The purpose of the study of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was to examine the obstacles and obstacle resolutions oft (1) congressional development, (2) implementation by United States Office of Education, (3) implementation support by Indiana Department of Public Instruction.The review of the literature and research revealed that the same obstacles of church-state relations, fear of federal control, distribution of funds were issues not only in development by Congress but also in implementing at the federal and state level.Segregation was only an obstacle in development by Congress and implementation at the federal level.The issues tended to give rise to lesser issues, such as interpretation of the law, reorganization of United States Office of Education, expansion of Indiana Department of Public Instruction, revisions in the guidelines due to feedback from state department personnel, and the time element involved.Major findings of the study were:1. Prior to 1965 most federal education legislation failed because it did or did not authorize funds for church-related schools.2. Developers of the Act made a political compromise to satisfy both public and parochial school interest groups.3. The Administration used the concept of impacted aid in developing a distribution formula. Theformula met the political test of something for everyone while retaining substantial value for education.4. School administrators viewed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as general aid distributed on a poverty basis rather than aid to the educationally disadvantaged distributed on a poverty formula.5. The landslide election of Lyndon Johnson along with the large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate eliminated the fear of federal control.6. At the state level, the amount of paper work and red tape involved in complying with the provisions of the Act added to the fear of federal control.7. Reorganization of the United States Office of Education brought it from a timid bureau to a vigorous department to manage and monitor the new legislation.8. Implementation was hampered by the non-availability of funds until after the school year began.9. The purposes of the Act could not be realized unless the competence of each state department of education was strengthened. Under Title V new personnel were hired.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/175776 |
| Date | January 1980 |
| Creators | Davis, Larry L. |
| Contributors | Nesper, Paul W. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | iv, 104 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | n-us--- |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds