Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oklahoma, 1993. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 130-134).

Thesis (LL.M.) -- University of Adelaide, Dept. of Law, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 220-229).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2008. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 46-48).

Section 16 A (2) (d), (e) and (f) of the South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996 assumes that a school principal has specialised knowledge in interpreting legislation, dealing with disciplinary matters pertaining to learners, educators and support staff, and making disciplinary decisions. The legal framework of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000, as well as section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, affects disciplinary decision making in education. The need to understand how legislation affects disciplinary decision making is important, because s ection 16 A of the South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996 assumes that education managers have the requisite knowledge and understanding of the law when dealing with disciplinary decision making. Disciplinary decisions taken by education managers fall in the domain of administrative law. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000, forms the foundation for administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and fair. Since this Act is relatively new, and education managers have a lack of education law knowledge in general, it can be argued that principals might struggle to take disciplinary decisions that are lawful, reasonable and fair. Thus, there is a need to answer the following question: What are the legal requirements that should be considered in taking disciplinary decisions that are lawful, reasonable and fair and how can these disciplinary decisions be made more effectively? The purpose of the study was to understand the context and content of Section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000, and Section 16A of the Schools Act , Act 84 of 1996 and how they would positively influence disciplinary decision making in South African education. The main research question was: What are the legal requirements that should be considered in taking disciplinary decisions that are lawful, reasonable and fair and how can these disciplinary decisions be made more effectively? Chapter 2 answered the research question of which decision-making processes could assist the education manager to take disciplinary decisions that are lawful, reasonable and fair. It was established that principals make frequent use of the rational model for decision making. However, the more comprehensive data-driven decision-making model was proposed. This not only focuses on a single disciplinary decision, but on the cause and trends of all transgressions that exist in a school. This model enables a principal to draw up a plan of action to deal with the cause of the problem. After analysing the applicable legal framework, the concepts of lawful, reasonable, and fair were defined and interpreted in Chapter 3. An administrative action is lawful when an administrator is duly authorised by law to exercise power. Reasonableness has two elements, namely rationality and proportionality. Rationality means that evidence and information should support a decision an administrator takes, while the purpose of rationality is to avoid an imbalance between the adverse and beneficial effects. The approach to fairness has changed since the pre-democratic era. The main components that are linked to procedural fairness are the common-law principles of audi alteram partem, and nemo iudex in sua causa. The qualitative approach was followed in this study to shed light on the perceptions of the participants on the meaning of the legal concepts of lawful, reasonable, and fair in disciplinary decision making, and their understanding of the legal framework of this study. Furthermore, this study sought answers to which decision-making processes could assist the education manager, as well as to the advantages of having a disciplinary coordinator to assist education managers in making lawful, reasonable and fair disciplinary decisions. Convenience and purposeful sampling was used because the schools were conveniently located. Four secondary school principals in Cape Town were chosen, as well as two officials from the Western Cape Department of Education. The reason for purposive sampling was that two of the four schools that were selected had to have a discipline coordinator. Semi-structured interviews were held with the abovementioned principals and officials to answer the main research question. The following information emerged from the semi-structured interviews which were incorporated in the data-driven, decision-making model of school improvement. Some of the findings were: i. Animosity exists between some school principals and the Western Cape Education Department (WCED). There is a lack of communication between the WCED and principals, as well as a lack of training on disciplinary decision making. ii. It was also established that principals made common mistakes related to the interpretation of legislation or applicable regulations. iii. A good practice emanating from the study is a paper trail of all interventions kept by schools. iv. Principals tend to use only the South African Schools Act as a legal framework for disciplinary decision making. v. Principals need to focus on strategies to address the link between bad behaviour and poor academic performance. vi. A discipline coordinator can assist the principal in maintaining discipline, investigating transgressions, organising disciplinary hearings, and in disciplinary decision making. Decision making, lawfulness, reasonableness, and fairness were combined in this research to establish the legal requirements that should be considered in taking disciplinary decisions that are lawful, reasonable and fair, and how these disciplinary decisions can be more effective for the sole purpose of school improvement. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / tm2015 / Education Management and Policy Studies / PhD / Unrestricted

Problem-based Learning: Legal Education for the 21th Century Abstract The ever-faster changing modern society results in dynamic transformation of law. Some phenomena as use of technology, liberalization of legal services or globalization of market shapes the reality of legal profession in unprecedented way. Such a turbulent process challenges law schools struggling to prepare students for the future of legal profession. As functioning democracy and the rule of law depends significantly on the work of legal professions (as judges, legislators, solicitors or human-rights lawyers) there is a concern of the whole society in the quality of legal education. However, as a result of change, tasks, skills and knowledge required from the graduates now can significantly differ from what is expected in the future. Therefore, it is argued the skills as adaptability, independence and ability to learn are becoming the crucial competencies to develop among students. Once acknowledged by the law schools there is still a question to be discussed: How? The text examines problem-based Learning as possibly a more effective tool to prepare students for the uncertain future of legal professionals opposing the traditional approach to legal education. Problem- based Learning as other educational approaches based on constructivism...

臺灣位於東亞，不論由其人口結構及歷史背景，臺灣的法律制度即以傳統中國法律制度為主體，並內化於臺灣人民生活之中。然自十九世紀末以來，臺灣之法律制度由殖民之日本政府及後來之中華民國政府強勢引進近代西方之法律制度，臺灣的法律制度亦逐漸由傳統中國法律制度改以近代西方法律制度所取代 。然傳統東亞的法律觀向來將法律視為統治之工具，而人民亦將法律視為遵守之準則，至於法律本身之意涵或精神似乎即無人關心，臺灣雖引進近代西方法律制度，然即有上該之問題。另外近代西方法律制度與本土的傳統中國法律制度有極大之差距，導致形式之法律與內化之法文化有極大之落差，則如何將形式之法律落實於生活及內化於臺灣人民心中，在臺灣即為不容忽視之一重要問題。又臺灣自西元1987年解除戒嚴以來，不論於政治、社會或教育之環境，均產生劇烈之變化，簡而言之即政府對人民之箝制愈來愈寬鬆，政治朝向民主化。但民主社會下，臺灣社會卻讓人有紊亂、淺層民主之疑惑，許多人即發現問題似乎在於所謂民主基石之法治在臺灣尚未落實，而法治社會建立之急切性亦足顯示法治教育之重要性。 然臺灣之官方法治教育於解嚴後，似乎並沒有真正跟上其民主之進程，理論與實際操作之落差，亦衍生臺灣法治教育之現場問題叢生，官方或將法治教育簡略為所謂之犯罪預防教育或法條背誦教育。民間團體之領導人，此包括法律界、家長甚至第一線教學現場之教師，亦逐漸發現此中重要之問題，而積極向美日等國取經，希冀從外國之經驗，改變臺灣法治教育之現狀。本研究試圖從臺灣法制文化背景、解嚴後臺灣大環境之變化分析中，以釐清法治教育對臺灣之重要性；並從解嚴後臺灣法治教育不論由官方或民間之變革中，透過文獻探討、比較分析及深度訪談之方式，提出有關臺灣法治教育現況問題之所在、應變革之方向及建議，以期對臺灣法治教育的未來有些許之助益，並衷心期待二十一世紀之臺灣擁有健全的公民社會，並成為一個真正民主法治的國家。

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 46-48).

This research aims to understand what is being produced on the accessibility for individuals with disabilities in higher education of Universidade Federal de Santa Maria UFSM, in the period 2007 to 2010, in the official documents submitted by federal prosecutors (MPF) to UFSM and what it was answered by that educational institution. Given this, it is proposed to qualitative research, being used content analysis as methodology. The official referrals were analyzed from three categories: legal developments, university environment and accessibility in relation to MPF and UFSM. The questions that guided this study sought to understand, basically, what these documents have on accessibility policy in the academic context, particularly the speech of each of the institutions (MPF and UFSM). To familiarize the reader in analyzing the results and discussion were elaborated three theoretical chapters, the first being: The Brazilian constitution and the processes of in-exclusion, with the lifting of the processes of inclusion and exclusion in the constitutions of Brazil, in collaboration with Alves; Barbosa, 2006; Cury, 2005; Duarte, 2004; Fávero, 2007; Marquezan, 2009; Mazzotta, 2005; Pinto, 1999; Pieczkowski, 2011; Santos, 2009; Teixeira, 2008; Veiga Neto, 2001, and others. The second chapter: Accessibility policy in the context of UFSM presents the institution context and its policy of accessibility, with the support of Castro, 2010; Cruz; Dias, 2009; Glat; Blanco, 2007; Guerreiro; Almeida, 2010; Moreira, 2006; Pereira, 2006; Sassaki, 2005; Watzlawick, 2009, and others, and finally, the chapter: The education and their protection by federal prosecutors that displays the MPF, its role as guarantor of the right to education and tools to enforce this guarantee, with Boaventura, 2005; Chizotti, 2005; Lima, 2007; Silveira, 2007; Oliveira, 1995; Tessmann; Sangoi, 2009, and others. The results indicate the production of the accessibility for the MPF, the architectural bias, based on the discourse of Law and UFSM, for carrying out communication actions, attitudes and pedagogic. / Esta pesquisa visa a compreender o que está sendo produzido sobre acessibilidade para os sujeitos com deficiência na educação superior da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, no período de 2007 a 2010, nos documentos oficiais encaminhados pelo Ministério Público Federal à UFSM e o que foi respondido a este pela referida instituição educacional. Diante disto, propõe-se a pesquisa de cunho qualitativo, sendo utilizada como metodologia a análise de conteúdo. Os encaminhamentos oficiais foram analisados a partir de três categorias: desdobramentos jurídicos, acessibilidade no ambiente universitário e relação MPF e UFSM. Os questionamentos que nortearam este estudo buscaram compreender, basicamente, o que estes documentos produzem sobre acessibilidade no contexto acadêmico; particularmente, o discurso de cada uma das instituições (MPF e UFSM). Para familiarizar o leitor na análise dos resultados e discussão, foram elaborados três capítulos teóricos, sendo o primeiro: As constituições brasileiras e os processos de in-exclusão, com o levantamento dos processos de inclusão e exclusão nas constituições brasileiras, com a colaboração de Alves; Barbosa, 2006; Cury, 2005; Duarte, 2004; Fávero, 2007; Marquezan, 2009; Mazzotta, 2005; Pinto, 1999; Pieczkowski, 2011; Santos, 2009; Teixeira, 2008; Veiga Neto, 2001 e outros. O segundo capítulo: Política de acessibilidade no contexto da UFSM apresenta a instituição e a contextualização de sua política de acessibilidade, com o auxílio de Castro, 2010; Cruz; Dias, 2009; Glat; Blanco, 2007; Guerreiro; Almeida, 2010; Moreira, 2006; Pereira, 2006; Sassaki, 2005; Watzlawick, 2009 e outros e, por último, o capítulo: A educação e sua proteção pelo Ministério Público Federal que apresenta o MPF, sua função como garantidor do direito à educação e instrumentos para efetivar esta garantia, contando com Boaventura, 2005; Chizotti, 2005; Lima, 2007; Silveira, 2007; Oliveira, 1995; Tessmann Sangoi, 2009 e outros. Os resultados apontam a produção de acessibilidade pelo MPF, pelo viés arquitetônico, fundamentado no discurso da legislação e, a UFSM, pela realização de ações de comunicação, atitudinais e pedagógicas.

Univ., Diss.--Münster.