No description available.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationships among the Indiana State Board of Education, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Governor of Indiana within the present legal structure, 1945-70. The focus of the study was toward determining the effectiveness of the structure rather than a consideration of the responsibilities, powers or functions of any of the parties. It was attempted to learn if pressures were applied by or toward any of the parties and to ascertain the degree of cooperation among the participants. There was an effort made to obtain suggestions from the people involved for changes in the structure. An examination was made of the records of the Indiana State Board of Education records in the Governor's office, and of the minutes of the commissions comprising the Board, which were located in the Superintendent's office. A questionnaire was developed, modified, and mailed to members of the Board, Superintendents, and Governors who served during the present structural arrangement. Fifty-two of the sixty-four Board members thought to be still living, five of the six Governors who are living, and all four of the surviving Superintendents responded.Personal interviews were conducted with twenty-nine of the Board respondents to the questionnaire, three of the Governors and two of the Superintendents who responded. The interviews were unstructured, but based on the matters covered in the questionnaire. I t was assumed that a state board of education and a chief state school officer should serve in Indiana, since all the states have some kind of state board of education and a chief state school officer.ConclusionsIt was found that the records of the Board in the Governor's office and the minutes of the Board's commissions in the Superintendent's office were kept in a manner that only shows actions taken without providing background or reasons for those actions. It was concluded that pressures were not applied by or against any of the parties in the structure. It seems clear that Superintendents cooperated with the Board, though Superintendents have been free to conduct the affairs of the State Department of Public Instruction free from interference by the Board or any of the commissions. While many participants in the structure indicated a lack of satisfaction with it, fewer were willing to suggest changes in the structure. A frequently expressed sentiment was the idea that laymen make more independent Board members than the public school administrators more often selected.It was recommended that additional study be given to the proper roles of the Board, the Superintendent and the Governor in public education. I t was suggested that the method of selecting the Board and the Chief State School Officer needs more attention. It was further recommended that more study was needed in the area of relations between the office of the Chief State School Officer and the leadership of local school corporations.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, June, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Virginia Commonwealth University, 2007. / Prepared for: School of Education. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [140]-148). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Toronto, 2005.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1992. / Bibliography: leaves 66-68.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1992. / Bibliography: leaves 66-68.

Thesis (M.Admin.(Public Administration)) -- University of Pretoria, 2006. / Abstract in English. Includes bibliographical references. Available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.