No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

There is no abstract available for this dissertation.

The primary purpose of the study was to determine the public school curricula, kindergarten through grade twelve, as mandated by the legislature in each of fifty states as of July 1, 1988. A secondary purpose of the study was to determine trends that may be evident through a comparison of the findings of the study with the findings of two earlier studies, the Marconnit study (1966/67) and the Berry study (1977/78). Like the two earlier studies, statutes pertaining to mandated curriculum for each of the fifty states were utilized as the source of the findings.To accomplish the stated purposes, nine questions were posed to serve as the basis of research for the study. The nine questions addressed the following topics: (1) subjects of required instruction, (2) grade levels of instruction, (3) time allotted to instruction, (4) performance objectives associated with a subject, (5) presentation of detailed subject content, (6) geographic, population, or state admittance patterns associated with the subjects, (7) subject related requirements which are unique to individual states, (8) states which have granted complete control of the curriculum to another state entity, and (9) trends which were evident from a comparison of the study findings with the findings of Marconnit (1966/67) and Berry (1977/78).Three hundred ninety-seven subjects were identified in the study. Marconnit (1966/67) identified ninety-nine subjects and Berry (1977/78) identified one hundred ninety-nine subjects. An increase in the number of states specifying grade levels, time allotments, performance objectives, and subject content was also noted. Unlike the two earlier studies, four subjects, government, health, safety education, and fire prevention, were observed to be associated with particular geographic regions. Two hundred thirty-seven subjects were identified as being unique to individual states. Only one state, Montana, was identified as having granted control of the curriculum to another state entity. In comparing the findings of the three studies, the number of subjects contained within six of seven subject categories increased. The six subject categories were: government; economics and geography; basic skills and language; mathematics and science; health, physical education, and safety; and miscellaneous subjects. Only the subject category related to the arts remained relatively constant. / Department of Educational Administration and Supervision

The problem was to determine the public school curriculum as currently mandated by each of the fifty states. The study was confined to those mandates regarding the public school curriculum as of December 1976. Only the curriculum as pertains to the public schools from kindergarten through grade twelve were made a part of the study. A compilation of each curriculum, statute was made of the fifty states. Each state was listed in alphabetical order with the statutes pertaining to the mandatory curriculum. The collection of statutes served as the basis for the study of patterns that existed between the states. The data were treated graphically and also listed by individual states.A review of the literature showed that the United States Constitution does not contain a reference to education. The state power to prescribe curriculum was interpreted to come from provisions included in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Education has been a state function and is mentioned in every state constitution. State legislatures have had plenary power to prescribe both the type and content of curriculum to be used in the public schools.The report of findings included one hundred ninety-nine subjects and represents the subjects mandated to be taught and/or studied within at least one state of the fifty states. From twopercent to sixty-six percent of the states had legislation requiring instruction in each of the subject areas.The findings were organized under seven categories:(1) Subjects Related to Government, (2) Subjects Related to Economics and Geography, (3) Subjects Related to Basic Skills and Language, (4) Subjects Related to the Arts, (5) Subjects Related to Mathematics and Science, (6) Subjects Related to Health, Physical Education and Safety, and (7) Miscellaneous Subjects. Within each of the seven categories were placed all subjects mandated to be taught and/or studied in the public schools. The report of each mandated subject contained the name of the legislating state, the grade or grade level, requirements peculiar to each state, the actual content of subject matter when listed, the amount of time devoted to the subject if specified, and a graphical treatment of the prescribed subjects.Practices of legislatures have caused ambiguity. Mandates have been made requiring a subject title to be taught or studied without prescribing content. States have required examinations be given concerning a subject title but did not specify how extensive the examinations were to be. Of the one hundred ninety-nine subjects prescribed, eighty-five subjects were required by but a single state. The eighty-five subjects represent unique requirements for the particular states. The total requirements of each state is different from the total requirements of all others.

Typescript. / Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1975. / Bibliography: leaves 340-353. / xii, 353 leaves

Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 143-156). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Inaug.-diss.--Königsberg. / Lebenslauf. "Verzeichnis der benutzten bücher und schriften": p. i-iv.

Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is threefold. First, it carries out an assessment on the extent to which takeovers impact on the interests of employees, suppliers and senior management. Second, the primacy enjoyed by shareholders during takeovers is subject to scrutiny to determine whether their decision making powers can be rightly exercised to the detriment of the target company and its non-shareholding stakeholders post-takeover. This would determine whether calls to reform Rule 21 of the Takeover Code 2013 (the board neutrality rule) are justified. Third, in light of the empirical evidence carried out and findings from two case studies (Corus Steel and Cadbury), two reform proposals (the board-centric model and disenfranchisement of short-term shareholders’ voting rights) are critically examined. The aim is to find the most appropriate way of reforming the board neutrality rule, taking into consideration the opinions of the business community and academics, in order to offer more protection to employees, senior management and creditors’ interests during takeovers. Design/Methodology/Approach: This is a legal study that encompasses theoretical and empirical analysis of takeovers and their relationship with society and the state in a rapidly changing social and commercial landscape. It also assesses the experience of those affected by the process of law, for example employees who may find themselves disadvantaged by the operation of shareholder primacy during takeovers. Legal research has its theoretical and methodological base primarily in social sciences and this is why methodologies used in this study such as case study analysis and theoretical conceptualisations are mainly empirical and social-theoretical. Doctrinal analysis is also relied on when analysing case law and forms part of the wider discussion. Case studies on two formerly British companies (Corus Steel and Cadbury) which were taken over by foreign companies are also used. A case study methodology was selected, after considering all alternative methods, because it traces an event from its initiation until its completion and even beyond, in the process mapping all the important developments. For both Cadbury and Corus, the method helped to highlight how the takeovers impacted on the interests of employees, senior management and suppliers, and the predatory role played by arbitrageurs (short-term investors) during the offer period. Findings: Based on the findings from Cadbury and Corus case studies and the study as a whole, takeovers have an adverse impact on the interests of employees, senior management and suppliers while the target company’s shareholders stand to earn a premium on their shares. A sign of a takeover pulls arbitrageurs to buy the target company’s shares, no matter how inflated, in hope of a takeover deal. Since the decision making powers during takeovers lie in the hands of target company shareholders, they are unlikely to turn down a premium offer, regardless of the impact it may have on the interests of non-shareholding stakeholders such as employees. Both existing empirical studies and case studies on Cadbury and Corus showed that takeovers have a detrimental effect on the interests of non-shareholding stakeholders post-takeover. In light of these findings, two alternative regulatory models were considered: (1) disenfranchisement of short-term shareholders’ voting rights; and (2) adoption of a board-centric model of takeover regulation such as the Delaware model. After critically examining the two models, there was insufficient evidence to justify a fundamental change of UK takeover regulation to either model. A more appropriate solution was to give incentives to shareholders to think and act long-term such as strengthening the stewardship responsibilities under the Stewardship Code 2012. Originality/Value: This study contributes to a growing body of research on shareholder primacy under takeover law by providing empirical evidence on the relationship between takeovers and the impact on the interests of non-shareholding stakeholders. It also examines the role played by short-term shareholders in exercising their decision making powers during the offer period and considers specific reform proposals. This study aims to provoke legal reform that would lead to more protection for non-shareholding stakeholders during takeovers. Thus, this study will inform the academic and business community as well as policy makers in the UK on the impact of takeovers on company constituents post-takeover and the way forward in protecting non-shareholding stakeholders’ interests from potentially harmful takeovers.