There is no abstract available for this thesis.

The purpose of the study was to examine the administrative structure needed to coordinate the numerous institutions of higher education offering postsecondary degree programs on an Army installation. The study then identified the management problems and solutions to those problems, as perceived by Education Services Officers when coordinating among the participating institutions. The population consisted of representatives from eleven U.S. Army Continuing Education Services Centers.The Education Services Center representatives having the responsibility for coordinating the postsecondary programs were interviewed by telephone to collect the data. An interview form was designed to elicit non-directed responses to perceived major problems confronting the representatives, problems at Department of the Army and possible solutions to the problems.Education Services representatives encountered difficulty in providing a quality program during a period when on-Post program effectiveness was evaluated by Department of the Army. Major problems existed in the coordination among several institutions with differing administrative policies, requirements, and recognition of transfer credit.Solutions to the problems included the adoption of an Advisory Committee concept to assist in academic advisement and evaluation, the incorporation of evaluation in program, the development of guidelines for evaluation, and clarification of the requirement for negotiation of the institution agreement. Other recommendations were to develop more concise guidelines for quality assurance and evaluation, and for the closer correlation between academic needs of Army students and professional development needs of the U.S. Army. The reduction of the number of participating institutions was seen as a positive way to improve management and quality control of the on-Post programs.

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.

Issued also as Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University. / Bibliography: p. 175-235. Bibliography: p. 237-269.

Issued also as Thesis (Ph. D.) Columbia University. / Bibliography: p. 175-235. Bibliography: p. 237-269.

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.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.