(164,121 - 164,140 of 181,440)
Pages
-
-
Title
-
CRS84627EPWpage30
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80533
-
Text
-
the achievement levels of those pupils directly affected by them. This is not in any sense a "proof" that Federal aid has consistently led to achievement gains among the pupils directly affected—-rather that available evidence on direct effects is 14/ For example, according to the Annual Evaluation Report on Department of Education Programs, FY l982, in 1979-1980, 51 percent of chapter 1 (title 1
-
-
Title
-
CRS84627EPWpage33
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80533
-
Text
-
, the prohibition against race or national origin discrimination in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the prohibition against discrimination qon the basis of handicap under sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). in general, the authors of these reports found in most localities no sub~ stantial effects, either positive or negative, of Federal programs on the "regular" pupil groups
-
-
Title
-
CRS84627EPWpage18
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80533
-
Text
-
Subfunction 501), FY 1966, 1975, and 1984 (estimated), in Current and Constant (1983) Dollars .- (in millions of dollars) 3/ Year Current Dollar Amount Constant Dollar Amount 1966 1 $1,603 $5,731 1975 ' _ 4,176 g ( 8,05l ‘I984 (estimate) 6,959 6,590 . a/ Source: Federal Spending for Education by Angela M. Evans, et aff, CR5 Report No. 84-582 EPW, March 16, 1984. The price index used was the GNP
-
-
Title
-
CRS84627EPWpage16
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80533
-
Text
-
CRS-8 - ‘KTARLE 2. iPercentage Change in Average (Mean) NAEP Test Scores During the l970s,‘a/ by Age, Subject, Race, and Achievement Quartile b] E] 2 ----- --Black Pupils------- ---—---White Pupils ----- —- Achievement ' A Quartile Age Reading Science Math Reading Science_ Math 9 +8.42 3/ -0.71 +2.92 +4.52 +1.7z .-0.52 Lowest 13 +3.5 +1.3 +2.6 +1.5 +2.0 . +0.3 17 +1.1 -0.5 - +1.5 -1.7 +0.7
-
-
Title
-
CRS84627EPWpage22
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80533
-
Text
-
cRs—14 Education for All Handicapped Children Act of l975, the decline in the share C for the impact aid program (from 13.4 percent to 4.2 percent), and the rela~ tively smaller decline in the share for vocational education, both secondary and postsecondary (item 8.0 percent to 5.3 percent). Thus, during a period of relative decline for elementary and secondary. education programs overall (as
-
-
Title
-
CRS87381Lpage17
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:73703
-
Text
-
: an effective system. Government executive, v. 17, July-Aug. 1985: 18, 20, 22. LRS85-13793 "The present organization of the Department of Defense was not simply created at some point in the past; it evolved over the years as highly qualified leaders tested, refined and adopted procedures they perceived to be the best solutions for shifting operations/management needs. The ifundamental requirements
-
-
Title
-
CRS87381Lpage19
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:73703
-
Text
-
-375) LRS83-13345, LRS83-14800 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Investigations Subcommittee. Reorganization of the Department of.Defense.. Hearings, 99th Congress, 2nd session. Feb. 19-Mar. 12, 1986. Washington, G.P.O., 1987. 1119 p. LRS87-1509 At head of title: H.A.S.C. no. 99-53. "The major aspects of our inquiry: first, the unified and specified com- mands. Should the Commanders
-
-
Title
-
CRS87381Lpage23
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:73703
-
Text
-
CRS-10 C. Gabriel, Admiral R. Long, R. Steadmn, Admiral J. Watkins, and General J. -.Vessey, Jr. Jones, David C. y Why the Joint Chiefs of Staff must change. Presidential studies quarterly, v. 12, spring 1982: 138-149. LRS82-5622 The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) reviews the history of the JCS, describes how the JCS system functions, and discusses the purposes it serves. He
-
-
Title
-
CRS87381Lpage15
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:73703
-
Text
-
to the Secretary of Defense. Washington, G.P.0., 1978. 81, 13 p. LRS78~9434 Jones, David C. What's wrong with our defense establishment. New York times magazine, Nov. 17, 1982: 38-39, 41-42, 70, 73-75, 78483. S LRS82-13154 "The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff criticizes the nation's military leadership as a group of rigid and conflicting bureaucracies unresponsive to changing
-
-
Title
-
CRS87381Lpage07
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:73703
-
Text
-
security objectives." The Secretary of Defense. Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, c1980. 252 p. UA23.6 .K56 Korb, Lawrence J. The fall and rise of the Pentagon: American defense policies in the 1970's. Westport, Conn, Greenwood Press, 1979. 192 p. (Contributions in political science; no. 27 0147-1066) UA23.6 .K67 Maury, John M. Can Congress run the Defense Department? Armed Forces
-
-
Title
-
CRS85991Epage29
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:81217
-
Text
-
' 4 CRS-l‘2 and effective Federal presence in apprenticeship training'° be maintained. S.J.Res. 350, offered by Senator Daniel Quayle, presented a similar statement of support for the Bureau and its activities. The several bills died at the close of the 98th Congress.. B. The 99th Congress (1985-1986) In the 99th Congress, Representative Hiler, with others, reintroduced legislation (H
-
-
Title
-
CRS85991Epage07
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:81217
-
Text
-
THE "FITZGERALD ACT" AND THE FEDERAL ROLE IN APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING: RECENT INTEREST AND CURRENT INITIATIVES 1. INTRODUCTION‘ 1 I In 1937, the Congress adopted the "Fitzgerald Act" -- named for its author, Representative William J. Fitzgerald of Connecticut. The Act (also known as the National Apprenticeship Act, 29 U.S.C. 50 and 50a), provides the charter for the Bureau
-
-
Title
-
CRS85991Epage03
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:81217
-
Text
-
ABSTRACT The Fitzgerald Act (National Apprenticeship Act) of 1937 serves as the charter for the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training in the Department of Labor. It also provides the legal framework for the Federal Government's involvement in apprenticeship training programs. Briefly, this paper examines the evolution of apprentice training in.America, the provisions of the Fitz- gerald Act
Pages