BIE Accountability:Adequate Yearly Progress

Brian W. BoughSauk-Suiattle Indian TribeEducation Research Analyst

Bureau of Indian EducationDivision of Performance and Accountability

Overview of BIE• The BIE serves 44,000 students in 173 schools with

academic programs and 12 dormitory-only facilities on or near 64 reservations across 23 states.

• It is responsible for two post-secondary education schools, Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) in Lawrence, Kansas, and Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

• Approximately seven percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students attend schools administered by the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) supported schools.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):No Child Left Behind Act

• Emphasized measurement and transparency to hold schools accountable for student performance on tests

• Designed to inform parents about school performance and to offer parents choices about where their students could be educated

• Requires that all students and sub-groups be held to the same standards of achievement

• Outlined requirements for standards and assessments for states

• Mandated that all students perform at 100% proficiency on Mathematics and Reading tests by 2014

• The BIE judges whether a school is making Adequate Yearly Progress as measured by the performance indicators

BIE Implementation• 25 CFR 30.100-150 is the result of Negotiated Rulemaking

Process for BIE implementation of NCLB• Negotiated Rulemaking required the BIE to determine AYP

using state standards for the state in which the school is located

• 25 CFR and NCLB both require the BIE to make school-level AYP determinations (as opposed to district-level determinations)

• NCLB requires schools to meet all AYP indicators in order to be judged as Making AYP

• US Department of Education requires that the BIE verify assessment data used in NCLB determinations and BIE reporting to ED

Indicator All Students Limited English Proficient

Special Education

Mathematics (Achievement) AMO AMO AMO

Mathematics(Participation) 95% 95% 95%

Reading or Language Arts(Achievement) AMO AMO AMO

Reading or Language Arts(Participation) 95% 95% 95%

Science(Participation) Administered Administered Administered

Attendance (K-8) Target or Improve Target or Improve Target or Improve

Graduation (9-12) Target or Improve Target or Improve Target or Improve

Definitions

Arizona New Mexico Utah

Minimum N (FAY) 40 per grade 25 per school 10 per sub-group

Full Academic Year Enrolled in First 10 Days of the School Year

Enrolled In All Four Census Periods

Enrolled 160 Days Prior to Testing

Confidence Interval 95% 95% 95%

Attendance Target(FAY and Non-FAY) 90% 92% 93%

Graduation Target(FAY and Non-FAY) 71% 52% 85%

ArizonaAnnual Measurable Objectives

(Averaged Across Grades)

SYS2008-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-12 SY2012-13 SY2013-140.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

ReadingMathematics

New MexicoAnnual Measurable Objectives

(Kindergarten through High School Configuration)

SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-12 SY2012-13 SY2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ReadingMathematics

UtahAnnual Measurable Objectives

SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Language ArtsMathematics

SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11 SY2011-120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Language ArtsMathematics

Grades 3-8

High School

SY2009-10 AYP DeterminationsArizona, New Mexico, and Utah

Disaggregated by Tribally-Controlled and Bureau-Operated Schools

AZ Nav Tribal AZ Nav Bureau AZ Tribal AZ Breau NM Nav Tribal NM Nav Bureau NM Tribal NM Bureau0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Percent of schools making AYP within the category

Bureau Trends in AYP

SY0708 SY0809 SY09100.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

TribalBureau

Percent of schools making AYP, tribally-controlled versus BIE-operated

Student Performance on AssessmentsPercent Proficient or Advanced

SY2006-07 SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ReadingMathematics

Unintended Consequences• State standards are not designed for BIE schools

(nor should they be)• AYP determinations, like state assessments, are not

comparable across state lines• BIE makes decisions on grants and school

improvement plans based on AYP determinations• Program implementation success is difficult to

assess• BIE lacks a consistent definition of what

accountability means that is applied to all BIE-funded schools

Discontent with NCLB“Current law also sets annual targets for proficiency and mandates that every student meet those goals by 2014. Today, almost 40 percent of America's schools are not meeting their goals and as we approach the 2014 deadline, that number will rise steeply. “In fact, we did an analysis which shows that -- next year -- the number of schools not meeting their goals under NCLB could double to over 80 percent -- even if we assume that all schools will gain as much as the top quartile in the state.“So let me repeat that: four out of five schools in America may not meet their goals under NCLB by next year.” --Arne Duncan testimony before Congress, March 9, 2011

Waiting for Reauthorization• Montana has opted-out of increases in the

AMO• More assessments, less assessment?• Common Core Standards• Local Standards• Changes in assessments• Teacher Accountability• BIE Accountability System: Integrating

Assessments with Curricula

Vision• Accountability system is meaningful• Accountability system is consistent across BIE• Accountability system, course standards

(curricula), and assessments are all aligned• Intervention in curricula and instruction are

well-defined• DPA serves as a comprehensive statewide

system of support for schools on matters of program implementation and school improvement