The COVID-19 pandemic has immeasurably impacted nearly every aspect of schools from day-to-day operating procedures to the way students attend classes to curricular and instructional matters. In the early stages of the pandemic, while COVID-19 spread across the country, the large-scale, nationwide closure of schools in March 2020 forced educators, students, and families alike to adjust to emergency remote teaching with virtually no warning or preparation (Marshall et al., 2020; Hodges et al., 2020). As the 2019–2020 school year came to a close remotely, states began the process of reopening after initial COVID-19 related closures; and the predicament of how to reopen schools in the fall became a major topic of debate. This contentious debate continued throughout the rest of the 2020–2021 school year as school buildings went in and out of in-person, hybrid and remote instructional models; and the public health crisis persisted. Caught squarely in the crossfire of the debate and on the receiving end of policy coming down from state governance were public-school classroom teachers. Historically, this top-down dynamic is certainly not new for the teaching profession (Lortie, 1975; Cohn et al., 1993; Gratch, 2000). Intersecting with this reality is the view of teachers as executors of policy that others create (Cohn et al., 1993; Cochran-Smith et al., 2009) — a view that situates teachers in a web of bureaucracy (Elvira, 2020) that is often at odds with their expertise and local knowledge of practice (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009). This view ultimately results in the exclusion of teachers’ voices in decision-making arenas (Cohn et al., 1993). While preliminary research investigating the impacts of COVID-19 on teachers and the teaching profession has established some of the emotional and physical toll that has occurred, more details with respect to the way that teachers experienced the work of teaching itself in conjunction with policy decisions is necessary. The three studies in this dissertation address these needs by teasing out teachers’ perspectives, challenging the lingering image of teachers as technicians and the status quo of top-down policy enactment, and determining a way to move forward. More specifically, these studies occur within the context of public-school teaching in the state of Massachusetts (MA) and involve data sources that include survey responses from full-time, public-school teachers in MA who actively taught in the 2020–2021 school year as well as policy memos that came from the MA state educational agency (SEA). The combination of articles in this dissertation examines topics including the status of teachers’ voices and influence in decision-making forums, the relationship between policy and teachers’ work, teachers as experts versus technicians, and teacher demoralization throughout the pandemic. By drawing upon teacher survey data from 122 full-time, public-school teachers in MA, the first study captures their experiences teaching during the pandemic from the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 through April of the 2020–2021 school year. This first study provides a window into the direct experiences teachers had teaching during the pandemic in comparison to teaching prior to the pandemic and sets the groundwork to show how teachers’ experiences do not align with images of teaching as put forth by the MA SEA and the policy rolled out during the pandemic. The second study uses document analysis to examine policy artifacts produced by state governance in the wake of COVID-19 and the way they communicate certain perceptions of teachers and the work of teaching. The third study returns to teacher responses to inquire about their perceptions of the state educational agency’s level of support and policy developed during the pandemic. As such, this third study demonstrates the teacher demoralization that results from the lack of inclusion of teachers’ voices in decision-making forums and the disconnect between policy and teachers’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Together these studies reflect that the COVID-19 pandemic has further underscored the gap between the individuals in the classroom and those in decision-making forums. As such, it has revealed the need for a more detailed understanding of the commitments that teachers juggle at the classroom level in order to better align policy, research, and state and national responses with the daily needs of students and teachers.

Cette thèse explore l'élargissement du champ d’analyse de la science économique hors de ses frontières traditionnelles, vers l’étude de phénomènes aussi divers que la discrimination, le comportement politique ou encore les comportements familiaux. Nous soutenons qu’une telle évolution s’accompagna de l’élargissement du domaine d’intervention de l’Etat aux Etats-Unis à partir de la deuxième moitié des années 1940, qui stimula l’émergence de questions « aux frontières » des sciences sociales. Ainsi, la perception de ce qui relève de l’économique, du social ou du politique s’en trouva brouillée. En retour, ces évolutions favorisèrent le franchissement des barrières disciplinaires par les économistes. Nous identifions trois étapes distinctes dans l’évolution du champ d’analyse de la science économique. Premièrement, dans un contexte marqué par la Guerre Froide, les économistes s’intéressèrent aux questions relevant du domaine traditionnel de la science politique, telles que celles du choix collectif. Deuxièmement, a partir du début des années 1960, mais surtout durant le mandat de Lyndon Johnson, les économistes s’intéressèrent progressivement à l’étude des problèmes sociaux en lien avec la notion de pauvreté, tels que la discrimination, l’éducation, le crime ou encore la santé. Enfin, dans les années 1970, le dernier stade de l’évolution des frontières de la science économique fut marqué par la disparition progressive de barrières thématiques a priori. Forts du succès de leurs analyses du politique et du social, certains économistes défendirent l’idée que leur discipline n’était plus définie par un domaine d’analyse, mais par ses outils. / This thesis studies the expansion of the scope of economics to the study of phenomena traditionally considered to lie outside of the domain of economics. We claim that such a development came with the expansion of the domain of government intervention from the late 1940s on, which raised interdisciplinary questions. What was considered to be “economic”, “social” or “political” phenomena evolved and blurred. In return, this stimulated economists to overstep the traditional disciplinary boundaries. We identify three steps in the expansion of the scope of economics. First, in the context of the Cold War society, economists progressively studied political phenomena such as the problem of collective choice. Second, in the 1960s, and more precisely during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, economists became progressively interested in the study of social problems related to the notion of poverty, such as discrimination, education, crime or public health. Finally, in the 1970s, the last step of the development of the scope of economics was characterized by the progressive fading of any a priori disciplinary boundaries. Vindicated by the success of their economic approach to political and social phenomena, some economists argued that their discipline was not defined by its field of analysis, but rather by its tools.

No description available.

We begin with a short analysis of the history of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). We then discuss the merits and demerits of the regime, such as the arguments between finality, speediness, and correctness. Following from this, historical reforms are discussed, and whether those issues have gotten worse or better since these discussions. The modern problems are discussed, leading to the explanation of the “legitimacy crisis”. As Appellate Mechanisms (AM) and Investment Court Systems (ICS) both propose multi layered systems, we argue whether ISDS must be a “one bite at the apple” system. We expand on the issues of regulatory chill, before showing the contradictions in the granting of awards. From this, a discussion is raised on the advantages of a tenured system of adjudicators, particularly in reference to their apparent bias. We delve deeper into the direct consequences of the perceived issues of ISDS, in the context of human rights, the environment, and other issues of sovereignty.As more reforms are suggested, the question of “what makes arbitration, arbitration?” is raised. From here, we may begin to suggest reforms based on which key factors are to be preserved. Firstly, we discuss current reform options, such as the Mauritius Convention. We take inspiration from existing AM, and prior discussions on the implementation of such a system across the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) frameworks. We analyse whether these discussions have led to change by comparing trends in drafting.Thereon, we offer suggestions of reform. ICS and how this would be implemented, what it would look like structurally, and its positive and negative effects. Using the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and other contemporary ICS reform suggestions, we gain some knowledge of what an ICS regime could and should look like, the implementation of AM previously discussed in this regime, and other. Finally, we offer a different solution to the problems, yet less pragmatic, the termination of arbitration.