Thesis (Ed.D.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / An important component of President Johnson's War on Poverty, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 represented government's first legislative acknowledgement of the educational challenges that children who live in poverty face. The original and abiding goal of Title I is to meet the special educational needs of disadvantaged students by providing supplementary funding to the schools that serve them; this funding purchases additional programming and resources that should, in theory, enable disadvantaged students to achieve at levels comparable to their more privileged peers. Despite its noble intent, more than forty years of research on the effects of Title I shows that it has had, at best, little effect on the achievement of disadvantaged students and, at worst, no effect at all. In an effort to determine why Title I has not measurably impacted the achievement of disadvantaged students, this research turns to the international community to understand similar policies employed in other countries. After classifying and describing the most common international policies for targeting financial and other resources to disadvantaged youth, the author attempts to link, via regression analysis, three different models of targeting funding and resources to student outcomes on the 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) examination. Citing a lack of sufficient data to establish a relationship between prevalent models and student level outcomes on PISA, the author goes on to present case studies of the policies in place in three different countries, each of which represents a particular model of targeting funding and resources to disadvantaged students. The three case studies focus on The Netherlands, England, and Spain. Drawing from an analysis of policy documents and survey and interview data, each case study describes 1) how a particular international model of targeting resources looks in implementation and 2) the extent to which policies employed within each model align with documented best practices for the education of disadvantaged students. The research concludes with an assessment of what the United States can learn from each of the countries studied and with a comprehensive set of recommendations for the reauthorization of Title I. / 2031-01-02

How much the writer of this thesis is blazed on the subject of religion can be determined accurately only in his own mind. However, there must be the recognition that a person's background, especially his religious training and church affiliation, has its influence no matter how objectively a religious question is approached in a study. Even though this thesis is concerned with the legal concepts within the oases of the Supreme Court of the United States, the question of religious bias probably has its place, large or small„ Let it suffice to state that the writer is of a Protestant faith, specifically the Presbyterian denomination. The degree that has biased the treatment of the study should be a consideration of the reader, keeping in mindthe reader's own bias.

The purpose of this study was to compare differences in perceptions of officials and personnel of educational agencies according to the following criteria: geographic region; corporation size; and frequency of participation.This study was designed to assess perceptions regarding: needs assessment; evaluation; dissemination; innovation; cooperation; decision-making; released time; diffusion; interpersonal relationships; status of education; community relationships; post-graduate education; reading of officials; and class size.The respondents included: board presidents; superintendents; central office administrators; principals; and teachers.Data processing consisted of determining percentages of respondents selecting potential choices on a thirty-nine item questionnaire. Items were analyzed according to region, agency size, and frequency of participation.Prior assessments resulted in conflicting findings. The literature, before August, 1973, failed to confirm or refute the value of sampled programs.Data indicate the respondents have not made use of assessment instruments to define appropriateness of content included in curricula.Data indicate the problems inherent in evaluation are not viewed as a deterrent to effective evaluation.Data indicate that innovative educational practices have not received extensive coverage by newspapers.Data indicate that among respondents an inverse relationship exists between an individuals position in the educational hierarchy and direct communication about innovation. Data also indicate that professional personnel made more positive statements concerning innovation in 1973 and 1967. Data reveal the amount of independent study and number of instructional areas allowing independent study has increased since 1967.Data indicate that cooperative efforts by staff to improve the quality of education offered to students has increased since 1967.Data show that more decisions concerning innovation were made by professional personnel, below the rank of superintendent, in 1973 than 1967. Data reveal that cognitive and affective objectives are formulated one year or less in advance of utilization.Data indicate that most school governing bodies have not increased the number of days of released time provided for the improvement of instruction. Data show the availability of materials and equipment has become an important factor in improvement of instruction.Data indicate that assistance offered to students by teachers for the development of effective study and work habits has increased since 1967.Data indicate that assistance provided for the improvement of instruction has increased since 1967.Data show the diffusion of information about participation was unsuccessful in most school districts.Data reveal that the quality of college preparatory and vocational curricula has increased since 1967. Data indicate the number of educational options available to students has increased since 1967.Data indicate the acceptance of innovation has increased since 1967, but acceptance is reduced by increased levels of responsibility. Data reveal the conviction among teachers that pupils interfering with learning opportunities of other students should be excluded from school, has increased since 1967. Data show the treatment of students as responsible individuals by professional staff has increased since 1967.Data indicate the amount of time spent dealing with contemporary issues has increased since 1967. Data show that an education received in an authoritarian school system is the best preparation for citizenship in a democratic society has decreased since 1967.Data indicate the amount of observable evidence, of cooperation between administrators and school patrons for the improvement of education offered students, has increased since 1967. Data show the amount of observable evidence, of cooperation between teachers and school patrons, has increased since 1967.Data indicate the amount of financial incentives, offered to professional personnel to encourage additional graduate study, has not increased since 1967.Data show the reading of professional literature has increased since 1967.Data reveal that no consistent relationship exists between the frequency of participation and the patterns of responses by individuals participating in this study.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first passed in 1965 and has since been reauthorized several times, including as No Child Left Behind in 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. The ESEA seeks to address the needs of low-income students; however, decades of reform efforts and government reports documenting inequality have done little to close gaps in educational resources or outcomes for marginalized groups. Accountability systems based on standardized testing are seen by policymakers on the Left and Right as the best way to improve education for marginalized groups, improve students’ economic preparedness, hold schools accountable for the funds they spend, and maintain an objective meritocracy. This paper argues that testing is a flawed tool to achieve the goal of education equality as accountability systems rely on flawed assumptions influenced by conservative and neoliberal economic ideologies.

The problem of this study is to analyze some of the effects of selected ESEA, Title III, PACE projects on the educational processes in Texas.

When Democrats and Republicans crafted the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the bipartisan reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), they did so with the best of intentions: Close our nation’s staggering achievement gap with federal leadership, accountability, flexibility, and choice. But a over a decade later, many argue the law’s flaws have outweighed its successes to detriment of our public education system, schools, teachers, and most importantly, our students. In accordance with ESEA’s traditional reauthorization cycle, NCLB was signed into law in 2002 and expired in 2007. It is now 2013, and our nation’s education policy still has yet to be reauthorized. In examining how this can be accomplished, this paper first demonstrates how our tradition of local school control developed into one of dual jurisdiction. It then examines the executive and legislative battle that produced NCLB in the 107th Congress. Next, this paper analyzes the intended and unintended consequences of NCLB, which include conflicting conservative and liberal mechanisms, perverse incentives, narrowing and homogenizing education, inadequate resources, ignoring community issues, and seeking annual educational profit over qualitative learning. The paper concludes with an outlook on reauthorization–how NCLB should be substantively improved, as well as, the political context in which this reauthorization will occur.

The purpose of this study was to compare per pupil receipts for operation in most school districts in Texas based on the changes in State funding provided for by three major finance bills and to analyze the effects of federal monies provided by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to determine the degree of equity in the State's school finance structure. The population consisted of 973 public school districts reporting all data for 1974-75, 1976-77, and 1977-78. The districts were grouped into ten wealth deciles based on School Tax Assessment Practices Board assessed property value per student in average daily attendance. A weighted mean value for each decile for each category and year of funding was computed. Correlation coefficients were computed to provide an index of relationship between the categories of dollars available per pupil for operations. Coefficients of variation were determined to express the magnitude of variation relative to the average value for each additive category for each decile.

The federal government has taken an increasingly active role in its involvement in public education since the turn of the twentieth century. Prior to World War II, federal intervention in public education was a result of war initiatives. Following World War II, the United States experienced a number of social and economic conditions that had implications for public education. Among these were a rapid increase in student enrollments resulting from the post World War II baby boom, continuing racial segregation, and chronic inferior education for African Americans and economically disadvantaged students of all races and ethnic groups. To combat the economic, social, and political implications associated with these conditions, the federal government worked with states and local departments of education to formulate plans for educational reform. During the 1960s, federal aid to public schools grew from half a billion dollars in 1960 to 3.5 billion in 1970 (Kantor & Lowe, 1995). Federal aid was increased to provide support for educational facilities and to provide compensatory educational programs for economically disadvantaged students through Head Start of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Educators were encouraged to develop programs to meet the needs of the minority, disadvantaged, and special education populations through the provisions of these acts and subsequent appropriations. This is the report of a historical study of the federal response to the needs of the identified students as implemented through Roanoke County Public Schools. The purpose of this study is to provide a historical account of the development of Head Start and Title I programs in Roanoke County Public Schools within the national context of Head Start and Title I programs. The potential impact of this study includes a greater understanding of the influences that led to the development of Head Start and Title I at the national level and the subsequent educational services implemented through Head Start and Title I programs in Roanoke County Public Schools. / Ph. D.

No description available.

No description available.