Indian Education: Actions Needed to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive Special Education Services

BIE funds 185 elementary and secondary schools that serve more than 6,000 Native American students with special needs. The Department of Education has raised concerns about BIE's implementation of IDEA in recent years, including its long-standing noncompliance with IDEA requirements. GAO was asked to examine the provision of special education and related services to eligible BIE students.

This report examines the extent to which (1) BIE students with disabilities are provided the special education and related services required by their IEPs, and (2) BIE oversees and supports the provision of special education at its schools. GAO analyzed data on special education and related services for a generalizable sample of 138 BIE students with IEPs at 30 schools over a 4-month period in school year 2017-2018 (the most recent complete school year at the time of our analysis); compared BIE special education practices with its policies and Interior and IDEA requirements; visited schools in two states selected for their large numbers of BIE schools; and interviewed school and agency officials.

Schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide services for eligible students with disabilities, such as learning disabilities or health impairments. Services for these students are listed in individualized education programs (IEP). GAO found that BIE schools did not provide or did not account for 38 percent of special education and related service time for students with disabilities, according to analysis of school documentation for a 4-month review period (see fig.). This included one school that did not provide any services to three students. While BIE has plans to improve documentation of such services, it has not established whether and when missed services should be made up, which has led to inconsistent practices among schools. Establishing consistent requirements for making up missed services could help students receive the special education and related services they need to make academic progress.

BIE's limited monitoring and technical assistance have hindered its oversight and support for special education at schools. For example:

A division of BIE responsible for overseeing about half of all BIE schools decided to verify the provision of special education services at only one-third of its schools per year, although the Department of the Interior (Interior) requires BIE to annually verify the provision of services at all schools.

BIE provided required monitoring reports late and did not provide required technical assistance plans to 14 schools that BIE determined were at high risk of not complying with IDEA and other federal education programs in school year 2018-2019.

BIE officials said that the field office staff responsible for working with schools on special education often do not have the requisite expertise, which has hampered their oversight and support to schools.

Without verifying special education services at every school annually, following high-risk monitoring and technical assistance requirements, and providing training to its staff, BIE cannot ensure that the schools it funds are meeting their responsibilities under IDEA. Strengthening such oversight and support activities can help BIE as it works to address the unique needs of students with disabilities to help prepare them for future education, employment, and independent living.

GAO is making seven recommendations, including that BIE establish consistent requirements for schools on making up missed services, annually verify special education services at all schools, comply with high-risk monitoring and technical assistance requirements, and ensure that BIE staff receive needed training. Interior agreed with the recommendations.

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), within the Department of the  Interior (Interior), supports 185 elementary and secondary schools that  serve approximately 41,000 mostly low-income Native American students  in rural communities on or near reservations in 23 states. In fiscal year  2019, BIE received about $78 million from the Department of Education  (Education) to help ensure that all eligible children with disabilities ages 5  through 21 at BIE schools receive special education and related  services—such as speech-language pathology and occupational  therapy—as required by Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities  Education Act (IDEA). Special education and related services under  IDEA are designed, among other things, to meet students’ unique needs  and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent  living.

Education has raised significant concerns about BIE’s implementation of  IDEA in recent years, including concerns about BIE’s long-standing  noncompliance with various IDEA requirements and repeated failure to  take Education’s required corrective actions. As a result of BIE’s  continued noncompliance, Education in July 2019 withheld 20 percent of  BIE’s fiscal year 2019 IDEA Part B funds reserved for administrative  costs, an action the department has taken very infrequently. Further, our  prior work has found numerous weaknesses in BIE’s management and  oversight of BIE schools, including problems with monitoring school  spending and conducting annual safety and health inspections of school  facilities.

You asked us to review special education and related services at BIE  schools. For this report, we examined (1) the extent to which eligible BIE  students with disabilities are provided the special education and related  services required by their individualized education programs (IEP); and  (2) the extent to which BIE oversees and supports the provision of these  services at its schools.

To determine the extent to which eligible BIE students with disabilities are  provided the special education and related services in their IEPs, as  required by IDEA, we conducted a generalizable analysis of BIE schools’  provision of special education and related services for a 4-month period  between October 2017 and February 2018, based on information  contained in school service logs during the 2017-2018 school year, the  most recent complete school year at the time of our analysis. We  compiled and analyzed data for a nationally representative, random  sample of 138 students with IEPs at 30 randomly selected BIE schools.  We collected electronic documentation of services from schools for this  period. Because the information contained in school service logs is self- reported by school personnel or service contractors, we were not able to  assess the overall accuracy of this information, such as whether services  were actually provided—a limitation that generally applies to research  relying on self-reported information. We conducted extensive follow-up  with schools, however, to ensure the most complete data collection  possible and contacted schools when further information or clarification  was needed to understand service log entries. We then compiled and  coded the information from school documents for statistical analysis to  determine the extent to which students in our sample received the  services required by their IEPs, based on school documentation. Our  results are generalizable to all BIE students who had an active IEP in  place between September 2017 and February 2018, which included 2,904 students from 169 schools. All percentage estimates in this report  have a margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence level, of plus or  minus 12 percentage points or fewer unless otherwise noted.

Additionally, we requested information from each of the schools in our  sample about any challenges the schools face in providing special  education and related services. We also conducted site visits to seven  schools in New Mexico and Arizona—selected for their large numbers of  BIE schools—and interviewed school administrators and teachers about  their special education programs and services for students, including any  challenges they face in providing services. In addition, we interviewed  BIE officials about the bureau’s practices in supporting schools in  addressing any challenges related to providing special education and  related services to students. We compared BIE’s practices with  requirements under IDEA, BIE’s policies and procedures, and federal  standards for internal control.

To examine the extent to which BIE oversees and supports the provision  of special education and related services at its schools, we reviewed BIE  monitoring and technical assistance policies and procedures and  interviewed agency officials about monitoring and assistance activities.  We compared these activities against IDEA, Interior, and BIE  requirements as well as federal standards for internal control to evaluate  the sufficiency of their efforts in monitoring and supporting BIE schools’  special education programs.

For both research objectives, we also collected information from national  organizations with expertise in Indian education and from members of  BIE’s advisory committee on special education, which is tasked with  providing the Secretary of the Interior information and recommendations  on BIE’s implementation of IDEA. See appendix I for more information  on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2018 to May 2020 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.

Background BIE Schools and the Federal Government’s Trust Responsibility

BIE’s Indian education programs derive from the federal government’s  trust responsibility to Indian tribes, a responsibility established in federal  statutes, treaties, court decisions, and executive actions. In 2016, the  Indian Trust Asset Reform Act included congressional findings stating  “through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with Indian tribes, the  United States has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and  support Indian tribes and Indians...” In addition, “the fiduciary  responsibilities of the United States to Indians also are founded in part on  specific commitments made in treaties and agreements securing peace,  in exchange for which Indians surrendered claims to vast tracts of  land…” It is the federal government’s policy to fulfill its trust relationship  with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian  children by working with tribes toward the goal of ensuring that Interior- funded schools are of the highest quality and provide for the basic  elementary and secondary educational needs of Indian children, including  meeting the unique educational and cultural needs of these children.

Students with Disabilities in the BIE School System

Similar to students in elementary and secondary schools nationwide,  some students in BIE schools have documented disabilities that require  special educational or supplemental support. More than 6,000 students  with disabilities, representing about 15 percent of total enrollment, attend  BIE schools. Specific learning disabilities, such as perceptual  disabilities, dyslexia, or impairments from brain injury, formed the most prevalent disability category among BIE students with disabilities in  school year 2017-2018 (see table 1), affecting more than half of the  students with disabilities at BIE schools.

An IEP is a written statement for each child with a disability designed to  meet the child’s individual needs under IDEA. IDEA requires that every  child who receives special education services have an IEP. Before an  IEP is developed, a child with a disability must be identified, located, and  evaluated through a process known as Child Find. Generally, an adult  familiar with the student’s abilities makes an official referral for a special  education services evaluation. With parental consent, the student is  then evaluated using a variety of assessment tools and strategies  designed to help determine the student’s unique needs. Once a child is  evaluated and determined to be eligible for special education and related  services under IDEA, an IEP is developed describing the school’s delivery  of required services to the child. IDEA regulations require that the  services specified in a child’s IEP be provided to the child as soon as  possible following the development of the IEP. Moreover, IDEA requires  that a student’s IEP include, among other things, a projected date for the  beginning of services and the anticipated frequency, location, and  duration of those services. However, IDEA does not specifically address  the steps that schools must take in cases where services are not provided  in accordance with the anticipated service duration and frequency in the  student’s IEP, such as cases where services were not provided at all or  the duration was less than the amount of time specified in a student’s  IEP. Educators are required to track the child’s academic progress over  the school year and then annually review and update the IEP as needed  at least once a year. IDEA requires schools to reevaluate children with  IEPs at least once every 3 years to determine whether their needs have  changed and if they still qualify for special education and related services  under IDEA (see fig. 1).

Under IDEA, Interior receives funding to assist in the education of  children with disabilities in BIE schools. BIE is responsible for meeting  all IDEA requirements for these children, including that an IEP is  developed and implemented for each eligible student and that the  requirements of any identified education and related services are defined  in the IEP. BIE policy requires that IEPs identify services for eligible  students under two main categories: education services and related  services. Education services include math, reading, and written  expression, among others, while related services include occupational  therapy, physical therapy, and speech-language pathology, among  others, according to BIE’s policy. BIE also requires that IEPs include the  type of provider for these services, such as a special education teacher  for an education service, or a physical therapist for a related service, as  well as information about the duration and frequency of the services to be  provided (see fig. 2).

BIE schools are required to develop and update students’ IEPs in the  Native American Student Information System (NASIS), an online data  management system the agency created in 2006 for all BIE schools to  record and store a variety of student-related information, including special  education data.

BIE requires that schools document the special education and related  services that their teachers or contracted providers deliver to students  with IEPs, and Interior regulations require that schools maintain these  and all other special education records for at least 4 years.

BIE Offices Responsible for Overseeing and Supporting Special Education at Schools

Multiple offices under the BIE Director are responsible for overseeing and  supporting schools’ special education programs to help ensure that they  comply with IDEA and other federal requirements for special education  (see fig. 3).

The School Operations Division was established under the bureau’s  recent reorganization to provide direction and assistance to BIE  schools in education technology; human resources; communications;  educational facilities; safety and facilities; and acquisition and grants.  The division is also responsible for providing oversight over BIE  school spending, including spending on special education.

Sixteen agency field offices called Education Resource Centers are  located across the BIE school system and are administered by three  separate BIE divisions under the Chief Academic Officer: the  Associate Deputy Director-Tribally Controlled Schools, the Associate  Deputy Director-Bureau Operated Schools, and the Associate Deputy  Director-Navajo Schools. The Centers are primarily responsible for  providing oversight and technical assistance to schools in a variety of  areas, including their academic programs, fiscal management, and  compliance with IDEA. In particular, Interior regulations and BIE  procedures require that BIE annually verify that all students with an  IEP in the BIE system are provided with special education services in  accordance with their IEPs.

BIE’s Division of Performance and Accountability (DPA) is primarily  responsible for overseeing Education-funded programs at BIE  schools, including IDEA and Title I, Part A of the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. DPA’s primary  oversight responsibilities involve monitoring schools’ implementation  of these federal education programs. DPA also provides schools and  other BIE offices with technical assistance and training on IDEA  requirements, among other program areas. Since 2018, DPA and  other BIE divisions have been responsible for working together in  monitoring schools the agency considers high risk in administering  federal education programs. Specifically, in May 2018, BIE  established a new policy and guidance for conducting annual  targeted, risk-based monitoring of BIE school programs, which is  separate from the requirements for the agency to verify the provision  of special education and related services annually. According to this  policy, BIE is required to select a sample of 15 schools for this  monitoring based on a variety of special education and other risk  factors, including special education enrollment and unobligated IDEA  funds. BIE’s policy requires that staff from five of its divisions—DPA,  School Operations, and the three school divisions responsible for  directly supporting BIE schools—coordinate and conduct joint  monitoring activities as teams, including a review of schools’ special  education programs. These teams are required to issue in depth  monitoring reports and technical assistance plans to schools within 30  days of an on-site monitoring visit.

Role of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs

Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) awards funds  to states and BIE, and provides assistance and oversight in their  implementation of IDEA. BIE, as with states, is required to report certain  compliance information to OSEP. OSEP, in turn, determines BIE’s  performance and level of compliance with IDEA and provides assistance  to BIE to improve in specific areas.

Over the past 8 years, OSEP has found significant problems with BIE’s  implementation of IDEA, which in 2019 prompted OSEP to withhold a  portion of BIE’s IDEA funds. OSEP issued a determination letter in July  2019 that stated BIE needed intervention in implementing the  requirements of IDEA because of its long-standing noncompliance and  repeated failure to follow through on OSEP’s required corrective actions,  among other issues. BIE had been in “needs intervention” status for each  of the last 8 years. As a result of BIE’s continued noncompliance, OSEP  in July 2019 withheld 20 percent, or about $780,000, of BIE’s fiscal year  2019 IDEA Part B funds reserved for administrative costs, an action  OSEP has taken very infrequently. OSEP provided BIE notice and an  opportunity for a hearing, but BIE did not appeal the withheld funds.

OSEP’s activities in overseeing BIE’s implementation of IDEA included  investigating special education services at one BIE school in 2018. As a  result of the investigation, in early August 2018, OSEP sent a letter to the  BIE Director about its findings, including that some students at one BIE- operated school had not received services required in their IEPs,  including speech language therapy and physical therapy, for almost a  year because service contracts with providers had expired. The letter  notified BIE that failure to provide services in a student’s IEP violated the  IDEA requirement that a free appropriate public education be made  available to all eligible students with disabilities. OSEP’s investigation  also determined that six other BIE-operated schools were under the same  contracts and may not have delivered IEP-required services to students.  OSEP’s August 2018 letter required BIE to take several corrective actions  within 30 days, including determining whether other schools had IEP  service disruptions. In addition, the letter required that BIE develop a plan  by the end of October 2018 to prevent contractual problems that could  result in a similar disruption of services in the future. As of February 2020,  BIE had not notified OSEP that it had completed those corrective actions.

OSEP’s oversight of BIE also included visiting BIE schools and agency  offices in spring 2019 to examine BIE’s accountability system for IDEA.  OSEP presented its findings and corrective actions to BIE in a letter and  monitoring report in October 2019. OSEP found that BIE did not have  policies and procedures for implementation of IDEA Part B at its schools,  and that school officials wanted guidance on IDEA requirements from  BIE. OSEP also found evidence of a systemic problem with service  providers. For example, officials that OSEP interviewed at one school  OSEP visited said they had not had a physical therapist during the entire  2018-2019 school year and did not have a school counselor the previous  year. Such staff were required in order to provide services in accordance  with students’ IEPs. The corrective actions detailed by OSEP in its  October 2019 letter to BIE were to be completed within 90 days, including  that BIE develop a plan and timeline for adopting policies and procedures  for implementing IDEA. The bureau, however, requested a 60-day  extension, which OSEP granted, moving the required date of completion  for BIE’s actions to early spring 2020.

Our prior work on Indian education found numerous weaknesses in BIE’s  management and oversight of BIE schools, including problems with  monitoring school spending and conducting annual safety and health  inspections of school facilities. As a result of these and other systemic  problems with BIE’s administration of Indian education programs, we  added Indian education to our High Risk List in February 2017. In our  2019 High Risk update, we found that BIE had made progress in  addressing some of these key weaknesses in Indian education, such as  demonstrating leadership commitment to change. We reported,  however, that the agency needed to show progress in other key areas,  such as increasing its capacity to support functions related to  administering and overseeing BIE schools.

BIE Schools Did Not Provide or Did Not Account for Almost 40 Percent of Students’ Special Education Service Time, According to School Documentation

BIE schools did not provide an estimated 20 percent of special education  service time to their students during a 4-month period between October  2017 and February 2018, and they did not provide documentation for  another 18 percent of service time. Schools frequently did not include  reasons for missing services in their service logs, and their practices for  whether to make up these services varied. Further, some schools  provided no documentation for one or more services, while many schools  provided documentation that lacked key information. Difficulties in  identifying special education and related service providers, especially in  remote areas, limited some schools’ ability to provide services to  students.

Schools Did Not Provide Students with an Estimated 20 Percent of Special Education Service Time and Did Not Account for Another 18 Percent

We estimate that BIE schools either did not provide or did not account for  38 percent of the time for the special education and related services  required by students’ IEPs, according to our analysis of school  documentation. Specifically, we found that schools provided an  estimated 62 percent of the service time specified in their students’ IEPs  (see fig. 4). Of the service time remaining, we found that schools did not  provide an estimated 20 percent of service time to students, and they did  not provide any documentation for an additional 18 percent of such  service time. When schools did not provide documentation, we were  unable to determine whether services were delivered to students. Our  analysis was based on a review of service logs at 30 BIE schools during a  4-month period between October 2017 and February 2018 for a nationally  representative sample of students with IEPs.

Of the students who clearly did not receive service time, according to  school service logs, three students at one school received no service time  at all during the period of our 4-month review. Officials at the school told  us that the special education teacher responsible for providing these  services did not fulfill her responsibility to provide services to these  students and eventually left the school. They added that the school did  not have other qualified staff to provide the services during the period of  our review.

School Documentation Frequently Did Not Include Reasons for Missing Services, and Schools’ Practices for Whether to Make Up Services Varied

Our analysis of school service logs found that an estimated one-quarter of  the services that were missed did not have a reason listed in the logs,  and as a result, we could not determine why the service was not  delivered. Of the remaining estimated three-quarters of services that were  missed, the top three reasons for missed services were student  absences, school-sponsored activities (such as field trips), and provider  absences (see fig. 5). BIE requirements do not specify that school service  logs must include reasons for missed services.

We also found that the schools in our sample did not follow consistent  practices for whether to make up regularly scheduled services that are  missed. Based on our outreach to officials at the schools in our sample,  23 of the 30 schools that responded varied in their practices for whether  to make up services that were missed for reasons including school- sponsored activities or unplanned school closures, such as snow days  (see fig. 6).

In addition to information about their practices for whether missed special  education services are expected to be made up, school officials also  provided us with written responses about other factors that may influence  this decision. For example, an official at one school responded that while  providers of related services are expected to make up missed services  when providers are absent, education service providers are not.  Alternatively, an official at another school responded that all of the  school’s service providers are responsible for finding a way to provide the  IEP-required services regardless of the reason for missed service.

Additionally, we found that for schools that expect providers to make up  missed services, timeframes for doing so varied considerably, based on  written responses we received from schools. Specifically, while some  school providers typically make up services within a week of the missed  service, others aimed to provide them within a month or longer. One  school official responded that related services—such as occupational  therapy, physical therapy, and speech and language—may not be made  up until the following summer, which could potentially result in a delay of  up to 9 months if services are missed at the beginning of the school year.

BIE does not have official requirements on whether and when schools  should make up missed services, and BIE officials provided schools with  inconsistent information on this issue. For example, information provided  to us by BIE’s Division of Performance and Accountability (DPA) shows  that officials advised schools on one occasion that making up missed  services is required only when they occur because the provider is not  available, but on another occasion advised schools that all missed  services should be made up. Further, one official in another BIE office  that oversees and supports tribally controlled schools advised schools  that making up services is not expected when they are missed due to  school-sponsored activities or testing. In contrast, another official with the  same division advised schools that services should always be made up  regardless of the reason they were missed.

While IDEA does not specifically address the steps that schools must  take in cases where services are not provided in accordance with the  service duration and frequency in the student’s IEP, Education officials  said that IDEA does not preclude state educational agencies—including  BIE—from establishing their own requirements in this area, as long as  they are consistent with IDEA requirements. We found that at least four  state educational agencies, including Maryland, New York, North Dakota,  and the District of Columbia, have done so.

IDEA requires that schools provide special education and related services  to eligible students as outlined in their IEPs. However, because BIE  schools follow inconsistent practices for whether to make up services  when missed, and BIE has not established consistent requirements in this  area, there is a risk that some schools may not be providing services in  accordance with students’ IEPs. As noted previously, we found that  schools did not provide or did not document almost an estimated 40  percent of students’ service time, based on our review of service logs.  Missed services may delay students’ progress and increase the risk that  they are not receiving a free appropriate public education as required  under IDEA.

Some Schools Provided No Documentation for One or More Services, While Many Schools Provided Documentation That Lacked Key Information

In our generalizable analysis of service logs, we found that for an  estimated 18 percent of service time, schools were not able to show  whether education and related services were provided to students with  IEPs because school service logs were either missing or incomplete. No  service logs were provided by schools for 12 of the 138 students in our  sample, and incomplete logs were provided for another 51 of the  students. By school, 6 of the 30 schools in our sample did not provide any  logs for at least one student, and 18 of the remaining 24 schools were  missing a portion of the logs. The lack of service logs prevented us from  determining whether some students were provided their required IEP  services.

In addition, we found that many schools’ service logs lacked key  information. In particular, service logs frequently omitted or did not clearly  indicate service duration and frequency. This information is important for  determining whether a school has provided services in accordance with a  student’s IEP. Key areas in which service logs varied included:

Service duration and frequency: IEPs are required by BIE to specify  the weekly frequency and duration of the services throughout the  year. However, the service logs we reviewed often did not include  both types of information. About one-quarter of the service log entries  did not indicate the number of minutes provided, according to our  statistical analysis. We estimate that about one-fifth included total  minutes, but did not clarify how many times the service was provided.  Just over half of the service log entries included both the duration and  frequency of each service.

Individual vs. combined service entries: Eleven of the 30 schools in  our sample provided us with service logs that grouped multiple  services together without indicating the specific amount of time or the  number of sessions for each service per week. As a result, when  these schools recorded that less time was provided, we were unable  to identify which of the services were missed. For example, one  student was to receive five 60-minute sessions each of reading,  written expression, and math per week, according to the student’s  IEP. The student’s service log recorded the total number of minutes  provided in a day but did not specify which services were provided  (e.g., 540 minutes were provided, of a total 900 minutes per week).  Based on this information, we could infer from the shortage of total  minutes provided that some services were missed, but we were  unable to determine whether the student missed reading, written  expression, math, or a combination of all three services.

School officials responsible for completing service log: Service logs  were completed by different types of staff across schools, including  paraprofessionals, service providers, or special education  coordinators.

School practices in documenting special education services varied widely  because BIE has not established a standardized process for doing so.  BIE officials told us the agency is currently developing a system to  standardize how schools document services using a new online module  within the Native American Student Information System. Officials provided  documentation showing that they were developing this system to allow  schools to consistently document both education and related services.  BIE’s system, once fully implemented, may allow the agency to monitor  and verify service provision more effectively and improve the consistency  of schools’ documentation of services. BIE plans to fully implement the  system and provide schools with the requisite training to use it by late  2020, according to agency documentation.

Difficulties in Identifying Special Education Providers, Especially in Remote Areas, Limited Some Schools’ Ability to Provide Services to Students

Officials at 22 of the 30 schools in our sample provided us with  information in addition to their service logs, and all 22 schools reported  difficulties in recruiting, hiring, or retaining staff or contractors with the  required qualifications to provide special education and related services,  which some said limited their ability to provide students with high quality  required services. In written responses and interviews we conducted,  school officials cited school size and remote location as constraints to  recruiting, hiring, or retaining qualified service providers. In particular,  while schools often rely on contractors to provide related services—such  as occupational and physical therapy—officials at 10 of the 30 schools in  our sample reported that the availability of qualified contractors was  limited.

Education services, which are typically provided by school special  education staff, were required for nearly all students with IEPs in our  sample. Some school officials said in interviews and written responses  that in some cases students did not receive education services because  their schools either did not have any or enough qualified staff to provide  them. For example, according to a BIE official, one BIE school reassigned  its only special education teacher to fill a vacant science teacher position  and did not provide required services to 18 students during the 2018-19  school year. In another example, one school reported that it did not have  qualified staff to provide services to two students with IEPs for 12  consecutive weeks during the 2017-2018 school year. Officials said the  school was unable to find a substitute special education teacher, and as a  result, each student missed about 5 hours of service time per week during  this period. An official at another school said that after advertising for a  special education teacher for three years, the position is still vacant.

These examples illustrate challenges with hiring and retaining special  education staff that may exist more broadly across the country. For  example, according to recent Education data, 43 states reported  shortages in special education providers in the 2018-2019 school year.  However, promising practices may be found within the BIE system as well  as across the states that could provide BIE schools direction in  addressing shortages of special education providers. For example, two  BIE schools recruited and hired special education staff through  international work exchange programs meant to facilitate the employment  of qualified teachers from other countries. Some schools also reported  using outreach to other local BIE or public schools to find and share  contractors. Further, OSEP has developed resources for addressing  special education teacher shortages that it has made available to states  and school districts. In particular, in 2019 OSEP hosted a series of online  symposia on general strategies and best practices for schools to attract  and retain effective special education personnel. These sessions featured  experts and practitioners who discussed strategies for attracting and  retaining personnel. Such strategies and other relevant state and tribal  resources for addressing special education teacher shortages could  provide BIE with additional support to address its own challenges in this  area.

BIE has not taken steps, however, to establish a mechanism, such as a  community of practice, to identify and communicate promising practices  for schools, especially those in remote locations, to address their special  education staffing and contracting challenges. BIE’s advisory committee  on special education stated in its 2018 annual report that BIE needed to  better support the recruitment of special education and related service  providers at BIE schools. Further, BIE’s 2018-2023 strategic plan has a  goal of supporting schools by identifying and sharing best practices and  collaborating with schools to recruit, hire, and retain highly effective staff.  In addition, federal standards for internal control state that agencies  should select an appropriate mechanism for communicating externally.

Without greater support from BIE, some schools will continue to struggle  to find the special education staff and contractors they need, and students  at these schools may not receive the special education services they  need to thrive academically.

Limited Monitoring and Technical Assistance Hampered BIE’s Oversight and Support for Special Education at Schools

Limited monitoring and technical assistance have hampered BIE’s  oversight and support for special education at BIE schools. BIE did not  verify the provision of special education and related services at about 30  percent of its schools in school year 2018-2019 due to limited oversight  by its largest division. Additionally, BIE has not provided high-risk schools  with timely reports after monitoring visits so schools can address their  noncompliance with IDEA requirements. Further, staff in BIE’s Education  Resource Centers often lack expertise in special education, and school  personnel did not always know which agency staff to contact for special  education support.

BIE Did Not Verify the Provision of Services at About 30 Percent of Its Schools in School Year 2018-2019 Due to Limited Oversight by Its Largest Division

BIE did not verify the provision of special education and related services  at about 30 percent of its schools in school year 2018-2019, according to  available agency documentation. Interior regulations, however, require  that BIE annually review all schools’ documentation to verify the provision  of special education and related services for every eligible student,  among other things. BIE’s guidance for conducting these reviews  specifically directs reviewing personnel to verify that students with active  IEPs are receiving timely services as indicated on their IEPs. However,  the BIE division that oversees about half of all BIE schools, which is led  by the Associate Deputy Director-Tribally Controlled Schools,  established a policy for its staff to verify provision of services at only a  third of its assigned schools each year. The two other divisions, which  oversee BIE-operated and Navajo schools, respectively, reported that  they conducted reviews at 100 percent of their schools in school year  2018-2019.

The Associate Deputy Director-Tribally Controlled Schools who  authorized this policy, told us that she believed the policy complied with  Interior regulations. However, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor told us that  this policy does not comply with Interior’s regulations. BIE officials said  the Office of the Associate Deputy Director-Tribally Controlled Schools  established this policy to reduce the number of schools the division  annually verifies because of the division’s limited staff capacity. Six of 13  staff positions in this division with roles in overseeing or supporting  special education were vacant as of February 2020, according to BIE  documentation and a senior official. Although BIE developed a strategic  workforce plan in 2019 with a goal of addressing staffing shortages  across the bureau, the plan does not include information on a strategy or  timeframe to address vacancies in positions with responsibilities to  oversee and support special education at its schools.

BIE’s verification of special education and related services at schools has  identified noncompliance with federal requirements. For example,  according to BIE, a recent verification visit at one school identified  numerous irregularities in its special education documentation, which  prompted the school’s superintendent to request that BIE conduct a  formal investigation. BIE investigators reported that school staff had  falsified service records showing that services were provided when a  teacher was not present, and that services were provided in multiple and  inappropriate settings (e.g., math services recorded at the same time and  date during reading, physical education, and science periods), among  other things. As a result, BIE required several corrective actions from the  school. As this example illustrates, the verification process provides BIE  with an important oversight mechanism. This mechanism, however, is not  being fully utilized by BIE’s largest school division. Without BIE annually  reviewing documentation to verify the provision of special education for  every student at all schools, the agency cannot ensure that students are  receiving the services required by their IEPs.

BIE Has Not Provided High-Risk Schools with Timely Reports to Address Their Noncompliance with IDEA

BIE monitored 14 schools for high-risk monitoring in school year 2018- 2019, but did not provide the schools with timely monitoring reports and  technical assistance plans for their compliance with IDEA and other  federal education program requirements. In addition to its annual  process of verifying that students with IEPs are receiving required special  education and related services, BIE also conducts targeted oversight of  schools it deems high risk. BIE’s high-risk monitoring policy, established  in May 2018, requires that it select a sample of schools based on risk  indicators related to IDEA and other federal education programs, and  provide schools with in-depth monitoring of their special education and  other education programs. Nine of the 15 schools selected for BIE’s  2018-2019 high-risk monitoring were selected because BIE considered  them to be at a higher risk in administering special education. The factors  that BIE considered included a large enrollment of students with IEPs and  a significant amount of unobligated IDEA funds, among other factors. One  school, for example, had not obligated about 50 percent of its IDEA funds  within the timeframe required by IDEA.

BIE’s monitoring policy requires that it provide both monitoring reports  and technical assistance plans to schools within 30 days of a visit.  However, BIE sent schools visited in the 2018-2019 school year their  monitoring reports in late August 2019—well after its required 30-day  timeframe and several weeks after we requested the reports as part of  this review. For example, BIE sent two school reports more than 8  months after its monitoring visits, and another two school reports more  than 6 months after visits (see fig. 7).

Further, the reports sent to schools were not accompanied by technical  assistance plans, as required by BIE policy, which are required to outline  how BIE will assist schools in addressing findings of noncompliance. BIE  officials said that a timeframe for when the plans would be developed and  issued to schools had not been established.

BIE officials told us the late monitoring reports and the lack of technical  assistance plans for schools resulted from BIE not fully implementing its  2018 high-risk monitoring policy. Officials said the monitoring policy  requires monitoring teams to be comprised of staff from five BIE divisions:  DPA, School Operations, and the three divisions responsible for directly  supporting BIE schools. These staff work together to monitor special  education and other school programs and develop reports and technical  assistance plans for schools. However, BIE officials said that four of these  divisions did not contribute staff to lead the monitoring teams, leaving the  task of developing monitoring reports to a single division—DPA. DPA  officials told us that developing such plans requires the knowledge,  expertise, and coordination of staff across all five BIE divisions. They said  that without participation from the other divisions, it is unlikely the plans  will be developed and sent to schools because DPA itself does not have  the staff capacity to do so. BIE officials told us they were aware of  problems with coordination on high-risk monitoring across the five  divisions and were considering how to make improvements, but did not  provide a timeframe for doing so.

BIE’s monitoring reports and technical assistance plans are intended to  provide high-risk schools with important information about their  compliance with IDEA and other federal education funding programs,  according to agency documentation. Each of BIE’s monitoring reports for  the 14 schools in 2018-2019 included multiple findings of school  noncompliance with special education requirements under IDEA or  Interior regulations. Specifically, monitoring reports for several schools  included findings related to their provision of special education services.  For example, one report found that a school maintained no service logs  and was not able to demonstrate it had provided any services to students.  Without timely monitoring reports, schools lack vital information to  address areas of noncompliance, including ensuring that staff and  contractors provide and document special education services as required.  Further, without the technical assistance plans that BIE policy states are  to accompany monitoring reports, schools may not know what BIE  resources are available to them for addressing specific special education  compliance issues.

Staff in BIE’s Education Resource Centers Often Lack Expertise to Oversee and Support Schools’ Special Education Programs

Staff in BIE’s Education Resource Centers often do not have sufficient  expertise on special education to provide appropriate oversight and  technical assistance to schools, according to BIE officials. Staff in  Education Resource Centers have special education-related  responsibilities that include annually verifying that schools are providing  special education services and assisting schools when compliance issues  with federal special education requirements are identified or when  schools request help. Several BIE officials, however, told us these staff  often do not have the requisite knowledge about special education to  effectively carry out these responsibilities. For example, two senior BIE  officials said these staff do not consistently have the expertise required to  review documentation on service provision. A staff member at one  Education Resource Center said she and her colleagues often do not  know what questions to ask school officials during site visits to verify their  provision of special education services. Additionally, several officials told  us that these staff often do not have the expertise to provide technical  assistance to schools on special education. One official said these staff  often provide incorrect information to schools because of their lack of  expertise. Officials from two schools also told us that some Education  Resource Center staff with special education responsibilities do not have  sufficient expertise to oversee and assist them with their special  education programs. Several BIE officials said Education Resource  Center staff need additional training in special education to more  effectively carry out their responsibilities.

Federal standards for internal control state that agencies should develop  staff competencies—including knowledge, skills, and abilities—to achieve  agency objectives. However, BIE has not ensured that Education  Resource Center staff have the requisite competencies to oversee and  support schools’ special education programs because it has not  established special education training requirements. Without establishing  such requirements and ensuring they are met, staff may not be effective  in overseeing and assisting schools with their special education  programs, including ensuring that students with IEPs receive required  services.

School Personnel Did Not Always Know Which Agency Staff to Contact for Support with Their Special Education Programs

School officials said they did not always know which BIE staff to contact  for support with their special education programs. Staff in BIE’s Education  Resource Centers are responsible for regular outreach to schools about  these programs, according to two senior BIE officials. However, officials  we interviewed from some schools expressed confusion about the roles  and responsibilities of various BIE offices and staff responsible for special  education or said there has been a lack of outreach from Education  Resource Center staff. For example, the special education coordinator at  one tribally controlled school said she had received no information about  which Education Resource Center was responsible for supporting her  school. Several BIE officials acknowledged that schools do not always  know which Education Resource Centers are responsible for supporting  them. One senior BIE official also said that some schools are not aware  that they can reach out to BIE for assistance with their special education  programs.

BIE’s 2015 Communications Plan prioritizes regular communication with  schools to provide key information and important developments affecting  their schools. However, BIE officials said Education Resource Center  staff do not consistently reach out to inform schools about how they can  support schools’ special education programs. Additionally, as part of its  recent reorganization, BIE shifted the roles and responsibilities of many  offices and staff, including those responsible for supporting special  education at schools. Without BIE taking steps to ensure its Education  Resource Center staff communicate with all schools regarding their roles  and responsibilities on special education, these staff may not consistently  do so. As a result, schools may not know whom to contact for answers to  questions, which could hinder their ability to provide effective special  education services to students.

The purpose of IDEA is to fulfill the promise that all children with  disabilities have available to them special education and related services  designed to meet their unique educational needs. In exchange for the  funds it receives from Education to implement IDEA, BIE must ensure  that such an education is available to all of its students with disabilities.  The potential for students with disabilities at BIE schools to advance  academically depends, in part, on the ability of BIE to oversee and  support schools in providing these students with the special education  and related services required by their IEPs under IDEA. It is unclear,  however, whether all BIE schools are meeting these students’ needs and  ensuring that required services are consistently delivered because  schools follow different practices for determining whether to make up  services for students when they are missed. Further, the challenges that  schools face in obtaining qualified special education staff and specialists  to provide services—which may also exist for public schools nationwide— also present BIE with an important opportunity to partner with  knowledgeable stakeholders and provide direction in this area. BIE also  needs to address persistent administrative capacity issues in special  education—such as vacancies and a need for training in key agency  offices. In addition, BIE should ensure that relevant offices are reaching  out to schools to inform them of their roles in overseeing and supporting  schools’ special education programs. Finally, BIE must take steps to  make sure its offices annually review school documentation to verify that  students are receiving special education and related services and provide  high-risk schools selected for targeted monitoring with timely reports and  technical assistance plans.

In addition to IDEA’s requirement that special education services be  provided to all eligible students with disabilities, BIE also has a  responsibility to work towards the goal of ensuring that BIE schools are of  the highest quality and provide for their students’ unique educational  needs. Without taking steps to address weaknesses in key areas of  special education, BIE cannot ensure that the schools it funds are  meeting their responsibilities under IDEA or addressing the unique needs  of more than 6,000 BIE students with disabilities.

We are making the following seven recommendations to BIE:  The Director of BIE should establish consistent requirements for schools  on making up missed special education and related services and monitor  schools to ensure that they follow these requirements. (Recommendation  1)

The Director of BIE should work with knowledgeable stakeholders in  Indian education to establish a community of practice or other formal  mechanism to identify and disseminate promising practices for schools— especially those in remote locations—on recruiting, hiring, and retaining  special education teachers and contracting with providers. The Director of  BIE could consider conferring with BIE’s special education advisory  committee, OSEP, and relevant tribal and state education officials in  addressing this recommendation. (Recommendation 2)

The Director of BIE should rescind the policy of its division overseeing  tribally controlled schools that does not meet Interior’s requirement to  annually review all schools’ documentation to verify the provision of  services for every special education student, and ensure that all divisions  comply with this requirement. (Recommendation 3)

The Director of BIE should update the agency’s workforce plan to include  a strategy and timeframe for filling vacant staff positions responsible for  overseeing and supporting schools’ special education programs.  (Recommendation 4)

The Director of BIE should fully implement the agency’s high-risk  monitoring policy for IDEA and other federal education programs,  including requirements for agency-wide coordination, and ensure that  schools selected for such monitoring receive reports and technical  assistance plans within 30 days of agency on-site visits, as required by  BIE policy. (Recommendation 5)

The Director of BIE should establish special education training  requirements for staff in the agency’s Education Resource Centers who  are responsible for supporting and overseeing schools’ special education  programs, and ensure that staff complete those training requirements.  (Recommendation 6)

The Director of BIE should take steps to ensure that all of the agency’s  Education Resource Centers conduct outreach with schools to inform  them of their new roles in overseeing and supporting schools’ special  education programs under BIE’s reorganization. (Recommendation 7)

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of the Interior  (Interior) and Education (Education) for review and comment. Interior  provided formal comments, which are reproduced in appendix II, agreeing  with all seven recommendations and describing actions BIE plans to take  to address them. Education provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of the  Interior and Education and interested congressional committees. The  report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our report examines (1) the extent to which eligible Bureau of Indian  Education (BIE) students with disabilities are provided the special  education and related services required by their individualized education  programs (IEP); and (2) the extent to which BIE oversees and supports  the provision of these services at its schools.

Analysis of Special Education and Related Service Provision at BIE Schools Based on Generalizable Sample

To obtain a generalizable sample of students, we defined our target  population as all students at BIE schools with an active IEP covering a full  5-month period between September 2017 and February 2018 and  obtained an electronic listing of IEPs for the 2017-2018 school year—the  most recent complete school year at the time of our analysis—extracted  from the Native American Student Information System (NASIS). We used  these data as a basis to define a sample frame and identified 2,904  unique students with an active IEP for the full period from 169 BIE  schools. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing  knowledgeable agency officials and reviewing technical documentation  describing the methodology, assumptions, and inputs used to produce the  IEP-related data we received from BIE, upon which we created our  generalizable sample. We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of our report.

We selected a random two-stage cluster sample of 30 BIE schools and  150 students (about 5 per school) who had at least one active IEP  covering the full period from the sample frame of 169 schools and 2,904  students. We chose to use a two-stage sampling approach to control  (limit) the number of schools that we would need to coordinate with to  collect the school-level data required. Because the number of unique in- scope students ranged between 2 and 88 per school, we chose to select  schools with probability proportional to size. We computed the target  sample sizes of 30 schools and 150 students (about 5 per school) using  estimated standard errors of student age that accounted for the additional  variance resulting from the complex sampling approach (two-stage cluster  sample) for various sample sizes. We then compared the change in  standard errors for various sample sizes of schools and students to those  from a simple random sample of size 150. Based on these results, we  observed that the decrease in standard errors began to level out at a  sample size of 30 schools (n=30) and that selecting more than 5 students  (m=5) per school would not significantly decrease the standard errors. To  estimate the likely margin of error we expected to achieve from this  sample, we conducted a simulation of 10,000 samples of 30 schools and  150 students and examined the distribution of outcomes from these  results for 3 proportion estimates. The proportion estimates were  designed to provide a range of variance outcomes. Based on this  simulation of possible results, we expected this sample design to  generate percentage estimates to the sample frame (full population) of  students with an overall precision of about plus or minus 12 percentage  points or fewer.

During our review we learned that one school selected in our sample was  under a BIE internal investigation into irregularities in the school’s special  education documentation. As a result, we removed the five students at  this school from the sample. We added an additional randomly selected  school as a replacement. As a result, we completed our analysis for 30 of  the 31 schools that we sampled. Additionally, we found that a number of  students selected within schools were out of the scope of our defined  target population, such as when a student transferred to another school  during our review period. When possible, we selected additional cases to  account for the out-of-scope students. The final sample included 138  students at 30 schools. Based on the final sample of students, we  completed our analysis for 96.5 percent of the students that we sampled  that were within the scope of our defined target population.

We defined the primary unit of analysis as the student and generated  estimates at the student level summarized across 17 of the 18 weeks in  the time period of our analysis (between October 2, 2017, and February  2, 2018). We chose not to include data collected for the school week  from December 25, 2017, through December 29, 2017 because most  schools either did not provide services during this week or were closed.

We collected and analyzed the data for students’ scheduled services on a  weekly basis. The data collection at this level resulted in multiple,  repeated observations for each student. For the purposes of generating  weighted, generalizable estimates, these data were summarized at the  student level for each service type. The sampling weights were  computed at the student level so that estimates from this sample will be  made to the population of students. The student weight, which is the  inverse of the probability of selection, was computed by combining a  stage 1 (school) weight and stage 2 (student within selected schools)  weight that each accounted for the probability of selection at each stage.  The final student weights varied slightly from school to school based on  the number of students selected within each school. The final student  weights ranged from 16.13 to 24.20, and most were 19.36.

We conducted a test run of our document collection and analysis  methodology at one BIE-funded school to determine the feasibility of  collecting and analyzing school service logs in electronic form. Based on  the successful results of the test run, we concluded that this methodology  would allow for the collection and analysis of service logs from our  sample of schools. We then requested electronic copies of IEPs and any  applicable IEP amendments from BIE for the students in our sample. We  followed up with BIE on any issues of unclear or missing IEP  documentation. After compiling IEPs for the students in our sample, we  requested service logs from our sample schools and requested  confirmation of key information in students’ IEPs (e.g., the type, duration,  and frequency of services for our review period).

To generate a data set based on schools’ service logs, we coded, by  week, information contained in all service logs using a coding scheme  that specified type of service (i.e., education vs. related), frequency of  services received, duration of services received, and reasons for missed  services. To determine the baseline of minutes and frequency for each  service, we calculated the duration and frequency of services required in  student IEPs and removed service duration and frequency on days that  schools were not in session according to school calendars.

In cases in which schools did not provide us with service logs for part or  all of our review period, we were not able to determine whether the  services were received. In such cases, we recorded these minutes in a  separate category, labeled “service time not accounted for.” In a small  number of instances, schools recorded service log entries, but unclear  notation prevented us from being able to determine whether the service  was provided. This accounted for less than half of a percent of service  time.

Because the information contained in school service logs is self-reported  by school personnel or service contractors, we were not able to assess  the overall accuracy of this information, such as whether services were  actually provided—a limitation that generally applies to research relying  on self-reported information. We conducted extensive follow-up with  schools, however, to ensure the most complete data collection possible  and contacted them when further information or clarification was needed  to understand service log entries. Additionally, we obtained student  attendance data from BIE to compare with entries in service logs from  four schools. As the result of this comparison, we removed one student  from our sample whose attendance data showed significantly higher  absences than were reflected in school service logs.

In many cases, we received service logs that did not convey complete  information about some aspects of service provision. For example, some  logs used non-numerical notation to show that services were provided,  such as checkmarks. In these cases, we assumed that a checkmark  indicated that one full service was provided and recorded the number of  minutes in a typical service. Additionally, some service logs combined  multiple services (e.g., 60 minutes of math, 30 minutes of reading, and 30  minutes of writing) into one log and recorded the total number of minutes  that services were provided within a week. As we could not determine  which services were expected on which days within a week, we adjusted  minutes and frequency for combined services when schools were not in  session by prorating the weekly totals accordingly.

To collect information on reasons for missed services, we categorized  recorded reasons into the following groups: (1) student absence; (2)  student disciplinary action; (3) provider absence; (4) provider  administrative duties; (5) unplanned school closure; (6) school-sponsored  activities; (7) testing; and (8) reason not provided. We recorded missing  service logs as a separate category (“service time not accounted for”) and  did not include them in our analysis of reasons for missed services.

Generalizable Results Based on the Sample

Estimates from this sample are generalizable to the estimated in-scope  population of about 2,600 (+/- 130) students with at least one active IEP  covering the period from September 1, 2017, through February 1, 2018.  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random  selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we  might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different  estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular  sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval  that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the  samples we could have drawn. All estimates in this report have a  confidence interval with a margin of error of plus or minus 12 percentage  points or fewer, unless otherwise noted.

Non-Generalizable Information Collected from Sample Schools

In addition to the generalizable data we collected on schools’ special  education service provision, we asked school officials to respond to an  optional set of questions on the challenges schools face, if any, in  providing services. Eighteen of the 30 schools in our sample provided  responses. Of the schools who did not respond, we obtained information  on challenges with service provision from four additional schools during  our site visits, which are described below. Together, we obtained  perspectives about the challenges schools face in special education  service provision from a total of 22 of the schools in our sample.

We also requested information from schools about the circumstances  under which providers are expected to make up missed special education  services, and the timeframe in which these make-up services are  expected. Twenty-three of the 30 schools in our sample provided a  response.

To help inform both of our research objectives, gather additional  information about schools’ special education programs, and explore  issues related to their provision of special education and related services,  we conducted site visits to seven schools in our sample located in New  Mexico (4 sites) and Arizona (3 sites), selected for their large numbers of  BIE-funded schools. Our criteria for selecting schools included special  education student enrollment size, whether a school was operated by BIE  or a tribe, and tribal affiliation.

At each site, we gathered information from participants—including school  administrators and teachers—using semi-structured interview questions.

We collected information on school staff’s roles and responsibilities in  administering and overseeing special education; policies, practices, and  any challenges to providing and documenting special education and  related services; and perspectives on guidance and support, if any, from  relevant BIE offices.

Our site visits also included meetings with BIE officials in Albuquerque,  New Mexico, and Window Rock, Arizona. Our interviews with officials  focused on their roles and responsibilities in overseeing and supporting  schools’ special education programs; staff capacity; intra-agency  coordination on special education; policies and procedures related to  special education monitoring; and their views on factors, if any, that may  affect schools’ ability to provide special education and related services to  students with IEPs.

Interviews and Reviews of Relevant Documents

To inform both research objectives, we also interviewed officials in  several BIE offices with responsibilities for overseeing and supporting  schools’ special education programs, including: the Office of the Director;  the Division of Performance and Accountability; the Office of the  Associate Deputy Director-Tribally Controlled Schools; the Office of the  Associate Deputy Director-Bureau Operated Schools; and the Office of  the Associate Deputy Director-Navajo Schools. Our interviews with  agency officials focused on their roles and responsibilities in overseeing  and supporting schools’ special education programs; staff capacity; intra- agency coordination on special education; policies and procedures  related to special education monitoring; and their views on factors, if any,  that may affect schools’ ability to provide special education and related  services to students with IEPs. We compared BIE’s oversight and  technical assistance activities against requirements under IDEA and  Department of the Interior (Interior) regulations, BIE policies and  procedures, and federal standards for internal control to evaluate the  sufficiency of their efforts in monitoring and supporting BIE schools’  special education programs.

We also conferred with Interior’s Office of the Solicitor regarding their  position on whether one BIE division’s policy for reviewing special  education documentation at schools conformed to Interior’s regulations.

Additionally, we interviewed current and former members of BIE’s  advisory committee on special education to obtain their views on the  extent to which BIE schools provide required services to students with  IEPs and challenges, if any, that schools may face in delivering services.

We also interviewed national groups with expertise on Indian education  and BIE schools—including the National Congress of American Indians,  the National Indian Education Association, and the Tribal Education  Departments National Assembly—to obtain their views on special  education and related services at BIE schools.

Our review of relevant documentation included BIE’s monitoring and  technical assistance policies and procedures as well as relevant federal  laws and regulations, including requirements under IDEA Part B. This  included BIE’s May 2018 policy and procedures on conducting high-risk  monitoring of the implementation of federal education programs at BIE  schools. In addition, we reviewed the Department of Education’s  determination letters and October 2019 monitoring report to BIE  assessing the agency’s compliance with IDEA requirements.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2018 to May 2020 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Melissa Emrey-Arras, (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov  In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Sirois (Assistant  Director), Edward Bodine (Analyst-in-Charge), Liam O’Laughlin, and  Angeline Bickner made key contributions to this report. James Ashley,  Susan Aschoff, Serena Lo, John Yee, James Rebbe, Sam Portnow,  Aaron Karty, James Bennett, Avani Locke, and Olivia Lopez also  contributed to this report.

Tribal Programs: Resource Constraints and Management Weaknesses  Can Limit Federal Program Delivery to Tribes. GAO-20-270T.  Washington, D.C.: Nov 19, 2019.

High Risk: Progress Made but Continued Attention Needed to Address  Management Weaknesses at Federal Agencies Serving Indian Tribes.  GAO-19-445T. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2019.

High Risk: Agencies Need to Continue Efforts to Address Management  Weaknesses of Federal Programs Serving Indian Tribes.  GAO-18-616T. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2018.

Indian Affairs: Further Actions Needed to Improve Oversight and  Accountability for School Safety Inspections. GAO-17-421. Washington,  D.C.: May 24, 2017.

Indian Affairs: Actions Needed to Better Manage Indian School  Construction Projects. GAO-17-447. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2017.

Tribal Transportation: Better Data Could Improve Road Management and  Inform Indian Student Attendance Strategies. GAO-17-423. Washington,  D.C.: May 22, 2017.

Indian Affairs: Key Actions Needed to Ensure Safety and Health at Indian  School Facilities. GAO-16-313. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2016.

Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the  Oversight and Support of Education Facilities. GAO-15-389T.  Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2015.

Indian Affairs: Bureau of Indian Education Needs to Improve Oversight of  School Spending. GAO-15-121. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2014.

Indian Affairs: Better Management and Accountability Needed to Improve  Indian Education. GAO-13-774. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2013.

Are Native American students with disabilities getting the services they need?

Some in Bureau of Indian Education schools may not be.

Each of these students has an individualized education plan outlining the type, frequency, and duration of services the school is legally required to provide—e.g., physical therapy. Schools must log when and for how long the services in each plan are provided to students.

But schools didn’t provide or didn’t log almost 40% of students’ planned service time. The Bureau could do more to oversee and support schools in providing services.

Our recommendations are to help the Bureau better meet these students’ needs.