In the Cold War era, educational broadcasting became a new technological instrument in less industrialized countries, to enhance the quality of education. Specifically, the use of mass media in classrooms was starting to be considered a modernized way for developing the educational system in less industrialized regions. This study argues that educational broadcasting in less industrialized areas, including South Korea, reveals the effects of Cold War politics in educational development in many countries. Through the concept of localized modernization, this study highlights American educational aid programs in establishing an educational broadcasting system in a foreign country and its effects on changing the entire educational system focusing on the case of South Korea. By investigating various archival sources published by governmental agencies, international organizations, and local governments, this dissertation reveals how some less industrialized regions sought to change their educational system by using a new modern technology, educational broadcasting, and how a new educational idea—that the use of mass media in school instruction can change the entire educational system—influenced, changed, and was adopted in these areas. Although the U.S. Agency for International Development introduced mass media to modernize education, this study shows how local people adapted a new educational broadcasting system to their own purposes and unique circumstances. Korean policymakers and educators agreed with some parts of the U.S. recommended system, but used them for their own needs. The educational broadcasting system in Korea proceeded differently from the U.S. recommended system. The author thus argues that the case of educational broadcasting in South Korea is an example of how local countries constructed their own educational broadcasting systems, how individual countries adapted U.S. systems during the Cold War era to their own needs, and how the localization of the modernization process can be an alternative lens for an overview of the historical pathway of U.S. educational aid projects in the Cold War era.

Each year school districts across the United States are faced with the task of hiring the best teachers they can for the open positions in their schools. In many urban school districts, this task can be particularly daunting. Compared to suburban school districts, urban school districts tend to have higher teacher exit rates, which places additional strain upon the districts’ schools and their resources. Research shows that there are many factors associated with teachers’ decisions to stay at or leave a school. This study aims to determine how the common attrition and retention factors that influence a teacher’s decision to stay or leave by interviewing current and former teachers at a Title I school in an urban setting.

In this study, I interviewed a small, targeted sample of highly valued teachers while I was their school leader. The interview was designed to use questions that elicit teachers’ perspectives about the retention and attrition factors identified in the research in hopes of determining patterns I could use to strategically use to build a teacher retention plan. Analysis of the responses from the interviews included a comparison of composite teacher profiles, each representing a sub-group of teachers with common attributes. This process demonstrated that while factors commonly associated with retention were important, the degree to which specific factors shaped a teacher’s decision to stay or leave is dependent upon their experience and background and where they are in the phases of their careers and life. Additionally, this study identified how school leaders can strategically use a similar interview process to retain key teaching personnel based upon their personal and professional motivations

The purpose of this study was to understand how community members within a segregated school district approached racial inequities. I conducted a ¬nineteen-month-long ethnography using a critical Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach to explore how members in a community activist group called Eliminate Racism interacted and worked with school district officials. My goal was to identify and examine how community members addressed racially inequitable policies and practices in the Midwestern city of Pinecreek (pseudonym) in the context of a school district that had undergone two school desegregation lawsuits. I conducted 32 interviews with 24 individuals, including teachers and school leaders, parents, and community members.

This study answers three research questions: (1) What strategies did the community activist group use to influence local education policy for addressing racism in the schools? (2) How did community participation influence local education policy? (3) What were the motivating factors for individuals’ involvement in issues of local school segregation? To answer these questions, I used concepts from Critical Race Theory and Social Capital Theory. I employ Putnam’s and Putnam and Campbell’s social capital, Warren’s civic participation, Bonilla-Silva’s color-blind racism, Yosso’s community cultural wealth and religio-civics. My analysis shows that the community group used the social capital and community cultural wealth of its members to create partnerships with district officials. Although Eliminate Racism did not meet its goals, it established itself as a legitimate organization within the community, successfully drawing together residents throughout the city to bring attention to racism in the schools.

The study’s results encourage school and district leaders to constantly bring race to the forefront of their decision-making processes and to question how policy implementation affects minoritized students. This research also suggests that strategies from this community group can be adopted or avoided by other antiracist groups undertaking similar work. Finally, it provides an example of how to employ critical PAR methods into ethnography, as it notes the ways that researcher positionality and status can be leveraged by community groups to support the legitimacy of their mission and work.

The lasting benefits of high-quality early childhood programs are widely understood. These benefits and the well-documented return on investments are among the factors that have shaped executives at philanthropic foundations’ grant making in support of early childhood programs, policies, and research in the United States. Yet little is known about the investments they are making in the field of early childhood. Drawing from a conceptual framework that combines types of philanthropic investment with the concepts of accountability and transparency, I conducted a comparative case study of the Buffett Early Childhood Fund, George Kaiser Family Foundation, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, all of which began financially supporting early childhood between 2000 and 2005. I attempted to understand how and why philanthropic foundations and pooled funding organizations have supported early childhood from the late 1990s through 2018.



Based on my analysis of 32 semi-structured interviews with current and former early childhood philanthropic foundation, pooled funding, and operating organization executives, I found that each foundation independently determines their investment decision processes and invests a disparate amount of money in early childhood. In addition, philanthropic foundations gain programmatic and legislative power by leveraging funds and partnering with additional foundations and businesses. With the inclusion of early childhood programs in K-12 education systems and the decrease in national and state education funding from those same budgets, it is critical to understand how philanthropic foundations have supported early childhood education and some of the implications of their support both locally and nationally.

Affirmative action is an education policy adopted by higher education institutions in the 1960s, where an applicant’s race is taken into account to some degree when being evaluated for admission to a college or university. The practice of affirmative action, or race conscious-admissions, has been repeatedly challenged in the legal system and remains a controversial and polarizing topic amongst the general public, campus leaders, and policy makers. Despite a vast amount of research on the effects of affirmative action policies on student and institutional behaviors and outcomes, such as college applications and enrollments, considerably less research has examined students’ attitudes towards race-conscious admissions policies. Even less research has focused on students in academic disciplines, especially STEM or engineering. Likewise, there is a paucity of research that explores students’ perceptions and knowledge of how affirmative action is implemented in practice. To address these gaps, this study investigates undergraduate engineering students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards affirmative action admissions policies in higher education. The Student Attitudes Towards Admissions Policies Survey (SATAPS) was designed to assess students’ knowledge of and attitudes regarding affirmative action practices in higher education admissions. This survey was administered to undergraduate engineering students and a comparison group of education students at 42 colleges/universities in the United States. Data were analyzed utilizing confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regression. Results demonstrated that students have low levels of knowledge about affirmative action, and have misconceptions about how the policy functions in practice. There was no difference in engineering and education students’ level of support for affirmative action; however, underrepresented minority students in engineering were more supportive of affirmative action. Results also indicated that students’ beliefs and values were the strongest predictors of attitude towards affirmative action, so much so that this negated the significance of demographic and personal characteristics, which was observed in the majority of previous studies. Results highlight a complicated relationship between demographic characteristics, personal variables, knowledge, institutional context, beliefs/values, and attitude towards affirmative action admissions policies in higher education.

This study describes how the concept of “community” is framed in traditional public and charter high school guiding statements and interviews with school leaders. Guiding statements from public high schools in Arizona were analyzed and interviews were conducted with principals from traditional public schools and charter school principals. The findings suggested similarities between traditional public high schools and charter high schools in their framing of the concept of community, suggesting that schools are loosely coupled to state and federal education departments in particular, and to varying degrees at the district level: The guiding statements and high school leaders generally distinguished between the “school as community” frame inside the school and the “the local community” frame focused on the community outside of the school. Both traditional public high schools and charter schools emphasized the importance of both frames and their connections with “the local community.” Differences between traditional public schools and charter schools were observed, as schools appeared to attempt to legitimize themselves in different ways to the communities they are located in. Despite open enrollment policies leading to inter-district enrollment, traditional public schools have a mandate to primarily serve students from a specific area and were framed in the guiding statements and by school leaders as being part of and serving a geographically defined community that they have close ties to, the “school as a member of community” frame. Charter schools, on the other hand, focused on creating and serving a specific educational community characterized by shared interests, ideals, and expectations (‘school as community”) and contributing to the community that the school is located in (“school as a contributor to community”).

School choice reforms such as charter schools, vouchers, open enrollment, and private and public school tax credit donation programs have expanded throughout the United States over the past twenty years. Arizona’s long-standing public school choice system enrolls a higher percentage of public school students in charter schools than any state besides Washington D.C. A growing number of Arizona’s charter schools are managed by for-profit and nonprofit Education Management Organizations (EMOs). Advocates of school choice argue that free-market education approaches will make public schools competitive and nimble as parents’ choices place pressures on schools to improve or close. This, then, improves all schools: public, private, and charter. Critics are concerned that education markets produce segregation along racial and social class lines and inequalities in educational opportunities, because competition favors advantaged parents and children who can access resources. Private and for-profit schools may see it in their interest to exclude students who require more support. School choice programs, then, may further marginalize students who live in poverty, who receive special education services, and English language learners.

We do not fully understand how Arizona’s mature school choice system affects parents and other stakeholders in communities “on the ground.” That is, how are school policies understood and acted out? I used ethnographic methods to document and analyze the social, cultural, and political contexts and perspectives of stakeholders at one district public school and in its surrounding community, including its charter schools. I examined: (a) how stakeholders perceived and engaged with schools; (b) how stakeholders understood school policies, including school choice policies; and (c) what influenced families’ choices.

Findings highlight how most stakeholders supported district public schools. At the same time, some “walked the line” between choices that were good for their individual families and those they believed were good for public schools and society. Stakeholders imagined “community” and “accountability” in a range of ways, and they did not all have equal access to policy knowledge. Pressures related to parental accountability in the education market were apparent as stakeholders struggled to make, and sometimes revisit, their choices, creating a tenuous schooling environment for their families.

Community colleges, like all higher education institutions in the United States, have not been immune to the increased national focus on educational accountability and institutional effectiveness over the past three decades. Federal and non-governmental initiatives aimed at tracking and reporting on institutional outcomes have focused on utilitarian academic and economic measures of student success that homogenize the goals, aspirations, and challenges of the individuals who attend these unique open-access institutions. This dissertation, which is comprised of three submission-ready scholarly peer-reviewed articles, examined community college students’ conceptualizations and valuations of “student success.” The research project was designed as a multiple methods single-site case study, and the data sources consisted of a large-scale student e-survey, follow-up semi-structured interviews with a heterogeneous group of students, semi-structured interviews with faculty and administrators, and a review of institutional documents. The interviews also incorporated two experimental visual elicitation techniques and a participatory ranking exercise. Article One introduces and operationalizes the author’s primary conceptual perspective, the capabilities approach, to develop a more comprehensive framework for understanding and evaluating community college student outcomes. This article documents the methodological process used to generate a theoretical and an empirical list of community college capabilities, which serve as the basis of future capabilities-based research on community college student success. Article Two draws on the student interview and student visual elicitation data to explore the capability category of “refuge” – a new, unexpected, and student-valued purpose of the community college as a safe escape from the complexities and demands of personal, home, and work life. In light of recent efforts to promote more structured and prescriptive college experiences to improve graduation rates, Article Three explores students’ perceptions of their pathways through the community college using the participant-generated and researcher-generated visual elicitation data. Findings indicate that students value the structure and the flexibility community colleges offer, as well as their own ability to be agents and architects of their educational experience. Taken together, these articles suggest that student success is less linear and more rhizomatic in structure than it is currently portrayed in the literature.

As schools across Arizona worked to meet NCLB's AYP requirement in 2010-2011, they were also labeled and sanctioned by AZ Learns. This phenomenological study focused on six effective high school principals in two Arizona school districts to ascertain how accountability policies impacted the principals' job responsibilities, autonomy, and ability to pursue social justice on their campuses. Interviews were conducted in three phases: superintendents, three principals from the superintendents' recommendations of effective school leaders, and three teachers from each school. In addition to analysis of individual principal leadership patterns, comparisons were made across districts, and from school to school within the same district. The goal of the study was to determine if and how principals were able to accomplish their goals for their school. The principals' leadership styles were examined through a Vortex Leadership Framework that posited principals at the center of a vortex of varying leadership roles, interests, and external forces, including accountability, autonomy, and limited resources. Key findings included (a) high school principals' responsibilities now include selling change to their staff, (b) principals' accountability is limited more by district constraints than by state or federal accountability, (c) principals must contend with rigid one-size fits all accountability standards that do not always meet the needs of their students, and (d) principals' autonomy is tied to their resources, including funding for staffing and programs.

ABSTRACT In Roosevelt v. Bishop (1994), Arizona public school districts and parents challenged Arizona's school financing system arguing that it was not "general and uniform" as required by the Arizona Constitution. The purpose of this study was to analyze Arizona's Students Fair and Immediate Resources for Students Today (Students FIRST) legislation, the remedy that resulted from the Roosevelt decision, empirically, and longitudinally. Three types of statistical analyses were conducted on a sample of 165 public school districts. Fiscal neutrality was measured for each of the eleven years of the study, to assess the association between the per-pupil Students FIRST funding level and the per-pupil property wealth. Multiple regression analysis was also conducted to assess if both property wealth and district size were associated with the distribution of Students FIRST funding. Finally, I analyzed the eleven-year average of the total Students FIRST funding distributed to school districts and assessed how the plaintiff districts ranked in the distribution. Overall, the findings revealed that Students FIRST met the fiscal neutrality standard in some, but not in all the categories and years of this study, per-pupil property wealth was only weakly related to, and district size was not associated with, Students FIRST funding. The analysis of average funding suggested that some property rich school districts benefited most from Students FIRST. These results suggest that the traditional measures used to assess the fiscal neutrality of operating funding may not be appropriate for assessing the fiscal neutrality of capital finance reforms. While the results of this study provide some suggestive evidence that Students FIRST did not fulfill the Court's mandate, additional research is needed as to whether or not Arizona's capital finance system has resulted in disparities in funding that fall short of the constitutional standard.