Administration of Educational Programs

SIC 9411

Companies in this industry

Industry report:

This category covers government establishments primarily engaged in central coordination, planning, supervision, and administration of funds, policies, intergovernmental activities, statistical reports and data collection, and centralized programs for educational administration. Government scholarship programs are classified here. Included are federal and state education departments, commissions, and similar educational organizations. Schools and local and state school boards operating schools are classified in educational services industries. Human resource training is classified in SIC 8331: Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services, and administration of such programs is classified in SIC 9440: Administration of Social, Human Resource and Income Maintenance Programs.

Industry Snapshot

Virtually all the functions conducted by the educational programs administration industry were connected in one way or another with the U.S. Department of Education, which administers more than 150 educational programs and guidelines for the nation's more than 130,000 schools. Historically, school funding has occurred primarily at the state and local level. In the late 2000s, the Department of Education contributed about 8 percent of revenues to elementary and secondary schools across the country, whereas the remaining 92 percent was divided between local, state, and private sources. Although its overall financial commitment is relatively small, the agency describes its involvement in the U.S. educational system as "a kind of 'emergency response system,' a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise."

Despite carrying a legacy of controversy as old as the U.S. Constitution, the Department of Education grew from a meagerly funded agency charged with a single task--the gathering and dissemination of educational data--into a federal program with widely varied responsibilities that changed with each presidency.

In recent years, much of the debate about the department's authority and goals has centered on the question of state versus federal rights. So widespread was past resistance to a powerful, centralized department of education, not until 1979 was the century-old office granted cabinet-level status. Even then, its survival was far from secure, for in Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, he threatened to abolish the department, saddled as it was with charges of mismanagement and ineffectiveness.

From the early 1980s forward, the education debate was shaped by a national call for fundamental reform, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels, where approximately half the department's spending went. When, where, and how meaningful and widespread reform would take place--and what role the department would assume--were questions that would take years to answer. Private schools, small companies specializing in educational administration, and select public schools were paving the way. In doing so, they heightened public discussion of school choice, school vouchers, and a return to core curricula. President Bill Clinton's Goals 2000: the Educate America Act, criticized for its occasionally vague language, nevertheless gave clarity to the debate in 1994 and authorized the initial release of $647 million for experiments in reform. In 2001, President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) resulted in what some considered to be the most dramatic reform to the educational system in many years. Effective in the 2002-03 school year, the legislation focused on improving student achievement standards and increasing accountability for states, school districts, and individual schools.

During the latter half of the 1990s, statistics from the National Center for Education (part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress) indicated that academic achievement in the nation's schools had steadily turned upward. However, during the early 2000s, a host of challenges remained for educators. This was especially true in poverty-stricken schools, where as many as 66 percent of fourth graders did not have adequate reading skills. Schools in poorer districts also continued to struggle with funding inequities, in comparison to schools in more privileged districts. Given these circumstances, it was readily apparent that no single solution would continue to turn achievement levels around for all students.

When an economic recession hit the country in 2008, many states found themselves in budgetary crisis. As a result school funding became problematic, especially in states hardest hit such as California. In response to the overall economic crisis generally and to the school crisis in particular, Congress passed America's Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which President Barack Obama signed into law on February 19, 2009. ARRA allocated $98.2 billion in education. A major priority was to stabilize states in budgetary crisis to keep schools open and teachers on the job. According to the Department of Education, by the end of 2009, ARRA had saved or created over 325,000 teachers' jobs. ARRA was just a portion of President Obama's plan to reinvest in the U.S. education system.

Organization and Structure

The Department of Education is organized under three levels of office: Office of the Secretary, Office of the Deputy Secretary, and Office of the Under Secretary. Thirteen offices operate under the Office of the Secretary: Office of Communications and Outreach; Office of the General Counsel; Office of Inspector General; Institute of Education Sciences; Office for Civil Rights; Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs; Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Office of Management; Office of the Chief Information Officer; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; Budget Service; Risk Management Service; Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; and International Affairs Office. The Office of the Deputy Secretary manages six offices: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Office of Innovation and Improvement; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students; Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (including the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans). Finally, the Office of the Under Secretary is responsible for three offices: Federal Student Aid; Office of Vocational and Adult Education; and Office of Postsecondary Education (which includes both the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities).

Although President Obama had begun to institute his new vision entitled "Race to the Top," throughout much of the late 2000s, the U.S. federal focus on education continued to be organized around NCLB, which had essentially reauthorized and amended the federal education programs initially established by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. NCLB (also known as ESEA) emphasized four pillars of education: accountability (to make sure that all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency), flexibility (provide states with the ability to use federal funds as they see fit), research-based education (use of scientifically proven educational methods and programs), and parent options (provide parents with the choice of attending private or public schools). The fourth mission has been the most controversial, because it has involved the debate over issues such as whether vouchers should be made available to parents in underperforming school district so they might afford to place their child in a better performing private school.

Title I of ESEA is the largest federal program promoting equal educational opportunity. The fiscal 2009 Department of Education budget for Title I was $14.3 billion for disadvantaged students under the program. These included low-income children, migrant children with special needs, and children needing help with school readiness. Also included under the category of equal educational opportunity was funding for immigrant education, bilingual education, and Native American education grants.

Background and Development

Colonial education was controlled by churches and the economically privileged. Consequently, education was viewed as a personal, rather than a public, concern. Children of factory workers, farmers, and other laborers received very limited education, just enough to allow them to fulfill their roles in society. After the colonies won their freedom from England, the primary goal of the Constitution's framers was to protect the personal and religious freedoms of the people from central authorities. Therefore, education, discerned as a personal choice, was left to the discretion of local and state agencies. However, several early American leaders still wished to promote education, including George Washington, who sought support for a national university following the Revolutionary War. In 1785, the Continental Congress passed the Survey Ordinance, which provided for sections of land to be set aside for schools in newly created townships. The intention of this law was further bolstered by the passage two years later of the Northwest Ordinance, which offered educational land grants and stated that "schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

During the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution and huge advances in science began to change public attitudes toward education. The quality of schools, then under the jurisdiction of individual schoolmasters, was questioned, and the radical idea of taxing citizens to support the education of everyone, regardless of class or income, was being debated openly.

Henry Barnard, who would become the first United States Commissioner of Education, was an early supporter of "common schools," the development of a school system, and its funding through taxation. He also was a fervent supporter of the need for the government to gather and distribute data on education. Barnard had been influenced by his contemporary Horace Mann, who crusaded for public education in Massachusetts. As a Connecticut legislator, Barnard created a commission to obtain facts about the state's common schools. The commission found less than one-half of the state's school-age children were in school, three-fourths of its schools were unfit for use, and there were no standards for teachers. To make matters worse, Connecticut was considered to be one of the best states in terms of education. By 1840, Barnard convinced the U.S. Bureau of Census to include questions regarding the numbers of schools and colleges in the country and questions regarding the rate of illiteracy. He continued to promote the establishment of a federal agency to collect comprehensive education data.

The Civil War stymied the growing movement for a national education office, except for one major piece of legislation. In July 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Morrill Act. The legislation designated that money from the sale of federally owned lands should go to some of the nation's colleges and universities. This marked the true beginning of land-grant schools and was the first major step in legitimizing a role for the federal government in education.

After the Civil War, interest was high among educators to establish a federal office. Representative James A. Garfield, later President Garfield, introduced a bill into Congress to create such an office. After a year of contentious debate, the Department of Education was created through the Organic Act in March 1867. The department's principal task was to gather and publish data on education with the intent to foster the growth and improvement of the nation's public schools. The department also was to conduct related studies, two of which were mandated. The first was a federal land-grant study and was included in the original bill. The second followed the appropriation of funds and mandated a study of education in the District of Columbia.

From its earliest days, the Garfield-sponsored law was controversial. In fact, to pacify supporters of state rights, the Department of Education was downgraded to an office within the Department of Interior the year after it was formed and renamed the Bureau of Education in 1870. In 1929, still within the Interior Department, the agency was again renamed the Office of Education. In 1939, it became part of the Federal Security Agency, and in 1953, it was assigned to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. All this movement was indicative of the ongoing debate about the role of the federal government in education. Overall, the first 75 years of the Department of Education were marked by lack of authority, lack of funding, and unpredictable support in Congress.

In addition, the early collection of information was extremely difficult because of the size of the nation and the suspicion of state and local officials and the educators themselves. Still, by 1875 the agency had collected information on nearly all grades of school and later added statistics on private schools, school expenditures, physical plant values, and other types of data. In 1923, the agency added a team of field statisticians who visited schools and collected detailed and accurate information. The statistical component of the Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, made these comprehensive visits until 1963. After World War II, the office began an annual survey of college and university enrollment. In the mid-1960s, these education statistics were used for legislative purposes for the first time. Then, at the end of the decade, data on educational outcomes or achievement was collected for the first time. Statistics comparing the United States with international educational achievements were not added until the 1990s.

Federal involvement in education peaked at different times in U.S. history. The department's first significant responsibilities came following passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917 and the Smith-Bankhead Act in 1920, both of which provided grants to states for vocational education. This function became even more prominent during the years of the Great Depression. However, it was not until the 1950s that significant changes began to take place in the department. The advent of the space race and the Cold War during this decade accelerated federal spending on education through the National Defense Education Act of 1958. In addition, the 1954 Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court desegregation case focused attention on both the equality of opportunity and the disparity among the nation's schools, followed by President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs of social reform and educational advancement during the 1960s. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created the Head Start program for preschool children, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination in the use of federal funds, included education funds. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was also passed to promote equality of education. All had an effect on the Department of Education, whose administrative budget grew from around $2 million in 1950 to more than $15 million by 1965; total money disbursements then moved up to more than $760 million.

In 1972, the Emergency School Aid Act was passed to assist desegregating schools. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 mandated free and appropriate education for disabled children. The elementary and secondary education legislation passed in the 1960s and 1970s mainly dealt with specific needs of small groups of students. Critics said the needs of the majority of students were being ignored by federal education programs and the broad variety of programs lacked coordination.

When the Carter administration came to power, a study group was formed to develop proposals for upgrading the Office of Education, which was then a part of the Office of Health, Education, and Welfare. After failure to get action on an education bill in 1978, a new bill was offered to Congress the following year. The Department of Education Organization Act created a cabinet-level department and authorized a budget of $14.2 billion for the 152 programs and 17,000 employees.

Opponents of the bill cited the loss of state and local control of education, the diminishment of civil rights protection, the increased influence of special interest groups, and a higher tax burden as major concerns. To address these issues, the legislation included the protection of state and local rights regarding education policy, programs, and administration; an Office of Civil Rights within the department; and an Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Education, including state and local officials, public and private school representatives, and parents and students.

Combined public and private spending on education in the United States represented not only a mammoth industry but a huge national investment amounting to 7.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Only Canada spent more of its national gross domestic product on education than the United States. The 1990 Census found that 6.3 million school children (ages 5 to 17) spoke a language other than English at home. The same year, the Department of Education stated that 5 percent of the 41 million elementary and secondary students in the United States had "limited English proficiency." Of those students speaking English as a second language, 37.8 percent spoke English less than very well. But as William Dunn reported in April 1993, there was a steadily growing group of poor and uneducated immigrants in the United States, and students coming from these families were experiencing difficulty in the American educational system, despite English as a Second Language (ESL) programs.

Guaranteed Student Loans.
An October 1992 Financial World article claimed that the Department of Education's biggest financial problem was the student loan program. In 1992, loans totaling $11.0 billion were made; that same year, $3.6 billion in previously made loans fell into default. To address the problem, the department started to make some changes, including eliminating financing for schools with the largest student loan default rates. They also started monitoring loans to students already in default and collaborating with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect payments from defaulters' tax refunds. Finally, the department sought to upgrade its financial controls both for the student loan program and the department in general.

In 1983, the National Commission on Education, a board appointed by Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell, concluded that the American education system was in trouble, and for younger Americans to compete internationally, reforms would need to take place. In response to the commission's influential A Nation at Risk report, a wave of school restructuring occurred. In 1989, the Bush administration's Education Summit, which included the nation's governors, developed six national education goals to be met by the year 2000. President Bush's proposed education reform legislation, called America 2000: Excellence in Education, failed to pass in Congress, however. Instead, Congress created the National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST), which recommended voluntary participation by the states in an education program that would compare students by means of "world-class standards."

The Goals 2000 passed in Congress in March 1994. It authorized $647 million for school reforms nationwide, including $400 million in grants targeted for state and local school agencies. The act also established the first national education goals and standards for education.

The eight national education goals for all students and schools included in Goals 2000 were: all children will start school ready to learn; at least 90 percent of students will finish high school; students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 with demonstrated competence in English, math, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography; teachers will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their skills; the United States will be first in the world in math and science achievement; every adult will be literate and possess the skills to compete in a global economy; every school will be free of drugs and violence; and every school will promote involvement of parents in their children's education.

The act also established a 19-member National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) to develop voluntary national curriculum content, student performance tests, and opportunity-to-learn programs. Funding for combating violent crime in schools and for new research institutes within the Office of Education Research and Improvement was authorized as well. Detractors of the act said that it was too general to bring any significant change to American education and that making the measures voluntary was a concession to the powerful national teachers' associations. Moreover, such goals had been put forth by previous administrations to no noticeable effect.

By the end of the 1990s, states were aggressively forging ahead to make good on their promises. New York declared that by 2003, all students graduating from high school must pass a Regents Examination in mathematics, science, American history, and global history. For the 1998-99 school year, California's controversial "Proposition 227," which replaced bilingual education programs with those emphasizing English as the primary language, was too new to gauge its efficacy but appeared to be gaining ground.

In the last few months of 1999, Congress was completing work on fiscal 2000 legislation for the Department of Education, amid heavy lobbying by student loan providers and college lobbyists. President Clinton indicated that he would veto any budget that did not include funding for several of his proposed programs, including Americorps and the hiring of 100,000 new schoolteachers. Also contentious were efforts to remove certain fees attached to federal student direct-loan programs and raise the maximum Pell grant to $3,250.

The total 1999 budget for the Department of Education was $34.3 billion. This included $7.3 billion for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, $1.3 billion for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, and $386 million for the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs. (Its largest expenditure was for the Office of Postsecondary Education, at $14.1 billion.)

During its 1998-99 term, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an important decision affecting public education. In November 1998, the Court declined to review, and thus let stand, the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of the Milwaukee school voucher program (Jackson v. Benson). In such programs, individual credit vouchers are given to parents by local, state, or federal government entities to be used for sending their children to a school of the parents' choosing. Often, this has meant private, parochial schools. Two basic challenges against these vouchers have thus been defeated, the first having to do with separation of church and state, and the second involving the reality that such vouchering draws students away from the public school system, thus affecting federal funds to public schools.

By the early 2000s, the nation's educational administrators faced a number of serious challenges. One of the most daunting involved state budget shortfalls, brought on by weak economic conditions and decreasing tax bases. During the 1990s, when economic conditions were more favorable, many states chose to fund schools through income taxes instead of property taxes. Ultimately, this trend had a negative effect. According to the January 19, 2003, Chicago Tribune, "The lingering national economic downturn, which last year resulted in trims to administrative expenses and loss of extracurricular activities, now is forcing districts to make severe cuts that directly affect the classroom."

In the aforementioned Chicago Tribune article, the paper provided figures from the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) that revealed that U.S. school districts were short $49 billion at the start of the 2002-03 academic year. By January, the deficit had increased by another $18 billion. Despite these grave conditions, Education Daily reported that only 9 states ended up cutting budgets for primary and secondary education that year, whereas 12 made cuts at the postsecondary level. Looking ahead, the magazine cited figures from a NCSL survey that found states would face a combined shortfall of at least $69 billion by fiscal year 2004, impacting educational programs at the primary, secondary, and postsecondary levels.

Based on information from the National Association of Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), state spending on postsecondary student financial aid was expected to increase 5 percent in 2002-03, according to Education Daily. Although this was a positive sign given the state of the economy, the rise was smaller than 2001-2002's increase of 10 percent and the 12 percent increase achieved in 2000-2001. That states continued to increase assistance levels despite budget shortfalls showed their continuing commitment to education. In fact, NASSGAP revealed that state spending on student aid has increased by 66 percent since the late 1990s.

Amidst these conditions, some school districts sought ways to reduce costs and maintain operations. In some states, including Oregon and New York, districts considered moving to shorter academic years by instituting four-day school weeks. However, prohibitive state laws hindered many districts from going in this direction, whereas other districts risked jeopardizing already falling levels of state funding. Other cost-cutting measures involved students and teachers cleaning their own classrooms. This was the case in Oklahoma, where custodial jobs were cut at one school district. In Hawaii, cutbacks caused a potential toilet paper shortage. This effectively caused schools to choose between basic essentials and much-needed educational resources like textbooks. Nationwide, schools also were looking to decrease energy costs in both new and existing facilities through improved operations and by designing better buildings and relying on more efficient technologies.

In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). According to the Department of Education, "The Act is the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since ESEA was enacted in 1965. It redefines the federal role in K-12 education and will help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. It is based on four basic principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work." The act allows children in schools that fail to meet state academic standards to move to another public school without incurring excessive transportation costs. In the U.S. government's budget for fiscal year 2004, the Department of Education listed successful implementation of NCLB as one of its major challenges. In addition to improved accountability for student achievement, support was to come from an increase in grant funding. This included an increase in Title I grants to aid poverty-stricken schools at the local level.

The total 2002 budget for the Department of Education was $56.2 billion. This included $8.7 billion for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, $6.2 billion for School Improvement Programs, and $1.9 billion for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (Its largest expenditure was for the Office of Postsecondary Education, at $12.3 billion.)

According to the Department of Education, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was proving successful. In fact, "the state-by-state Nation's Report Card results, released in October 2005, showed improved achievement in the earlier grades in which NCLB is focused." Further NCLB funding for 2007 totaled $24.4 billion, an increase of 40.4 percent from $17.4 billion in 2001.

Compared to 2001, President Bush's budget request for the FY 2007 budget included significant funding increases for key education programs. Federal education funding would increase 29 percent, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion. Proposed funding for K-12 was $36.3 billion, up 33 percent from $17.4 billion in 2001. Title I increased 45 percent, from $8.8 billion to $12.7 billion, and Special Education (IDEA) grants issued to states increased by 68.5 percent, from $6.34 billion to $10.7 billion. Funding for reading advanced by 300 percent, from $286 million to $1.2 billion.

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law two additional grant programs created by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005. The Academic Competitiveness (AC) Grants and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grants specifically aim to promote science, mathematics, technology, foreign languages, and engineering at the high school level. Research has shown these areas of study increase the likelihood that the student will excel at the college level in areas that would benefit the global economy.

While some educational programs were given the green light, others were being eliminated altogether. According to the National Association of Student Grant and Aid Programs, President Bush's FY 2007 budget called for the abolition of the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP), awards given to the poorest students. The U.S. Department of Education reported that LEAP awarded funds to some 800,000 students for the 2003-2004 school year.

Current Conditions

While states and local school districts struggled with declining tax bases and falling revenues, the Department of Education experienced a massive influx of funding in 2009 when ARRA granted the agency nearly $100 billion in additional funding. Nearly one-half ($48.6 billion) of the money went toward the agency's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which was intended to help states in financial crisis stabilize their educational services and retain their teachers. Higher education received $17.1 billion in additional Pell Grant funding for the 2009-2010 school year, and state educational agencies received $10 billion for Title I, Part A programs. Title I School Improvement Grants received an additional $3 billion.

In May 2009, Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced the agency's fiscal year 2010 budget request of $46.7 billion, which would support programs that were working well. As proposed by the department, the budget would end 12 programs deemed ineffective, saving more than $550 million, which would be redirected to other programs. In addition, the agency proposed cutting 10 positions from its regional office staff to further reduce overhead costs.

The proposed budget was aimed at building on the investments made in 2009 by the funding provided by ARRA to improve schools and teacher effectiveness. Specifically, the budget allotted $1.5 billion to Title I School Improvement Grants, which is additional to the $3 billion provided by ARRA for the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Another $500 million was included to fund Title I Early Childhood Grants to start or expand preschool programs. The proposal also assisted college students by increased federal Pell Grants to $5,550 and guaranteeingthat the grant would increase annually by the rate of inflation plus 1 percent every year after.

After entering office in 2008, President Obama began outlining his reform approach to the U.S. educational system, entitled "Race to the Top." Setting aside $4.3 billion of ARRA, Obama, working through the Department of Education, prepared to challenge schools across the country to institute radical reforms to improve the country's educational system. Unlike NCLB, which distributed funds throughout all states, "Race to the Top" was designed to only reward states or schools that take initiatives to make bold changes. Obama's reform includes an emphasis on data usage to track student performance, consistent tracking across the academic life of a student, consistent standards, teacher recruitment and training, and turning around troubled schools (including teacher merit-based pay for performance). His proposals were not without controversy.

© COPYRIGHT 2018 The Gale Group, Inc. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. For permission to reuse this article, contact the Copyright Clearance Center.

News and information about Administration of Educational Programs

Uspto Issues Trademark: Rhodes Scholarships
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; July 9, 2017; 700+ words
...research services; conducting, organising and arranging of exhibitions for commercial purposes; business administration of educational programs that award grants and fellowships; business administration of education and professional development...
Uspto Issues Trademark: Cidq
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; September 22, 2014; 387 words
...20130501Preparation and administration of examinations and tests in the field of interior design; creation and administration of educational programs to assist entry-level interior designers in obtaining and documenting professional experience. FIRST...
Uspto Issues Trademark: Grow Students. Grow Reputation. Grow Online
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; September 29, 2012; 700+ words
...education strategy for colleges and universities; online degree program management services, namely, administration of educational programs in the nature of online degree programs. FIRST USE: 20090100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090100 Educational...
Uspto Issues Trademark: Embanet
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; September 29, 2012; 700+ words
...education strategy for colleges and universities; online degree program management services, namely, administration of educational programs in the nature of online degree programs. FIRST USE: 19950000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950000 Educational...
"Just like magic": a final wrap-up of the 2010 ADAA Anuual Session in Orlando.(American Dental Assistants Association)
The Dental Assistant; November 1, 2010; 700+ words
...Rexroat is a CDA and Certified Dental Practice Management Administrator (CDPMA), with a Masters in Administration of Educational Programs and Educational Leadership. She has been active with the ADAA on the national and state level serving...
Uspto Issues Trademark: Learning Transformed. Minds Engaged
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; August 14, 2013; 674 words
...education strategy for colleges and universities; online degree program management services, namely, administration of educational programs in the nature of online degree programs. FIRST USE: 20110713. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110713Education...
Uspto Issues Trademark: Lead Business
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; February 18, 2013; 282 words
...The mark consists of the stylized word "LEAD" over the word "BUSINESS"."Goods and Services: Administration of educational programs for minority students. FIRST USE: 19800130. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19800130For any query with respect...
USPTO ISSUES TRADEMARK: LEAD GLOBAL
US Fed News Service, Including US State News; August 31, 2011; 248 words
...serial number 77432942 was filed on March 27, 2008 and was registered on Aug. 23. Goods and Services: administration of educational programs for minority students. FIRST USE: 20090500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090500 For any query with respect...

Search all articles about Administration of Educational Programs