The purpose of this study was to determine the level of satisfaction of selected teacher spokespersons toward Indiana Public Law 217, the collective bargaining law for teachers.A survey instrument consisting of forty-six items in five Likert-response categories was mailed to 125 randomly selected teacher spokespersons in Indiana. Space was provided for respondents to write comments or rationale for their answers. Fifty-seven teacher spokespersons responded to the survey.The following rank order was utilized for each of the sections of Indiana Public j 217 ranging from (5) highly dissatisfied, (4) somewhat dissatisfied, (3) neutral, (2) somewhat satisfied to (1) highly satisfied based on the mean scores.Findings1. Selected teacher spokespersons rated four section items between 4.00 and 5.00.2. Of the forty-six section items that were surveyed, seventeen sections were rated between 3.00 and 3.99.3. Negotiators for the teachers ranked seventeen sections of Indiana Public L&7_ between 2.00 and 2.99.4. Eight section items were rated between 1.00 and 1.99 by the teacher spokesperson.Conclusions1. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the inability to strike and the penalities for unlawful strikes.2. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the procedures and restrictions governing bargaining and discussions.3. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the provisions and procedures of fact-finding, arbitration and maintaining a status quo contract.4. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the sections of the law dealing with the rights of the employer5. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the stated intent of the law.6. Teacher spokespersons were dissatisfied with the structure and powers of the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board.7. Teacher spokespersons were satisfied with the definitions of certificated employees and exclusive representative.8. Teacher spokespersons were satisfied with the procedures of unfair practices as stated in the law.9. Teacher spokesperson were satisfied with the procedures of dues deductions as stated in the law.

Typescript. / Bibliography: leaves 175-180. / Photocopy. / Microfilm. / xii, 180 leaves, bound ill. 29 cm

This thesis deals largely with the history of teacher retirement in California. It covers the period from the class of the Civil War to June 30, 1957. Some background data were developed in the early American history of teacher retirement in order to understand better the early conditions in California. The ultimate objective of the study is to show that California laws as they exist today are the results of continuous action for improvement of teachers’ retirement. This has been done by reviewing several areas of retirement history. These are mainly the area of mutual aid societies, early retirement legislation in the United States, early California history of teacher retirement, the progress of California teacher retirement legislations from 1895 through the legislative section of 1957, and the attitudes and actions of governors, legislators, professional organizations, and individuals as they influenced the changes in retirement practices.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to examine and analyze federal and Virginia statutes along with selected state and federal court decisions which govern the legal rights and responsibilities of educators in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the areas of 1) liability; 2) terms of employment; 3) legal relationships with students; and 4) legal responsibilities to students with disabilities. The legal resources for this study were the United States Constitution; the Code of Virginia; other federal and Virginia legislation; and Virginia and federal judicial opinions. The methods of research employed in this study were the "descriptive word" or "fact word" approach and the case method. The computer-assisted legal research services, Lexis and Westlaw, were used extensively in this study. The conclusions resulting from this study are as follows: 1) The doctrine of sovereign immunity absolutely protects Virginia school boards and administrators from liability for negligence. Virginia teachers are also protected by sovereign immunity but only for acts of simple negligence. Sovereign immunity does not bar Virginia's teachers from actions involving gross negligence and does not protect school districts and school personnel for constitutional torts. 2. To obtain employment in Virginia, an educator must hold a license issued by the State Board of Education, pass a professional teachers' examination and execute a written contract with the school board. To obtain continuing contract status in Virginia, educators must serve a three-year probationary period in the same school division. Virginia educators may be dismissed, suspended or placed on probation for cause. 3. School age children are mandated to attend school in Virginia. Local school boards possess statutory authority to employ reasonable measures to maintain discipline in the schools. Virginia students may be suspended or expelled provided they receive procedural due process. Students possess constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 4. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandates that students with disabilities be provided a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The IDEA and Virginia regulations governing special education outline comprehensive and detailed procedural requirements guaranteeing the rights of parents of children with disabilities. / Ed. D.

This study has provided an up-to-date source of information for North Carolina public school teachers to help them understand the sources of school law, the legal basis for education, the system of state and federal courts, and their rights and responsibilities. Appropriate federal and state judicial decisions, federal and state constitutional law, state statutes, State Board of Education policies, and the opinions of the Attorney General have been analyzed to determine legal principles in the following areas: 1. constitutional rights of teachers as a public school employee and a private citizen which included the areas of freedom of speech and expression; academic freedom, freedom of religion; private life; personal appearance; loyalty; 2. terms and conditions of employment which included certification, tenure, teacher's duties, due process for tenured teachers, procedural rights for nontenured teachers, dismissal for cause; and the 3. teacher's liability for students. Tort liability included strict liability; the intentional torts of assault and battery, defamation, and false imprisonment; the unintentional tort of negligence and its elements and defenses; educational malpractice; governmental immunity; and students' records. Of particular concern were assault and battery and child abuse cases as related to corporal punishment, the use of qualified privilege as a defense in defamation, and the option provided by the legislature for school boards to waive governmental immunity. North Carolina courts have determined that the fundamental principle of negligence cases in North Carolina is foreseeability of harm. As a result of this study, it has been recommended that the study be updated on an ongoing basis to maintain an up-to-date source of legal information for North Carolina teachers. ln addition, a similar study has been recommended for other states. lt was further recommended that a study examine the developing case law in educational malpractice along with state legal restrictions which interfere with good educational practices. / Ed. D. / incomplete_metadata

M.Ed. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

No description available.

Please read the abstract in the section 00front of this document / Thesis (PhD (Education Management))--University of Pretoria, 2002. / Education Management and Policy Studies / unrestricted