	Background

NCLBA required the Secretary of the Interior to develop a definition of  AYP for BIE schools, but also allows tribal groups to waive all or part of  BIE’s definition of AYP and propose an alternative. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. Education officials told us they have also  sent a contractor to assist tribal groups as they pursue the development of  alternative assessments. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires states and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to define and determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward 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.

What GAO Found

Although almost all of the 174 BIE schools have officially adopted BIE's definition of AYP--the definition of AYP of the state where the school is located--BIE had not yet completed memoranda of understanding (MOU) to delineate BIE and state responsibilities concerning BIE schools' access to the states' assessment systems for 12 of the 23 states with BIE schools. Without MOUs, states could change their policies regarding BIE schools' access to assessments and scoring services. Officials from the Navajo Nation, the Oceti Sakowin Education Consortium, and the Miccosukee Tribe have begun to develop alternatives to state AYP definitions, in part to make standards and assessments reflect their culture, while officials of other tribal groups have cited 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 officers--the primary points of contact for information on the alternative provision--generally indicated that they had received no guidance or training on the provision. During the course of GAO's prior review, BIE and Education officials began offering technical assistance to the tribal groups working to develop alternatives. In response to GAO's 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.