Bureau of Indian Education: Improving Interior's Assistance Would
Aid Tribal Groups Developing Academic Accountability Systems	 
(09-SEP-08, GAO-08-1125T).					 
                                                                 
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires states and the	 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to 
define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly  
progress (AYP) toward the goal of 100 percent academic		 
proficiency. To address tribes' needs for cultural preservation, 
NCLBA allows tribal groups to waive all or part of BIE's	 
definition of AYP and propose an alternative, with technical	 
assistance from BIE and the Department of Education, if 	 
requested. GAO is providing information on the extent of (1) BIE 
schools' adoption of BIE's definition of AYP; (2) tribal groups  
pursuit of alternatives and their reasons, as well as reasons for
not pursuing alternatives; and (3) federal assistance to tribal  
groups pursuing alternatives. To prepare this testimony, GAO	 
relied primarily on information from a recent GAO report,	 
GAO-08-679, and contacted BIE officials for updates on actions	 
taken in response to GAO's prior recommendations.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1125T					        
    ACCNO:   A84075						        
  TITLE:     Bureau of Indian Education: Improving Interior's	      
Assistance Would Aid Tribal Groups Developing Academic		 
Accountability Systems						 
     DATE:   09/09/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Academic achievement				 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Educational testing				 
	     Elementary education				 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Indian affairs legislation 			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Native American education				 
	     Native Americans					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Public schools					 
	     School management and organization 		 
	     Schools						 
	     Secondary education				 
	     Standards evaluation				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Waivers						 
	     Assessments					 
	     Education programs 				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-08-1125T

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 
Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 

Tuesday, September 9, 2008: 

Bureau Of Indian Education: 

Improving Interior's Assistance Would Aid Tribal Groups Developing 
Academic Accountability Systems: 

Statement of Cornelia Ashby, Director: 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

GAO-08-1125T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1125T, a report to the Subcomittee on Early 
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Committee on Education 
and Labor, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires states and the Department 
of the Interiorï¿½s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to define and 
determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) 
toward the goal of 100 percent academic proficiency. To address tribesï¿½ 
needs for cultural preservation, NCLBA allows tribal groups to waive 
all or part of BIEï¿½s definition of AYP and propose an alternative, with 
technical assistance from BIE and the Department of Education, if 
requested. GAO is providing information on the extent of (1) BIE 
schoolsï¿½ adoption of BIEï¿½s definition of AYP; (2) tribal groups pursuit 
of alternatives and their reasons, as well as reasons for not pursuing 
alternatives; and (3) federal assistance to tribal groups pursuing 
alternatives. To prepare this testimony, GAO relied primarily on 
information from a recent GAO report, GAO-08-679, and contacted BIE 
officials for updates on actions taken in response to GAOï¿½s prior 
recommendations. 

What GAO Found: 

Although almost all of the 174 BIE schools have officially adopted 
BIEï¿½s definition of AYPï¿½the definition of AYP of the state where the 
school is locatedï¿½BIE had not yet completed memoranda of understanding 
(MOU) to delineate BIE and state responsibilities concerning BIE 
schoolsï¿½ access to the statesï¿½ assessment systems for 12 of the 23 
states with BIE schools. Without MOUs, states could change their 
policies regarding BIE schoolsï¿½ access to assessments and scoring 
services. 

Officials from the Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin Education 
Consortium, and the Miccosukee Tribe have begun to develop alternatives 
to state AYP definitions, in part to make standards and assessments 
reflect their culture, while officials of other tribal groups have 
cited challenges, such as a lack of expertise, as reasons not to pursue 
alternatives. The three tribal groups developing alternatives, 
representing about 44 percent of the 48,000 BIE students, have 
requested technical assistance in developing their alternatives. Other 
tribal officials cited a desire to maintain compatibility with public 
schools and/or cited challenges, such as a lack of expertise, as 
reasons not to pursue alternatives. 

The three tribal groups pursuing alternatives reported a lack of 
federal guidance and communication, although they have recently 
received some initial technical assistance from BIE and Education 
officials. These tribal groups reported receiving little guidance from 
BIE and difficulties in communicating with BIE and the BIE did not 
always have internal response timelines or meet the ones it had. 
Moreover, BIE education line officersï¿½the primary points of contact for 
information on the alternative provisionï¿½generally indicated that they 
had received no guidance or training on the provision. During the 
course of GAOï¿½s prior review, BIE and Education officials began 
offering technical assistance to the tribal groups working to develop 
alternatives. 

In response to GAOï¿½s recommendations in its June 2008 report that the 
Secretary of the Interior increase support, including technical 
assistance, guidance, training, and communication for tribal groups in 
their implementation of the provision for developing alternatives, BIE 
has taken several steps. In particular, BIE officials told GAO that 
they are in the process of working out the language for a memorandum of 
agreement with California state officials. In addition, BIE officials 
told GAO that the three tribal groups seeking alternatives were working 
closely with a contractor to develop proposals. With regard to the 
recommendation to provide guidelines and training on the process for 
pursuing alternative assessments, BIE officials told GAO that they have 
taken steps to develop a presentation on the process that they 
anticipated would be available in October 2008. 


To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1125T. For more 
information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202)-512-7215 or [email protected] 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the extent to which the 
governing bodies of some schools funded by the Department of the 
Interior have sought or developed alternative methods of measuring 
children's academic progress and the challenges they have faced in 
doing so. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education 
(BIE) is responsible for the education of the 48,000 Indian students in 
174 BIE-funded schools across 23 states. In school year 2006-07, about 
one-third of these schools were operated directly by BIE and two-thirds 
by tribes under federal contracts or grants,[Footnote 1] which offer 
the potential for tribal groups to take greater ownership of their 
children's education. As a condition for receiving grants under the No 
Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), schools--including the BIE schools--must 
measure yearly progress in meeting standards in math, reading, and 
science. In 2005, the Secretary of the Interior determined that to 
measure such progress, each BIE school would use the definition of 
adequate yearly progress (AYP) of the state in which the school was 
located. Recognizing that students at BIE schools may have unique needs 
and special circumstances, NCLBA allows tribal groups to waive all or 
part of the Secretary's authorized definition of AYP and propose an 
alternative. 

My testimony will focus on (1) the number of BIE schools that have 
adopted state definitions of AYP; (2) tribal groups that have sought 
alternatives and their reasons for doing so, as well as the reasons 
other tribal groups have not done so; and (3) the role the federal 
government has played in assisting those tribal groups developing 
alternatives. My testimony is based largely on a recently issued GAO 
report,[Footnote 2] updated with information provided by BIE officials 
including the status of actions taken in response to our prior 
recommendations. To complete our review for that report, we visited the 
tribal groups that were in the process of developing alternative 
definitions of AYP--and some who were not doing so. In particular, we 
interviewed officials from the Navajo Nation, Miccosukee Tribe of 
Indians of Florida, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Seminole Tribe 
of Florida, Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium (OSEC), and Soboba Band 
of Luiseno Indians, as well as officials from the BIE off-reservation 
boarding school in California and the eight BIE-funded schools in 
Washington State, which serve students from multiple tribes. We 
interviewed state and federal education officials, as well as BIE 
officials and representatives from Indian organizations. We reviewed 
relevant documents, including regulations and existing memoranda of 
understanding (MOU) between BIE and the states.[Footnote 3] Our work 
was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In summary, following the policy BIE established in 2005 for measuring 
AYP, almost all of the 174 BIE-funded schools have measured academic 
progress in accordance with their state's definition of AYP, although 
three tribal groups representing 44 percent of BIE students are in the 
process of developing alternative definitions, as allowed under NCLBA. 
To establish the terms under which BIE schools access assessments and 
scoring arrangements, BIE has established agreements with about half of 
the states that have BIE schools. The remaining states, with the 
exception of California, have allowed BIE schools access to their 
assessments; however, there is increased risk in these states that the 
terms of access will change. The Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin 
Education Constortium (OSEC), and the Miccosukee are seeking 
alternatives to state definitions of AYP, in part to have more 
culturally relevant standards and assessments. Other tribal groups are 
not developing alternatives, citing potential challenges--such as a 
lack of resources--or a desire to maintain compatibility with public 
schools with which they share students. The three tribal groups seeking 
alternatives reported a lack of federal guidance and communication, but 
they have more recently reported receiving some assistance from BIE and 
Education officials. BIE's education line officers (ELO)--who are the 
tribal groups' primary points of contact for information on developing 
an alternative--generally indicated that they had received no guidance 
or training on this provision. In communicating with tribal groups 
regarding alternative AYP definitions, BIE did not always have internal 
timelines or meet the ones it had, nor did BIE consistently apply its 
processes for providing accurate and timely responses. In our June 2008 
report we made recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior aimed 
at increasing support, including improved assistance, guidance, 
training, and communication for tribal groups in their implementation 
of the provision for developing alternative definitions of AYP. 
Interior agreed with our recommendations and in subsequent 
conversations reported taking actions in response to our 
recommendations. 

Background: 

NCLBA required the Secretary of the Interior to develop a definition of 
AYP[Footnote 4] for BIE schools, but also allows tribal groups to waive 
all or part of BIE's definition of AYP and propose an 
alternative.[Footnote 5] After a process of negotiated 
rulemaking,[Footnote 6] Interior issued regulations specifying that 
each BIE school must adopt the standards, assessments, and definition 
of the state in which the school is located.[Footnote 7] BIE has used 
agreements, or MOUs, with the states to delineate the terms of 
accessing state assessments and scoring arrangements. Tribal groups may 
submit an alternative proposal, but are obligated to use the state's 
definition, content standards, and assessments until the alternative is 
approved by the Secretaries of Interior and Education.[Footnote 8] 

Tribal groups are obligated to develop alternative definitions of AYP 
if states do not give tribal groups access to their assessments. 
However, the regulations do not delineate how to determine whether a 
school has achieved AYP in those cases in which schools cannot access 
state assessments and have not developed an alternative.[Footnote 9] 
Under BIE regulations, a tribal group that requires assistance in 
developing an alternative must submit a written request to BIE. Then, 
within given time frames, BIE must acknowledge receipt of the request 
for technical assistance and identify a point of contact to work with 
the tribal group.[Footnote 10] In providing such assistance to tribal 
groups, BIE has access to federal funds designated to assist with 
assessment-related activities. 

BIE determined that for school year 2006-07, just under one-third of 
the 174 schools had made AYP, two-thirds had not, and 4 schools were 
held harmless, with no AYP determinations made. Under NCLBA, schools 
that fail to meet AYP for 2 consecutive years must implement specific 
types of remedial actions, although the requirements for BIE schools 
vary from those for public Title I schools (see table 1). For a BIE- 
operated school, implementation of required remedial actions is the 
responsibility of the BIE, whereas for schools that are tribally 
operated through contracts or grants, implementation of remedial 
actions is the responsibility of the tribal group. 

Table 1: Remedial Actions for Public Title I and BIE Title I Schools 
That Fail to Make AYP: 

AYP: First year missed; 
School status in the next year: Not applicable; 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: None; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Analyze AYP data and consider 
consultation with outside experts. 

AYP: Second year missed; 
School status in the next year: Public school choice (first year of 
improvement); 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Required to develop a 
school improvement plan and offer public school choice; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Required to develop a school 
improvement plan; 
Not required to offer public school choice. 

AYP: Third year missed; 
School status in the next year: Supplementary Educational Services 
(SES) (second year of improvement); 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Required to offer public 
school choice and SES; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Continue revising or 
modifying school improvement plan; 
Not required to offer either public school choice or SES. 

AYP: Fourth year missed; 
School status in the next year: Corrective action (third year of 
improvement); 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Implement certain 
corrective actions and offer public school choice and SES; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Implement certain corrective 
actions; 
Not required to offer either public school choice or SES. 

AYP: Fifth year missed; 
School status in the next year: Planning for restructuring (fourth year 
of improvement); 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Plan for a change in 
governance (restructuring) and offer public school choice and SES; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Prepare a restructuring plan; 
Not required to offer either public school choice or SES. 

AYP: Sixth year missed; 
School status in the next year: Implementation of restructuring (fifth 
year of improvement); 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Implement a change in 
governance (restructuring) and offer public school choice and SES; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Implement the restructuring 
plan; 
Not required to offer either public school choice or SES. 

AYP: Seventh year missed (and beyond); 
School status in the next year: Restructuring; 
Remedial actions for Public Title I schools: Continue implementation of 
the restructuring plan until AYP is met for 2 consecutive years; 
Remedial actions for BIE Title I schools: Continue implementation of 
the restructuring plan until AYP is met for 2 consecutive years. 

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA and Education's regulations. 

[End of table] 

BIE and BIE-Funded Schools Have Generally Used State Definitions of 
AYP, but BIE Has Not Taken Steps to Ensure Continued Access to All 
State Assessments: 

Almost all of the BIE schools adopted their state's definition of AYP, 
content standards, and assessments, but BIE had signed MOUs that ensure 
access to state assessments with only 11 of the 23 states in which BIE 
schools are located, as of April 2008. In addition, BIE experienced 
some challenges in applying the state definitions to determine whether 
the 174 schools had met AYP. 

BIE Generally Uses 23 State AYP Definitions to Make AYP Determinations; 
however, There Were Some Difficulties Applying the Various State 
Definitions: 

Because BIE schools generally use state definitions of AYP, BIE 
officials must apply 23 different state definitions. BIE officials told 
us that the AYP determinations were made by applying the criteria filed 
with Education by the relevant state, except in California and Florida, 
where BIE schools did not administer the state assessment, and in 
Arizona and North Carolina where there was a data constraint.[Footnote 
11] 

The process is complex: some states assess students in additional 
areas, such as testing students in both reading and language arts, and 
the statistical formulas for calculating AYP also vary among states. 
Some states' formulas include multiple confidence bands while other 
states use none. Similarly, annual measurable objectives, alternate AYP 
indicators, and formulas for calculating graduation rates also vary 
across states. 

BIE officials told us that, for several reasons, schools were not 
always notified of their AYP status prior to the beginning of the 
subsequent school year. As of December 2007, 93 of the 174 schools had 
been notified of their AYP status for school year 2006-07. By March 
2008, the number of schools notified had increased to 146. BIE 
officials told us that the delay in notification was prolonged due to 
staffing issues, as well as schools and states missing deadlines to 
report assessment data. For example, BIE officials told us that it had 
been hard to collect attendance data and graduation data needed to make 
AYP determinations; however, they stated that these data will be more 
readily available in their new student information system--the Native 
American Student Information System. 

In addition, BIE officials told us that four schools, two in California 
and two in Florida, were not administering the state assessments for 
reasons that are discussed in the next section. These schools were 
continuing to administer the standardized tests they had used in prior 
years. Officials from all four schools told us that their schools had 
adopted the academic content standards of their respective states. 

BIE Lacked Completed Agreements with about Half of the States with BIE 
Schools, Which Could Affect Access to State Assessments: 

BIE uses MOUs with states to delineate the terms of BIE-funded schools' 
access to the states' assessment systems; however, it had not completed 
MOUs with 12 of the 23 states, including 5 we visited--Arizona, 
California, Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico.[Footnote 12] The 12 
states without signed MOUs enroll about two-thirds of the students in 
BIE schools, but BIE officials told us that they did not actively 
pursue MOUs with these states, in part because most states were 
allowing BIE schools to access state assessments and scoring 
arrangements without such agreements. The MOUs generally specify 
responsibilities for the state and BIE. For example, states may be 
responsible for including BIE schools in relevant training, informing 
BIE of changes to the state's definition of AYP, and scoring the BIE 
assessments. The MOUs also delineate responsibilities of BIE such as 
ensuring that staff are properly trained and that the assessments are 
administered according to state protocols. 

However, California state officials told us they had neither signed an 
MOU nor given BIE access to the state assessments because they feared a 
breach in test security.[Footnote 13] They noted that such a breach in 
security could undermine the validity of the test, in which the state 
had invested millions of dollars to develop.[Footnote 14] California 
officials stated that several entities, including private schools, had 
requested permission to administer the test and that their approach was 
to administer the test only to public schools in California. State 
officials were willing to make an exception for BIE schools to 
administer the assessment, but requested a $1 million bond as security. 
BIE and Education officials told us that they were trying to work with 
the state to resolve the issue. Education officials told us that they 
were hopeful that a solution, such as having BIE students assessed at 
public schools, could be worked out.[Footnote 15] 

Officials in other states also told us that they have delayed or 
rescinded MOUs because tribal groups indicated that they had not been 
consulted about the terms of the agreements (see table 2). For example, 
state officials in Washington told us that when they received the 
request to sign the MOU, they contacted tribal groups and realized that 
the tribal groups had been informed of the MOU, but not consulted 
regarding its details. After consulting with tribal groups, Washington 
state officials modified the proposed MOU and signed it. In addition, 
BIE does not currently have a valid MOU with New Mexico because the 
Governor of New Mexico suspended the state's MOU with BIE shortly after 
signing it, in part because tribal groups indicated that they had not 
been consulted about the terms of the MOU. 

Table 2: Issues Encountered in Establishing MOUs in the Seven States We 
Visited: 

State: Arizona; 
Signed MOU: No; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: Impasse regarding language of the MOU; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: Unresolved. 

State: California; 
Signed MOU: No; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: Concerns about test security; 
Request for $1 million bond; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: Unresolved. 

State: Florida; 
Signed MOU: No; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: Tribal groups do not wish to take 
Florida state test; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: Unresolved. 

State: Mississippi; 
Signed MOU: No; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: Test security; 
Release of results; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: Added additional language, currently 
being reviewed. 

State: New Mexico; 
Signed MOU: No; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: Rescinded-tribal groups expressed that 
they had not been involved in the process; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: Unresolved. 

State: South Dakota; 
Signed MOU: Yes; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: No issues in establishing MOU; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: May need to renegotiate current MOU. 

State: Washington; 
Signed MOU: Yes; 
Issues in establishing the MOU: Initially tribal groups had not been 
included in the process; 
If issues were resolved, how so?: State brought tribal groups into the 
discussion. State and tribal groups then worked together closely. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

Three Tribal Groups Have Officially Begun Developing AYP Alternatives 
in Part to Integrate Culture or Language, While Other Tribal Groups 
Have Chosen Not to Do So, in Part Because of Substantial Potential 
Challenges: 

As of March 2008, three tribal groups--the Navajo Nation, OSEC, and 
Miccosukee--had formally notified the BIE of their intent to develop 
alternatives to state definitions of AYP. These tribal groups represent 
BIE-funded schools in five states and include about 44 percent of BIE 
students (see table 3). The tribal groups began the process of 
developing alternatives at different times, but all were still in the 
early stages of doing so. 

Table 3: Status of Tribal Groups' Early Efforts in Seeking 
Alternatives: 

Tribal group: [Empty]; 
No. of schools: [Empty]; 
No. of students (SY 2006-07): [Empty]; 
Progress to date: Met with BIE and Education; 
[Empty]: Tribes report technical assistance had started; 
[Empty]: Funding requested; 
[Empty]: Funding received[B]; 
States in which affected BIE-funded schools are located: [Empty]. 

Tribal group: Navajo Nation; 
No. of schools: 60; 
No. of students (SY 2006-07): 16,598; 
Progress to date: Check; 
[Empty]: No[A]; 
[Empty]: Check; 
[Empty]: No; 
States in which affected BIE-funded schools are located: Arizona, New 
Mexico, Utah. 

Tribal group: OSEC; 
No. of schools: 11; 
No. of students (SY 2006-07): 4,442; 
Progress to date: Check; 
[Empty]: Check; 
[Empty]: Check; 
[Empty]: No; 
States in which affected BIE- funded schools are located: South Dakota. 

Tribal group: Miccosukee; 
No. of schools: 1; 
No. of students (SY 2006- 07): 152; 
Progress to date: Check; 
[Empty]: Check; 
[Empty]: No; 
[Empty]: No; 
States in which affected BIE- funded schools are located: Florida. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] In March 2008 a meeting took place with officials from Education, 
Interior, and the Navajo Nation to discuss technical assistance needs. 
However, a representative of the Navajo Nation declined to characterize 
the focus of the meeting as technical assistance, stating that 
Education officials did not seem to want to consider the factors the 
Navajo had identified, such as a school's remoteness or a child's 
mental health, in making AYP determinations. 

[B] The BIE, in technical comments on our draft report, stated that BIE 
cannot transfer funds for continued technical assistance to a tribal 
group until a fundable request has been developed. 

[End of table] 

Officials from the Navajo Nation, with BIE schools in three states, 
have requested technical assistance for developing an alternative 
definition of AYP, citing the desire to include cultural components in 
the standards and assessments and to compare the progress of Navajo 
students across states. Navajo officials have recently (October 2007) 
requested technical assistance from BIE to develop an alternative 
"Navajo specific" measure that would influence AYP determination, 
regardless of the state in which the school was located. [Footnote 16] 

OSEC, a consortium of tribal groups in South Dakota,[Footnote 17] seeks 
to develop an alternative to improve student performance in its 
schools, to define the graduation rate to include 6 years rather than 
4, and to replace the attendance component of the state's definition of 
AYP with a language and culture component. OSEC has submitted a 
proposal to BIE officials[Footnote 18] that provides a framework for 
developing academic content standards for math, reading, and science-- 
the subject areas that must be covered in a state assessment--as well 
as developing an assessment. OSEC officials consulted with BIE 
officials regarding the proposal, and BIE has since forwarded the 
proposal to Education for review. Education officials met with 
officials from BIE and OSEC in November 2007 to evaluate OSEC's needs 
and offer technical assistance. Education officials told us that they 
have a consultant who could help OSEC ensure that the new standards and 
assessments meet Education's guidelines. 

Officials from the Miccosukee Tribe have informed BIE that they did not 
want to implement the Florida assessment system because they thought it 
was flawed and inferior to the standardized test they were already 
using. They also told us that because attendance in the Miccosukee 
School was not compulsory, they rejected the use of attendance as an 
additional AYP indicator.[Footnote 19] After having met with Education 
officials and a consultant, the Miccosukee told us that they were 
considering various options in their development of an alternative 
assessment, including augmenting the current test, called the Terra 
Nova, or developing a new assessment based on a modified version of 
Florida's academic content standards. Officials also told us that they 
were working on developing standards for Miccosukee culture and 
language to serve as the basis for an assessment that would serve as 
the additional AYP indicator in lieu of attendance for their students 
in third through eighth grade. 

Most remaining tribal groups have not pursued alternatives for various 
reasons, including the desire to maintain compatibility with public 
schools in their state, and potential challenges and resources required 
to develop alternatives. Officials representing BIE schools in 
California, Mississippi, and Washington told us that it was important 
that their schools be compatible with the local public schools. 
Officials from the BIE schools in Mississippi wanted to ensure that 
their students received the same diploma as other children in the 
state. Further, school officials and BIE education line officers 
identified several potential challenges that tribal groups might 
encounter in their efforts to develop alternative standards or 
assessments, including a lack of expertise, funding, and time (see 
table 4). According to ELOs and school[Footnote 20] and Education 
officials, the specialized knowledge needed to develop an alternative 
definition of AYP is generally beyond the capacity of tribal groups. 
With regard to financing the development of alternatives, Education 
officials stated that developing standards and assessments could cost 
tens of millions of dollars[Footnote 21]--financial resources that some 
tribal representatives and BIE officials told us are generally not 
available among many tribal groups. Education officials and ELOs also 
agreed that developing alternatives requires an extensive time 
commitment that may not be sustainable given changes in leadership. 

Table 4: Key Potential Challenges Identified by ELOs That Tribal Groups 
Could Face When Developing an Alternative Definition of AYP: 

Challenge[A]: Financing the development of an assessment or standards 
would be burdensome for tribes; 
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 14. 

Challenge[A]: Expertise for developing assessments or cultural/ 
language standards generally not available among tribal members; 
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 14. 

Challenge[A]: The process for developing, piloting, and testing an 
assessment is lengthy; 
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 8. 

Challenge[A]: The BIE process for waiving state definitions of AYP and 
proposing and implementing alternatives is burdensome; 
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 6. 

Challenge[A]: Changes in tribal leadership or BIE leadership could 
erode support for such a project due to changes in priorities; 
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 5. 

Challenge[A]: Financing data collection and scoring of assessments 
would be burdensome; 
Number of ELOs identifying the challenge[B]: 3. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] These challenges, with the exception of "Financing data collection 
and scoring of assessments would be burdensome," were also identified 
by some school officials during our interviews. 

[B] Among 21 ELOs responding to an open-ended question. 

[End of table] 

Tribal Groups Considering Alternatives and School Officials Reported a 
Lack of Federal Guidance and Communication, but BIE and Education Have 
Recently Begun Providing Some Initial Assistance: 

Most tribal groups, ELOs, and school officials we spoke with said they 
had received little guidance about the process BIE uses to help tribal 
groups develop alternatives and some expressed frustration with the 
pace and quality of communication with BIE. Officials representing the 
two tribal groups and one consortium that have formally requested 
technical assistance stated they were uncertain about the BIE process 
for applying for an alternative. Likewise, we found school officials 
were also unsure of BIE's process for applying for an alternative. For 
example, officials from the two BIE schools in California said they had 
no knowledge of the BIE process to assist tribal governing bodies and 
school boards to develop alternatives. 

About half of the ELOs, despite being the first point of contact, told 
us they did not have enough information to accurately describe the 
process a tribal group would use to waive the Secretary of the 
Interior's definition and pursue development of an alternative 
definition of AYP. This may be at least partly due to turnover among 
ELOs. Eight of the 21 ELOs said they had been in their current position 
for 12 months or less while 7 had been in their current position from 1 
to 3 years.[Footnote 22] During our interviews, almost all of the ELOs 
(19 of 21) told us that they had not received any information from BIE 
officials on their role in providing technical assistance to tribes in 
developing content standards, assessments, or definitions of 
AYP.[Footnote 23] In addition, although BIE receives funds from 
Education that could be used to assist tribal groups with the 
development of alternatives, all 21 of BIE's ELOs told us they had not 
been instructed that BIE funds were available for this purpose. 

Some school officials and tribal groups we interviewed reported slow 
responses to requests for assistance and a lack of communication from 
the BIE in other cases. For example, OSEC's written request for 
technical assistance in developing an alternative definition of AYP was 
not acted upon for 8 months. In another case, the Miccosukee's written 
request to waive the state assessment and develop an alternative went 
unanswered by the BIE from October 2006 to June 2007. BIE officials, in 
acknowledging their slow response to the tribal groups' requests for 
technical assistance, stated that in some cases tribal groups' written 
requests were not always clear about what they wanted from the BIE or 
had not adhered to the regulation that requires the waiver request be 
submitted by either a tribal governing body or school board. School 
officials we interviewed reported frustration with BIE's failure to 
initiate communication when necessary. For example, officials from one 
of the BIE schools in California stated that, although BIE officials 
were aware that the state had not given the schools access to the state 
assessment, BIE had not communicated with or offered any type of 
assistance to the schools. 

Officials from BIE and Education Have Recently Begun to Offer Technical 
Assistance: 

To address tribal groups' requests for technical assistance, BIE 
assigned a staff person as the primary BIE contact for tribal groups 
that are requesting technical assistance or seeking to develop 
alternatives.[Footnote 24] However, this BIE staff person has several 
other key responsibilities including responsibility for applying 23 
state AYP definitions to calculate the AYP status of BIE schools in 
addition to other major responsibilities. 

In response to the requests, BIE and Education officials have recently 
offered technical assistance to those tribal groups that are seeking to 
develop alternatives. For example, officials from BIE and Education met 
with the Miccosukee and OSEC in November 2007 to assess the type of 
technical assistance needed in order for the tribal groups to pursue 
development of their alternatives. Likewise, officials from BIE and 
Education also met with representatives of the Navajo Nation in March 
2008 to assess their technical assistance needs as they continue to 
pursue development of an alternative. Education officials told us they 
have also sent a contractor to assist tribal groups as they pursue the 
development of alternative assessments. Specifically, in South Dakota, 
the Education contractor is charged with working with the OSEC 
consortium to identify the actions needed to ensure that its 
alternative assessment will comply with NCLBA regulations. 

As of February 2008, according to BIE officials, none of the funds 
provided by Education to BIE under the NCLBA provision supporting 
assessment-related expenses had been spent to provide technical 
assistance to tribal groups seeking to develop alternatives.[Footnote 
25] According to BIE, all of these funds had been obligated, primarily 
for improvements to BIE's student information and tracking systems and 
other assessment-related uses, including professional 
development.[Footnote 26] BIE officials stated that none of these funds 
had been spent on technical assistance, as no fundable requests had 
been received from the tribal groups developing alternatives. However, 
the officials stated that they expected to spend some funds to provide 
technical assistance in the near future. 

Prior Recommendations and Current Status: 

Our June report recommended that, in order to improve support for 
tribal governments and school boards in their adoption of definitions 
of AYP, the Secretary of the Interior should direct BIE to: 

* Coordinate with relevant tribal groups in pursuing negotiation of 
MOUs with states that lack them, seeking facilitation from Education 
when necessary and appropriate. 

* In close coordination with Education, provide prompt assistance to 
tribal groups in defining assessment options, especially in instances 
in which tribal groups are not accessing state assessments. Such 
assistance could include delineating options--such as using an already 
established assessment, augmenting an assessment, or incorporating 
cultural components as an additional academic indicator--and their 
associated costs. 

* Provide guidelines and training on the process for seeking and 
approving alternatives to all tribal governments, tribal school boards, 
and education line offices. 

* Establish internal response time frames and processes to ensure more 
timely responses to all correspondence with tribal groups as well as 
proactive communication with tribal groups and Education to resolve 
issues related to waivers, requests for technical assistance, and 
development of alternative definitions of AYP. 

In written comments, the Department of the Interior agreed with our 
recommendations and indicated it had initiated steps to implement them. 
In preparation for this testimony, we requested an update on BIE's 
actions. With regard to our recommendation about completing MOUs, BIE 
officials told us that they are in the process of working out the 
language for a memorandum of agreement with California state officials. 
BIE officials told us that the agreement will include language to 
assure the state that the assessment will be secured and properly 
administered. In addition, BIE officials told us that the three tribal 
groups seeking alternatives were working closely with a contractor, and 
BIE intended to release some funding to them in late September 2008. 
With regard to the recommendation to provide guidelines and training on 
the process for pursuing alternative assessments, BIE officials told us 
that they have taken a preliminary step by developing a presentation 
that should be available to attendees of the National Indian Education 
Conference in October 2008. Finally, they stated that the contractor 
that they have hired is also working with them to establish a process 
that will include internal time frames to ensure more timely 
communication with tribal groups. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 
have. 

GAO Contacts: 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 
(202) 512-7215. Betty Ward-Zukerman, Nagla'a El-Hodiri, and Kris 
Trueblood made key contributions to this testimony. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For the 2006-07 school year. 

[2] GAO, Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior's 
Assistance Would Help Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic 
Accountability Systems, GAO-08-679 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2008). 

[3] In all, we visited seven states--Arizona, California, Florida, 
Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington--and interviewed 
officials representing 21 schools across those states. For more details 
about how we conducted our review, please see GAO-08-679. 

[4] Under NCLBA states are required to establish performance goals and 
hold their schools receiving funds under Title I accountable for 
students' performance by determining whether or not schools have made 
AYP. The act requires states to set challenging academic content and 
achievement standards in reading or language arts, mathematics, and 
science, and determine whether school districts and schools make AYP 
toward meeting these standards. 

[5] NCLBA allows a tribal governing body or school board to waive the 
BIE's definition of AYP "in part or in whole." (20U.S.C. ï¿½ 
6316(g)(1)(B)) BIE regulations state that this waiver applies to the 
definition of AYP, academic content and achievement standards, and 
assessments.) (25 C.F.R. ï¿½ 30.105). 

[6] NCLBA required the Secretary of the Interior to develop a 
definition of AYP for BIE schools through negotiated rulemaking. 20 
U.S.C. ï¿½ 6316(g)(1)(A). 

[7] 70 Fed. Reg. 22178 (Apr. 28, 2005). 

[8] See 20 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6316(g)(1)(B) and 25 C.F.R. ï¿½ï¿½ 105 and 30.113. 

[9] In such cases, BIE has recently determined that it will not change 
the school's AYP status from the prior year. 

[10] 25 C.F.R. ï¿½ 30.110. 

[11] In particular, BIE officials told us that they had been unable to 
incorporate Arizona and North Carolinas' growth models--which track 
changes in proficiency levels or test scores over time. Some growth 
models measure individual student progress across time and require a 
student data system that can link the individual students' current test 
scores to those of prior years. BIE officials told us that their new 
Native American Student Information System has such capabilities, but 
had not been fully implemented. 

[12] The other seven states without signed MOUs are Louisiana, 
Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin. 

[13] For example, the test may not be properly safeguarded or 
administered. 

[14] There were also access issues in Mississippi due to the state's 
security concerns. The eight BIE schools in Mississippi were able to 
administer the state assessment in both 2005-06 and 2006-07; however, 
they were initially unable to access a re-administration of the 
assessment in 2006-07. This situation was resolved through an agreement 
between the schools and the state of Mississippi. 

[15] Under BIE regulations, BIE schools without access to their state's 
assessment must submit a waiver to develop an alternative definition of 
AYP. 25 C.F.R. ï¿½ 30.125(b). However, officials from the two BIE schools 
in California stated that developing an alternative definition was 
unreasonably burdensome and that they had no intention of proposing an 
alternative assessment in the foreseeable future. 

[16] Navajo officials told us that they currently do not have a 
consistent method of measuring the academic progress of their students 
across the states in which they are enrolled. Navajo children attend 
public, private, or BIE-funded schools in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, 
and Colorado. There are no BIE-funded schools in Colorado. Currently, 
the students are assessed using the various state assessment systems. 

[17] OSEC includes representatives from 11 BIE-funded schools. 

[18] OSEC sent letters to BIE officials requesting technical assistance 
as early as spring 2005. OSEC sent a proposal for the BIE to review in 
the summer of 2007. 

[19] NCLBA requires schools to have at least one other academic 
indicator for AYP. The law requires that the additional indicator be 
graduation rates for high schools, but does not specify the indicator 
for grades 3 through 8. 

[20] Some ELOs and school officials we interviewed told us they are 
also members of a tribal group. 

[21] In 2003, GAO estimated that test development costs under NCLBA 
would range from $12 million to $17 million per state. 

[22] BIE officials told us that about 25 percent of the ELOs who 
attended training on the process to develop an alternative were no 
longer employed in that position. According to BIE officials, ELOs had 
received such training in 2005--although no requested documentation of 
this training and guidance was provided to us. Furthermore, 19 of the 
21 ELOs we interviewed also stated they had not received any training 
or written guidance on the BIE's policy for approving a tribal group's 
request for an alternative, even though providing technical assistance 
to tribal groups developing an alternative is included in their job 
responsibilities. 

[23] The other two ELOs could not specifically recall whether they had 
received any such information. 

[24] BIE officials also sent Education's: "Standards and Assessments 
Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting the 
Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" to a tribal group 
in an effort to respond to its request for technical assistance. 

[25] BIE regulations provide that funds provided by Education under 
NCLBA section 6111 may be used in providing technical assistance. 25 
C.F.R. ï¿½ 30.109. 

[26] We requested accountings of BIEs expenditure of section 6111 funds 
from both BIE and Education. Education officials told us that they did 
not specifically require that BIE report on the expenditure of these 
funds and BIE officials had not provided GAO a thorough accounting by 
the end of our audit. Rather, they provided a spreadsheet indicating 
the funds had been primarily obligated for BIE's student information 
system. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***