There is no abstract available for this thesis.

During the period 1918 to 1930 the National Education Association actively campaigned to convince the Congress of the United States that the nation needed a federal department of education. The purpose of this study was to determine, in view of historical evidence, what factors prevented the ascendancy of education to cabinet rank during the 1920's.The method employed in this study was historical analysis; i.e., the systematic investigation and interpretation of the data relevant to the problem under consideration. The writer relied heavily on primary source materials, especially manuscript collections and government documents. Other sources consulted included the publications of professional organizations, the periodical literature of the 1920's, and general works on American educational history.This report concentrated on four specific topics: (1) the work of the United States Bureau of Education prior to 1920, (2) the condition of American education at the termination of World War I, (3) the positions espoused by those individuals who either supported or opposed the cabinet movement, and (4) the reaction of Congress to the legislative proposals that advocated the creation of a separate department of education.A perusal of the literature written during the period 1918 to 1930 clearly indicated that opposition to a secretary of education came primarily from Catholic and Lutheran religious organizations, congressional figures who were imbued with the doctrine of states' rights, and key individuals in the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations. Moreover, the Republican Chief Executives of the decade opposed the elevation of education to cabinet status and used the power and prestige of the presidency to delay congressional consideration of the department of education bills.A second factor that contributed to the demise of the department of education movement in the 1920's was the general social climate of the decade. Nativist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, were instrumental in the passage of such anti-parochial school legislation as the Oregon School Act of 1922. Parochial school officials, responding to a real or imagined threat to their educational system, resisted all reform measures that they considered inimical to religious instruction.Tradition also played a major role in the defeat of the portion of the American people, including the major spokesmen for the reform program itself, considered the realm of education to be a state and local, rather than federal, prerogative. Indeed, the opponents of the cabinet movement used with devastating effect the department of education campaign. During the 1920's a substantial argument that the reformers' platform, especially the federal aid clauses contained in the pre-1925 bills, represented a reversal of traditional education practices.In 1931 the National Advisory Committee on Education, an organization created by President Herbert Hoover to study the role of the federal government in the nation's educational affairs, submitted its report to the Congress. The Advisory Committee recommended that Congress establish a department of education, transfer to the department those federal agencies whose primary function involved the investigation and presentation of educational information, and deny all organizations engaged in educational endeavors the power to force compliance with federal acts. Congress, however, refused to heed the recommendations of the Committee.Immediately following President Richard Nixon's "State of the Union" message in 1970, which called for a reorganization of the executive branch of the national government, the National Education Association again appealed to Congress to grant education separate cabinet status. This action on the part of the NEA has reopened the question of whether or not the United States needs a federal department of education.

This study compares the development of the role of the federal government in education in Canada and the United States during the period 1867 to 1970. It identifies the nature of federal participation in the field in both countries during the period, and through comparison, the similarities and differences existent between the two federal systems in terms of the federal educational role. The study gives a useful and needed perspective on federal involvement in education during a time when domestic conditions in both countries prompted the development of a stronger federal educational presence. The works of three scholars contributed to the conceptual development of the study. Brian Holmes suggestions on the use of the problem approach in comparative education provided an analytical framework for the comparative aspects of the inquiry, while the descriptive works of J.C. Miller and C.A. Quattlebaum on the federal role in Canada and the United States respectively, furnished useful suggestions for the organizational approach adopted. The information and data required for the study was obtained from a variety of sources. Primary source material was obtained from federal legislation, regulations, and reports of the various federal departments and agencies in both countries. In addition, special reports and monographs were utilized to gain more detailed information on specific aspects of various federal education programs. These sources were supplemented by secondary material dealing with the economic, social, and political background to the evolving federal role in the field, particularly insofar as the nature and evolution of both federal systems was concerned. In this study, education is defined as a formal process where instruction is given and/or learning takes place within the confines or under the jurisdiction of a recognized educational institution. Within this definition the material is presented in accordance with two major classifications of federal educational activity, those programs developed under federal constitutional obligations and those developed in areas normally outside of federal jurisdiction. For convenience, the latter programs are treated under three categories, elementary/secondary, post secondary, and vocational/professional education. Three important postulates are advanced through this inquiry. Dealing with both federal systems, the study suggests that by 1970, the federal educational presence was such that a "third partner" had emerged in the conduct of education in both countries, alongside the traditional state/ provincial and municipal/county governments. At the same time the study suggests that the nature of the federal educational presence in both countries was quite different though often prompted by similar conditions. In terms of the federal educational presence in areas under federal jurisdiction, the study suggests that the Canadian government tended to adopt a paternalistic approach towards such educational programs. The American government tended to encourage the development of self-sustaining programs and was accordingly less paternalistic in approach. At the same time, it is demonstrated that in both countries federal recognition, development, and implementation of educational programs under this classification was a slow and often reluctant process. Where federal educational programs overlapped with those of other levels of government, there were also marked differences in the approaches taken in both countries. The study demonstrates that for constitutional, political, and other reasons, the Canadian government was often forced to provide indirect and/or general assistance to education. For similar reasons the American government was forced to provide more direct and categorical aid. As a result of the differing nature of federal educational involvement in both countries the administration of federal educational programs also differed. This study points out, however, that despite these differences, there exists a critical deficiency in Canada, where despite the significant nature of the federal educational presence, by 1970 no formal mechanism existed for the effective coordination of the federal effort. Similarities and differences aside, the study establishes the complex yet significant nature of the federal educational presence in both countries. It suggests that there is a place for a federal government in the field within a federal system. It also provides a needed foundation for further research in the field and an hypothesis for a future inquiry into the federal educational role in other federal systems. / Education, Faculty of / Graduate

No description available.

Description of students as at-risk became a trend in educational policy and programming in the late 1980s. The term at risk was originally part of the specialized discourse of medicine and psychology, and related subfields of education such as special education and educational psychology. Due to the influence of national reform reports, the term at risk became more common in the discourse of policymakers and practitioners. It was used as a descriptor of students, often low-income and/or minority students, likely to fail or drop out of school. This study employed methods from sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and policy analysis to trace the uses and meanings of at risk through national reports, state education policies in Arizona, and district policies in a medium-sized Arizona school district with both rural and suburban schools. Analysis of reports and recorded interviews with state policymakers, district administrators, principals, and teachers identified differences in the meanings of at risk at different levels of the educational system. Groups at each level had particular interests in students, as reflected in their definitions of the problems of at-risk students and their policy recommendations. The most common consequences for students of being labelled at-risk were to be removed from the mainstream for special treatment, despite arguments of some researchers and theorists that educators need to rethink such approaches.

No description available.

The primary purpose of this study was to determine provisions for equality and liberty for the funding of school capital expenditures in each of the 50 states. More specifically, the following issues were analyzed: (a) the extent to which state policies provide equality in funding school facility construction, (b) the extent to which state policies provide local boards liberty in decisions on funding school facility construction, and (c) categorization of the 50 states with respect to provision of liberty and equality for capital outlay funding. A descriptive database of the capital outlay funding systems for each of the 50 states was developed.A descriptive survey research procedure was used. Data were collected from August through November 1999 using a survey instrument developed by the author. Usable data were received from all states.States were categorized as high, moderate, or low with regard to their potential to achieve funding equality and liberty for local districts. Only one state, Hawaii, ranked low in liberty; however, 18 states ranked low in equality. Six states ranked high in both liberty and equality.The following conclusion were formulated: (a) states that continue to rank low in equality are likely to face future litigation; (b) the courts have tolerated some degree of inequality to preserve liberty; (c) politics and not economics often determined how state legislatures responded to equality concerns; (d) differences among the states are far greater with respect to equality than they are with respect to liberty; (e) many states will continue to experience considerable conflict over funding school construction because of the inevitable tensions between liberty and equality.Further study was recommended in both the 18 low equality states and the six states that ranked high in both equality and liberty. The purpose should be to identify legal, political, and economic variables that affected school construction finance policies in those states. / Department of Educational Leadership

This study is an effort to point out the need for Federal assistance to education in areas in which Federal activity causes an inequity of educational opportunity for children. The construction of Shasta Dam in Northern California caused an influx of both government and contractor employees resulting in educational hardships for children in that area. This is a study of the problem that is involved when a Federal activity enters an area previously devoid of such activity.

The purposes of this study are (1) to identify the major policy issues being addressed by state agencies responsible for coordinating and regulating higher education; (2) to develop a classification system through inductive "clustering" that will aid in the analysis and synthesis of the major policy issues facing state coordinating boards for higher education; (3) to classify these policy issues; (4) to compare the goals and strategies of the various states; (5) to propose a list of significant policy issues that institutions and state agencies of higher education may face through the 1990s and into the 21st century.

This study addresses the growth of multicultural education through a policy analysis paradigm. This study focuses on the growth and current status of multicultural education through policy formation, the administration of multicultural education through policy implementation and the effects of multicultural education through policy impact. To obtain data regarding the three areas of multicultural education policy status, implementation and impact, a survey was sent to all fifty chief state school officers (CSSOs). The survey inquired about the current status of multicultural education policy mandates and administrative processes used in policy implementation. Policy impact was assessed through CSSO's responses to ten perceptual statements about the impact of multicultural education. The findings reveal that thirty-three states have at least multicultural programming policy mandate in the areas of multicultural education, bilingual education, ethnic studies, affirmative action, textbook adoption procedures, or inservice education and technical assistance. The frequency of these policy mandates has decreased since 1980. The usage of certain common administrative practices were examined to determine multicultural education policy and program implementation. The most frequently used practices are (1) the involvement of students, teachers, administrators and community members in planning at the state level (2) a reflection of multicultural education in state education agency organizational structure and (3) assignment of specific personnel the responsibility for implementing multicultural programming. The impact of multicultural education is viewed by CSSOs as a positive force in schools; however, it has not been evenly implemented within or across the states nor has it been a major focus in most states. An examination of the response patterns of two groups of CSSOs (those with mandated multicultural education policies in their respective states and those without) reveals that the two groups view multicultural educational impact differently. Those CSSOs with mandated state policies responded more positively to the impact of multicultural education. From examining the data regarding policy status, implementation and impact, certain inferences are drawn about the current status and future of multicultural education.