
    their facilities was inadequate. The problems with inadequate telephone and
    electrical wiring may be due to the age of DOD education facilities. About
    60 percent of the DOD school buildings are 30 to 70 years of age,

    Page 43 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    and as the level of technology introduced into the schools has increased, so
    have the demands on the telephone and electrical systems.

    Figure 10: Percentage of DOD Schools Reporting That Various Work Spaces and
    Equipment Are Insufficient

    Source: GAO survey.

    DOD estimates that about $529 million is needed to improve its educational
    facilities, as of May 2001. This estimate comes from the 5- Year Facilities
    Plan for DOD schools. This plan lists projects for repair and improvement
    identified by school engineers and principals. 46

    Each year, each DOD school principal and a DOD school district facilities
    engineer inspect the school facilities and grounds to validate existing
    projects on the plan, identify new projects, coordinate routine maintenance,
    identify construction projects, and discuss prioritization. Headquarters-
    level facilities officials prioritize the projects for DOD schools
    systemwide and determine which projects will be funded based on

    46 The 5- Year Facilities Plan for DOD schools also includes the cost to
    replace some schools. At the time of this review, the plan included the
    costs to replace six schools. DOD Reports Needing More

    Than $500 Million to Improve Educational Facilities

    010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Telephone and Electrical Wiring

    Size of Eating Area Number of Science Labs

    Number of Computer Labs Number of Library Books

    Library Space Size of Classrooms

    Number of Classrooms 29 24

    28 16

    14 18

    28 40

    Percentage of Schools Work Space and Equipment

    Page 44 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    the availability of funds. Included on this list are repair and maintenance
    requirements that cost more than $25,000 for domestic schools and $10,000
    for overseas schools. Projects below these levels are funded centrally out
    of school or district operations and maintenance budgets, according to the
    DOD?s chief of school facilities. DOD school superintendents/ principals and
    facilities managers at the schools we visited indicated that they were
    generally able to meet the repair and maintenance needs of their facilities
    with these funds.

    Table 12 shows DOD?s estimated costs to address deficiencies related to
    certain building features at DOD schools. DOD school administrators often
    indicated problems with these features in our survey. For example, the cost
    to address all deficiencies related to heating, ventilation, and air
    conditioning systems in schools totaled more than $44 million at the time of
    this review. Administrators at almost 30 percent of schools responding to
    our survey indicated problems with these systems. During our site visits to
    seven DOD schools in Alabama and Georgia, the condition of the heating,
    ventilation, and cooling systems was the most common complaint about school
    facilities.

    Table 12: Selected Reported Deficiencies and Estimated Repair Costs for DOD
    Schools

    Building features often indicated as inadequate a Estimated cost to repair
    related

    deficiencies b (dollars in millions)

    Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning $44.5 Roofs 29 Playground
    surfaces and equipment 21 a Source: GAO Survey.

    b Source: 5- Year Facilities Plan for DOD schools, May 2001.

    Funding to address projects in the 5- year plan comes primarily from repair
    and maintenance and minor construction allocations from the operation and
    maintenance budget for DOD schools, according to a DOD official. These
    allocations have decreased from about $71 million in fiscal year 1998 to $40
    million in fiscal year 2000. According to agency officials, these decreases
    were implemented in part to help pay for escalating payroll costs at DOD
    domestic schools. In addition to allocations from the operation and
    maintenance budget, funding from the construction budget for DOD schools is
    used for projects in the 5- year plan. The construction budget has
    fluctuated over the last several years. In fiscal year 1999, the
    construction budget for DOD schools totaled $44 million; in fiscal year

    Page 45 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    2000, this amount rose to $82 million; and in fiscal year 2001, it decreased
    to $36 million.

    Estimated per- pupil expenditures for DOD domestic and overseas schools were
    above the national average for 1997- 98 (see table 13), and DOD schools?
    estimated expenditures per pupil vary depending on their locations. 47
    Schools located overseas tend to have substantially higher estimated per-
    pupil expenditures ($ 10, 097) than DOD domestic schools ($ 7,725). Much of
    this difference, according to DOD data, reflects the added costs of having
    teachers and other school- related staff overseas. 48 These costs include
    such things as benefits paid to employees in connection with moves to
    overseas locations and allowances to compensate for substantially higher
    living costs outside the United States.

    Table 13: Comparison of Per- Pupil Expenditures at DOD and Public Schools,
    1997- 98

    DOD schools Estimated

    per pupil expenditure Public schools Per- pupil expenditure

    Domestic $7,725 All schools $6,189 a Overseas 10,097 a Data are from the
    National Public Education Financial Survey, Fiscal Year 1998, as cited in
    NCES?

    Statistics in Brief: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and
    Secondary Education: School Year 1997- 98, NCES 2000- 348 (Washington, D.
    C.: U. S. Department of Education, May 2000).

    We provided officials at DOD, Education, and the Department of the Interior
    (Interior), which oversees BIA, an opportunity to comment on a draft of this
    report. In its written comments, DOD concurred with the content of the
    report and had no technical comments. DOD?s letter is printed in appendix
    II. Education found the report to be helpful and informative and provided
    technical comments which we incorporated into the report when data were
    available. Interior provided written comments and agreed with many aspects
    of our report. However, the agency pointed

    47 DOD does not have readily available expenditure data to determine per-
    pupil expenditures. Therefore, we used obligation data as a proxy for
    expenditures. 48 Although there are some such costs associated with teachers
    and school- related staff in Guam and Puerto Rico, they are much less than
    those for overseas schools because there are fewer schools in these
    locations than overseas. Estimated Expenditures

    Per Pupil for DOD Schools Are Higher Than Public Schools? and Vary
    Substantially Between Domestic and Overseas Schools

    Agency Comments

    Page 46 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    out that BIA?s students and schools are very different from those in the
    public school system and stated that in some cases GAO had made
    inappropriate comparisons between BIA schools and the public school system.
    Interior stressed this most with respect to measures we used to consider the
    academic performance of BIA students and our calculation of expenditures per
    pupil. However, we believe that we have provided a framework for our
    analysis that shows a sensitivity to these issues and that our analysis is a
    fair and balanced representation of the achievement of and expenditures for
    BIA students. We discuss Interior?s comments in appendix III following the
    agency?s printed letter. Interior also provided technical corrections which
    we incorporated where appropriate.

    As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
    earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report until 30 days
    after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
    the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; Neal McCaleb,
    Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; the
    Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; John M. Molino, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy; the
    Honorable Roderick R. Paige, Secretary of Education; appropriate
    congressional committees; and other interested parties. Please call me at
    (202) 512- 7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this report.
    Key contacts and staff acknowledgments for this report are listed in
    appendix IV.

    Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce,

    and Income Security

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 47 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    This appendix discusses in more detail the scope and methodology for
    examining the following aspects of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
    Department of Defense (DOD) school systems: (1) student achievement, (2)
    teacher staffing, (3) access to educational technology, (4) condition of
    school facilities, and (5) expenditure levels.

    The scope of our review included BIA day schools and boarding schools, and
    DOD schools located both in the United States and overseas. To the extent we
    could, we excluded from our analyses BIA peripheral dormitories, which house
    Indian students on reservations who attend nearby public schools and
    generally do not have academic programs. Our focus was the 1999- 2000 school
    year, and most of the data we collected relate to that year.

    A major source of information for this review was a mail survey of
    administrators at all BIA and DOD schools. We pretested a draft
    questionnaire at eight schools and revised it based on their comments. In
    November 2000, we mailed the final questionnaire to all 171 BIA schools and
    224 DOD schools. We did follow- up mailings in January and March 2001 and
    accepted returns through early May 2001, yielding response rates of 81
    percent for BIA schools and 92 percent for DOD schools. We did not
    independently verify the accuracy of the information provided in the
    questionnaire responses. In addition to information collected through the
    survey, we obtained budget, facilities, and other data from BIA and DOD, and
    testing data from state departments of education and college testing
    organizations. We obtained and reviewed supporting documentation for some
    budget and expenditure data but otherwise did not verify this information.

    In the course of this review, we interviewed various staff at BIA?s Office
    of Indian Education Programs and DOD?s Department of Defense Education
    Activity who are responsible for education programs, budgets, technology,
    and facilities. As shown below, we also conducted site visits to nine BIA
    schools located in South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota, and Washington and
    seven DOD schools located in the United States at three military
    installations- Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and Fort Benning and Robins
    Air Force Base in Georgia. At these schools, we toured the school facilities
    and met with a variety of officials, including principals, superintendents,
    education specialists, and facilities management staff. The BIA schools we
    visited were

     Greasewood Springs Community School, Ariz.,

     Hopi Day School, Ariz., Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 48 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

     Muckleshoot Tribal School, Wash.,

     Chief Leschi School, Wash.,

     Flandreau Indian Boarding School, S. Dak.,

     Pine Ridge School, S. Dak.,

     Loneman Day School, S. Dak.,

     Fond du Lac Ojibwe School, Minn., and

     Nay- Ah- Shing School, Minn. The DOD schools we visited were

     Maxwell AFB Elementary School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.,

     Dexter Elementary School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

     Faith Middle School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

     Loyd Elementary School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

     White Elementary School, Fort Benning, Ga.,

     Linwood Elementary School, Robins AFB, Ga., and

     Robins Elementary School, Robins AFB, Ga. We obtained data on public
    schools from readily available sources, typically from Department of
    Education (Education) studies.

    We conducted our work between June 2000 and July 2001 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    To provide an indication of BIA and DOD students? academic achievement, we
    reviewed their performance on standardized tests and state assessments. We
    also obtained data on their performance on college entrance examinations,
    namely the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Test
    (ACT). In addition, our survey asked administrators to report on the post-
    high- school plans of graduating seniors.

    For BIA schools, we attempted to collect data on BIA students? performance
    on state assessments from four states that account for more than 70 percent
    of all BIA schools- Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. We
    were able to obtain data for all BIA schools in North Dakota and South
    Dakota and for 19 of 50 BIA schools in Arizona that participated in
    Arizona?s state assessment program. No data were available for BIA schools
    in New Mexico, which has about one- quarter of all BIA students. In total,
    about 36 percent of BIA students attend the Student Achievement

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 49 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    schools to which our data relate. All data obtained were for school year
    1999- 2000.

    From the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, we obtained data on
    students? performance on the statewide assessment. North Dakota uses the
    TerraNova Basic Multiple Assessments to assess students in grade 4 and the
    TerraNova Complete Battery Plus to assess students in grades 6, 8, and 10.
    The state provided data on statewide averages for students? performance on
    the test, a breakdown of these scores by student ethnicity, and the scores
    for all BIA schools. We focused on students? total scores on the test and
    reported the range of scores across all grades. In South Dakota, schools use
    the Stanford Achievement Test to assess students in grades 2, 4, 8, and 11.
    From South Dakota?s Department of Education, we obtained the average scores
    for students statewide, and the scores for all BIA schools on the complete
    battery and for specific skill areas such as language arts, reading, and
    math. 1 We reported specifically on the range of scores on the complete
    battery across all grades. Arizona uses an assessment test customized for
    its standards, called the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), in
    grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11. AIMS classifies students into four categories in
    relation to the standards: Falls Far Below, Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds.
    The Arizona Department of Education provided us with statewide averages for
    students? performance on the AIMS, including a breakdown of statewide scores
    by ethnicity, and the scores for participating BIA schools. We reported the
    range for the proportion of children who met or exceeded the state
    standards, across all grades and across all subjects (reading, writing, and
    math).

    We requested data on the performance of BIA students on the SAT and ACT from
    the respective college testing organizations. With BIA?s approval, the
    testing organizations provided us data on the scores for BIA students who
    graduated in 1999 or 2000. It should be noted that a small number of BIA
    graduates (fewer than 70) take the SAT. Far more BIA students (about 800)
    take the ACT because BIA schools are located in areas of the country where
    the ACT is the predominant college admissions test.

    BIA also provided the annual reports for virtually all BIA- funded schools,
    which include data on the proficiency of students as assessed by schools.

    1 The complete battery score is a composite score that includes all subject
    areas tested.

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 50 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    These assessments are based on multiple measures, which in addition to
    students? performance on standardized tests can include measures such as
    portfolios illustrating students? work, grades, teacher observations, and
    work samples.

    DOD students in both overseas and domestic schools are assessed using the
    TerraNova Multiple Assessments in grades 3 through 11. We obtained data from
    DOD on students? performance for school year 1999- 2000 and focused on
    students? scores in language arts and math. We reported the range of scores
    for students in all grades, across both language arts and math, and across
    students in both overseas and domestic schools. We also obtained data from
    DOD on students? performance on the National Assessment of Educational
    Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is a nationally administered test offered in
    different subject areas, such as reading, math, science, and writing, in
    different years. We examined DOD data on students? performance on the NAEP
    in math (1996), reading (1998), and writing (1998). We reviewed overall
    averages for DOD students in both overseas and domestic schools and compared
    these scores with national averages. Finally, we obtained SAT and ACT
    results from DOD for students graduating during the 1999- 2000 school year.

    Nearly all information about BIA and DOD teacher qualifications and training
    was obtained through GAO?s survey. Some information on teacher turnover
    rates and staff tenure was obtained from agency records. To determine class
    sizes, we asked administrators on the survey to report the average number of
    students in a classroom for grades K- 3, 4- 6, 7- 8, and 9- 12.

    Nearly all information on BIA and DOD students? access to technology in
    schools, technology staffing levels, and how technology is used in the
    classroom was obtained through the survey. We calculated student- tocomputer
    ratios systemwide for BIA and DOD schools by dividing the total number of
    computers reported by responding schools by the total number of students at
    the schools. For individual schools in the BIA and DOD systems, student- to-
    computer ratios varied somewhat from the ratio for the systems overall. With
    respect to technology spending, DODEA provided us with estimates of how much
    the agency spent to support Teacher Staffing and

    Educational Technology

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 51 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    educational technology programs in its schools for the 1999- 2000 school
    year. BIA schools provided this information to us through the survey.

    We gathered information on the condition of BIA and DOD school buildings
    primarily through the survey. We asked school administrators to report on
    the physical condition of buildings and on specific building features, such
    as roofs and plumbing. We also asked about whether certain environmental
    conditions were satisfactory, such as indoor air quality and acoustics or
    noise control, and whether working facilities for teachers and students,
    such as classrooms, libraries, and computer labs, were sufficient. Many of
    the questionnaire items were based on those used in two previous surveys: a
    1999 Education survey on the condition of school buildings, which was
    conducted on a nationally representative sample of public schools; 2 and a
    1994 GAO survey on the condition of school buildings, conducted on a
    nationally representative sample of public schools and all BIA schools. 3 We
    asked administrators to report separately on the condition of school
    buildings and on the condition of dormitory buildings.

    As a further indication of the condition of schools, we reviewed BIA and DOD
    agency data on needed maintenance and repairs at school facilities. In
    reviewing BIA?s backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs, we first
    excluded data for buildings not related to schools, such as administrative
    buildings, employee quarters, and buildings supporting law enforcement
    services. We then looked at estimated costs to address certain types of
    deficiencies according to categories used by BIA- for example, those related
    to student and staff safety; environmental needs, such as asbestos and radon
    testing; and energy- related needs. Finally, we asked BIA officials to
    conduct searches on the backlog database for deficiencies related to certain
    items asked about on our survey- for example, roofs; plumbing; fire safety;
    handicapped access requirements; sewer and water infrastructure; asbestos;
    heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and playground surfaces and
    equipment- and then totaled the estimated costs

    2 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Condition of America?s
    Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000- 32 (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
    Department of Education, June 2000).

    3 School Facilities: Condition of America?s Schools (GAO/ HEHS- 95- 61, Feb.
    1995). Facilities

    Condition Backlogs of Maintenance and Repair Needs

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 52 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    for these deficiencies. We also obtained the 5- Year Facilities Plan for DOD
    schools, which includes a total for the estimated amount needed to address
    all identified items. It should be noted that the 5- year plan does not
    include repair projects costing under $25,000 for domestic schools and
    $10,000 for overseas schools. We reviewed the 5- year plan data for specific
    building deficiencies that were noted more often as problems by DOD schools
    in our survey: roofs; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and
    playground surfaces and equipment.

    To assess maintenance and repair funding levels for BIA schools, we measured
    funding against guidelines set by the National Research Council (NRC). The
    NRC has recommended that budget allocations for maintenance and repair be
    between 2 and 4 percent of current replacement value. 4 We first determined
    the current replacement value of BIA schools by multiplying the square
    footage of the schools by the cost to construct a new school per square
    foot. We obtained BIA?s total education facility square footage for
    maintained buildings for 1997- 2001. (These data included 14 peripheral
    dormitories and two colleges, which account for about 11 percent of BIA?s
    total education facility square footage.) We then obtained data on the
    average cost per square foot of a new school for each year from 1997 through
    2000, from annual education construction reports published by American
    School and Universities. 5 (The average cost per square foot of a new school
    was not yet available for 2001, so we used the average amount per square
    foot reported for 2000 for this year.) Then, for each year from 1997 to
    2001, we multiplied BIA?s educational facility square footage by the average
    cost per square foot to construct a school that year.

    To identify BIA budget allocation categories that met the NRC?s definition
    of maintenance and repair, we reviewed BIA documents describing the
    categories and discussed these with experts. Once we identified the
    appropriate categories, we obtained the amounts BIA requested and allocated
    for these categories for fiscal years 1997- 2001. Then for each year, we
    determined the percentage that the requested and allocated

    4 NRC, Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public
    Buildings (1990). 5 J. Agron, 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th Annual Official
    Education Construction Reports,

    (Overland Park, Kan.: American School and University, May 1998, May 1999,
    May 2000, and May 2001). BIA?s Allocations for

    Maintenance and Repairs of Schools as a Percentage of Replacement Value

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 53 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    amounts represented of the current replacement value and compared these with
    NRC guidelines.

    To calculate estimated per pupil expenditures for DOD and BIA schools that
    would be comparable to public school figures, we followed guidelines for
    identifying expenditures set forth by the National Center for Education
    Statistics (NCES) in its National Public Financial Education Survey. 6 The
    results of this survey are used to develop the national per- pupil figure.
    National per- pupil expenditure figures reflect current expenditures from
    federal, state, local and private sources, at the district level for
    prekindergarten through grade 12. Current expenditures include salaries,
    benefits, purchased services, and supplies for the following functions:
    instruction; support services; noninstructional services, such as food
    services; and direct program support, such as state contributions to
    employee retirement funds. Long- term expenditures such as capital outlay,
    debt service, facilities acquisition and construction services, and property
    expenditures (for example, for equipment and vehicles) are excluded from
    current expenditures by NCES and, in most cases, by our evaluation. At the
    time we did our work, the latest school year for which national public
    school per- pupil expenditures were available was 1997- 98.

    Data needed to precisely compute per- pupil expenditures for both BIA and
    DOD schools were not available. Therefore, our calculations are estimates
    based on BIA and DOD agency data and federal expenditure information from
    tribal audit reports submitted under the Single Audit Act. Because BIA and
    DOD data were generally not available by categories specified by NCES, we
    used agency or tribal expenditure or obligation data for programs or budget
    line items which included these categories. Using this approach we were able
    to include expenditures for salaries, benefits, purchased services, and
    supplies for the categories included in the national per- pupil expenditure:
    instruction, support services, and noninstructional services. Direct program
    support generally did not apply. Similarly, we were generally able to
    exclude expenditures for capital outlay, debt service, and facilities
    acquisition and construction services by excluding budget line items that
    contain these expenditures. In some

    6 NCES, The National Public Education Financial Survey Instruction Booklet,
    January 1999 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education). Because
    1997- 98 was the latest year for which national public school per- pupil
    expenditures were available at the time we did our work, we used the
    guidelines dated January 1999, since these guidelines applied to the 12-
    month period beginning July 1, 1997, and ending June 30, 1998. Estimated Per
    Pupil

    Expenditures

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 54 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    cases, we were not able to extract specific expenditures or obligations
    relating to property expenditures within selected programs; however, these
    amounts were likely to be relatively small.

    For BIA schools, we developed estimated per- pupil calculations for (1) BIA-
    operated day schools, (2) tribally operated day schools, (3) day schools
    overall, and (4) boarding schools. For BIA- operated schools, we obtained
    expenditure information from the Department of the Interior?s (Interior)
    financial system based on codes indicating programs that support
    kindergarten through grade 12. We were not able to identify expenditures for
    administrative services provided by Interior for BIAoperated schools, such
    as payroll and procurement. We used fiscal year 1998 data. A fiscal year
    reasonably approximates the period July 1, 1997, and ending June 30, 1998,
    used by NCES. For tribally operated schools, we relied primarily on federal
    expenditure information from audit reports submitted under the Single Audit
    Act. These reports were generally for the period July 1, 1997, through June
    30, 1998. We were able to obtain expenditure information for 54 of the 98
    schools that were tribally operated that year. We could not obtain
    expenditure information for the remaining 44 schools because, in some cases,
    the school expenditure information in the audit report was included with
    other expenditure information for tribal or other organizations and could
    not be readily extracted, or because related audit reports were not
    available.

    For both BIA- operated and tribally operated schools, we considered
    expenditures from federal funding sources only, which, according to BIA
    officials, represent by far the greatest source of funding for BIA schools.
    This included expenditure data for Education programs, such as Title I; and
    the Department of Agriculture?s (USDA) child nutrition programs, such as the
    National School Lunch and Breakfast programs. The per- pupil expenditure
    figures for public schools nationally consider funding from all sources.
    Most funding for public schools comes from state, intermediate, and local
    sources.

    In order to determine overall estimated per- pupil expenditures for day and
    boarding schools, we weighted the calculated estimated per- pupil
    expenditures for BIA- operated and tribally operated schools of both types,
    according to the number of students attending each type of school. We used
    student enrollment figures from BIA internal reports for each school type.

    In order to calculate DOD overseas and domestic estimated per- pupil
    expenditures, we used obligations from DOD internal financial reports for

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 55 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    fiscal year 1998 as a proxy for expenditures, since DOD does not maintain
    expenditure information in the detail necessary for this type of analysis.
    We also used fiscal year 1998 data since, similar to other federal agencies,
    DOD tracks obligations by fiscal year and not for other periods. For student
    enrollment figures, we relied on data from DOD internal reports for domestic
    and overseas schools. We also obtained information for the value of USDA?s
    child nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch and Breakfast
    programs, for fiscal year 1998, which we included in the estimated
    expenditure per pupil calculation.

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

    Page 56 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 57 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 58 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    See comment 3. See comment 2.

    See comment 1.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 59 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    See comment 6. See comment 5.

    Now on p. 12. See comment 4.

    Now on p. 10.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 60 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    See comments 8 & 9. Now on p. 14. See comment 7.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 61 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Now on p. 19 See comment 10.

    Now on pp. 17- 18.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 62 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    See comment 12. See comment 11.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 63 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Now on p. 28. Now on p. 31. See comment 13.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 64 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Now on p. 32. See comment 16.

    See comment 15. See comment 14.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 65 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    See comment 17. See comment 18. See comment 17.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 66 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    See comment 19. Now on p. 33.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 67 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 68 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    1. We stated that BIA?s funding for school operations and facilities needs
    increased 30 percent from fiscal years 2000 to 2001. Interior suggested that
    GAO differentiate the actual amount of the increase between the Operation of
    Indian Programs and Construction appropriation accounts, initially stating
    that each account had increased by 25 percent. Based on our calculations, we
    added information to the report specifying that funding for Operation of
    Indian Programs increased by about 5 percent and funding for Construction
    increased 121 percent between fiscal years 2000 and 2001. This supports our
    statement that nearly all the increase was for the repair and replacement of
    school facilities while funding for school operations received only a modest
    increase.

    2. Interior commented that our report should acknowledge that the Department
    of Education (Education) funding that BIA schools receive is available to
    all public schools across the country. Interior specifically noted that
    public schools that educate Indian children on or near Indian reservations
    receive Impact Aid Funds from Education. We added text to the report
    indicating that like BIA schools, many public schools also receive funding
    from Education.

    3. Interior noted that in an agreement with Education, BIA serves as a state
    education agency and is authorized to receive flow through funds from
    Education. We have added this information in the report.

    4. Interior suggested that we provide some examples to further highlight
    differences between BIA and DOD schools. Interior stated that the DOD school
    system has no schools with small enrollments or combinations of grades like
    those in the BIA school system. The DOD school system does have several
    schools with enrollments under 100 students and schools that span both
    elementary and secondary grades, but we agree that these types of schools
    are less prevalent in DOD?s school system. Interior also said that it would
    have been helpful for GAO to provide an example of how BIA schools are less
    able to take advantage of economies of scale and that this would help
    explain the school system?s per- pupil expenditure. In our report section on
    per pupil expenditures, we describe a situation that illustrates how
    difficult it can be for BIA schools to achieve economies of scale. Finally,
    Interior stated that the report could comment on how the physical conditions
    found in BIA schools could affect student outcomes. Thus, we added a note to
    the report stating that though some studies conclude that school facility
    conditions- such as GAO Comments

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 69 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    inadequate ventilation or faulty heating systems- can affect student
    learning, the research is inconclusive overall.

    5. Regarding the performance of BIA students on state assessments, Interior
    argued that state standardized tests may be culturally biased and may be a
    less reliable measure for Indian students than other minorities. In the
    report we acknowledged that standardized tests have been criticized as being
    culturally biased, and we therefore provided information on authentic
    assessments of BIA students. However, we are not aware of any research that
    shows standardized tests are less reliable for Indian students than other
    minority students.

    6. Interior said GAO should have compared BIA student achievement with
    public schools serving large numbers of Indian students in rural areas. We
    agree that these would be worthwhile analyses. However, the additional audit
    work and data required to perform these analyses did not allow us to include
    them in this report.

    7. Interior noted BIA?s efforts to address differences in student
    achievement through programs designed to moderate the effects of poor
    economic and family conditions on student achievement. The agency also noted
    that BIA had established long term goals that address student performance.
    We have added information to the report to acknowledge BIA?s efforts in
    these areas.

    8. Interior questioned our comparison of BIA students? plans to attend
    college and performance on college entrance examinations with those of
    students nationally. The agency argued that the economies of rural areas,
    where most BIA schools are located, do not offer jobs that require post-
    secondary education, and for this and other reasons, less cultural emphasis
    is placed on BIA students to perform well on tests like the SAT and to
    attend college. The agency stated that BIA students generally expect to go
    to tribal colleges that do not require college entrance examinations, such
    as the SAT. We believe that these measures are appropriate given that one of
    the Office of Indian Education Program?s goals is to increase post-
    secondary enrollment rates. Also, a significant number of BIA students take
    the SAT and ACT, perhaps to enter colleges that require these examinations.

    9. Interior also said that we should have compared BIA students? plans to
    attend college and their performance on college entrance examinations with
    students from other rural regions of the U. S. or students in public schools
    on Indian reservations. Some data are

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 70 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    available for students living in rural areas but these are not specifically
    focused on Indian students. For example, data from 1993- 94 show that on
    average 54 percent of 12th graders living in small towns or rural areas
    applied to college, compared with BIA school administrators? estimates that
    28 percent of graduating seniors planned to enroll in college. With regard
    to the SAT, for students graduating in 2000, rural students received an
    average total score of 992 on the verbal and math sections of the SAT,
    compared with 1,019 for students nationally, and 765 for BIA students.

    10. Interior stated that teacher turnover correlates with reduced student
    achievement, but did not provide support for this statement. We were not
    able to identify any studies establishing a link between teacher turnover
    and student achievement.

    11. Interior noted that in fiscal year 2000, BIA conducted a census of
    personal computers in BIA schools and concluded that the school system had a
    ratio of 1 computer for every 3.3 students. BIA added, however, that 30
    percent of these computers are for administrative usage and that almost half
    are reaching or have surpassed their life cycle usefulness. Our survey asked
    school administrators about computers used specifically for instructional
    purposes. Using these data, we determined that the school system had a ratio
    of 1 computer for instructional purposes for every 3.5 students.

    12. Interior said that we had failed to address the fact that state
    legislatures have appropriated funds for school technology and that these
    funds are not included in district funding appropriations and therefore are
    not included in calculations of expenditures per pupil by NCES. We contacted
    NCES and were told that state funding for educational technology should be
    included in the data that states report to NCES for expenditure per pupil
    calculations. Thus, based on this information, we did not modify our report.
    Interior also noted that the Office of Indian Education Programs had to rely
    on private partnerships and grants to provide enough resources to place
    technical capabilities in all its schools. (It should be noted that these
    additional resources were not identified during our review and therefore
    were not included in our expenditure per pupil calculation for BIA schools.)
    In addition, Interior stated that our report was unclear about the resources
    DOD uses to support technology in its schools. In our report we provided an
    estimate for the amount of money the DOD school systems obligated per
    student for educational technology in fiscal year 2000, which was less than
    the amount BIA schools spent per student

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 71 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    based on our survey results. This funding comes from DOD appropriations.

    13. With respect to housing for teachers and staff, Interior said that we
    had assumed that rents collected from teachers living in employee housing
    covered the cost of maintaining this housing and had not realized that
    schools end up covering these costs out of their facilities maintenance
    funds. Interior argued that school maintenance funding diverted for teacher
    housing should not have been included in our calculation of expenditures per
    pupil. Interior also stated that staff in DOD schools live in government
    provided quarters expense free. Early in our review, BIA officials informed
    us that rents paid by teachers and staff did not cover the full cost of
    maintaining employee housing. However, when requested, BIA was unable to
    identify expenditures made by schools for such purposes. More importantly,
    Interior noted in its comments that providing housing is necessary for
    maintaining a qualified teaching staff. Because of this, we believe that
    expenditures to maintain employee housing are part of the cost of providing
    instruction for these schools. An NCES official agreed and stated that
    expenditures from school facilities maintenance funds used to maintain
    employee housing should be included in the calculation of expenditures per
    pupil. For the same reason, we included DOD schools? expenditures for
    housing allowances provided to overseas staff in our calculation of
    expenditures per pupil. We have also added a footnote stating that a small
    number of staff in DOD schools overseas live in government- provided
    quarters; most receive housing allowances intended to cover the cost of
    housing in the areas where they choose to live.

    14. Interior commented that our report failed to address the adequacy of
    funding for facilities operations. We were not able to identify a widely
    used benchmark to assess the sufficiency of BIA?s facilities operations
    funding. We were only able to compare BIA?s obligations for both facilities
    operations and maintenance with similar expenditures for public schools. We
    found that BIA?s obligations per square foot of building space were higher
    than the national median for public schools. However, it was difficult to
    draw conclusions from these calculations as they do not consider the
    additional infrastructure BIA schools operate and maintain. Also, this
    analysis does not examine the adequacy of BIA?s funding for operations and
    maintenance, it merely compares the amounts used by BIA and public schools
    for these purposes. Further, we were aware at the time we conducted our work
    that BIA had contracted with a private engineering firm to assess the

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 72 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    adequacy of BIA?s facilities operations and maintenance funding. This work
    may provide a clearer picture of BIA?s needs. This report is expected to be
    completed in Fall 2001.

    15. Interior commented that the cost of operating facilities could be
    reduced if school replacement construction funding covered the cost of
    demolishing and removing old structures. Currently, BIA provides for the
    security of these idle structures out of operations funding until a decision
    is made on their disposal. This issue may be worthy of attention, but BIA?s
    own budget formula for determining operations and maintenance needs suggests
    that this is not a major expense.

    16. Interior noted that BIA, DOD, and public schools define and account for
    maintenance funds and expenditures differently, and these differences make
    ?a straight across the board comparison? difficult. We determined that it
    would be challenging to complete such an analysis within the timeframe of
    this review. Thus, we did not attempt to compare maintenance budgets or
    expenditures among these school systems. Rather, we analyzed BIA?s and DOD?s
    maintenance and repair backlogs and provided information on the amount of
    funding allocated to address them and school construction.

    17. Interior commented that our estimates of expenditures per pupil were not
    adjusted to reflect differences between students in day schools and in
    residential schools. We did calculate separate per- pupil expenditures for
    day schools and residential schools and did not combine them. Interior also
    stated that we did not adjust our per- pupil expenditure estimates for
    students with special education needs or for the costs of small schools in
    sparsely populated areas. The agency recommended that we use an alternative
    approach for calculating expenditures per pupil that takes into account
    differences in student and school needs. Interior pointed to funding
    allocation systems used by some states where students are weighted
    differently based on the additional education resources they may require.
    For example, a student requiring special education services may be counted
    as 1.5 students in determining state aid. Interior argued that we should
    have used a weighted count of its students to calculate expenditures per
    pupil, since a high proportion have special needs. Such a calculation may be
    useful, but comparisons with public schools would not be possible since NCES
    does not calculate the national expenditure per pupil using a weighted
    student count.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Page 73 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    18. Interior stated that we should have compared BIA expenditures per pupil
    with that of school districts with similar student populations. Interior
    suggested several school districts with similar student populations in South
    Dakota and New Mexico that could be used for comparison with BIA?s per-
    pupil expenditure. We obtained the perpupil expenditures for these districts
    from NCES and found they ranged from $4,979 to $8, 706 in 1997- 98, all
    below BIA?s estimated expenditure per pupil of $9,647.

    19. Interior recommended that we should not have included administrative
    cost grants for tribally operated schools in our expenditure per pupil
    calculation. The agency argued that these grants are for the purpose of
    administering the schools and carrying out support functions that are not
    part of the basic academic instruction, such as fiscal and personnel
    activities. According to an NCES official, these expenditures should be
    included as they fall into the category of general administration
    expenditures, which is included in the national per pupil expenditure
    calculation.

    Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 74 GAO- 01- 934 BIA and DOD Schools

    Karen A. Whiten, (202) 512- 7291 Linda Y. A. McIver, (206) 287- 4821

    In addition to the individuals named above, Mary E. Abdella, Beverly G.
    Burke, Julianne Hartman Cutts, Eric M. Eliasen, Kopp F. Michelotti, Nancy R.
    Purvine, Joel I. Grossman, Elsie M. Picyk, Stanley G. Stenersen, and James
    P. Wright made key contributions to this report. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts
    and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments

    (102002)

    The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
    $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

    Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
    discounted 25 percent.

    Orders by mail:

    U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

    Orders by visiting:

    Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
    20013

    Orders by phone:

    (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
    receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
    will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

    Orders by Internet

    For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
    message with ?info? in the body to:

    Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
    gao. gov

    Contact one:

     Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

     E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

     1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
    *** End of document. ***