Date of Publication:
Cynthia Hawkins DeBose, Book Review, Christine R. Barker, Elizabeth A. Kirk, & Monica Sah (Eds.), Gender Perceptions and the Law, 9 Law & Pol'y Book Reviews 288 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Peter Lake, The Rise of Duty and the Fall of In Loco Parentis and Other Protective Tort Doctrines in Higher Education Law, 64 Mo. L. Rev. 1 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Review of Jan de Groof and Hilde Penneman (eds.), The Legal Status of Pupils in Europe, 24 Educ. L. Rev. 208 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, You Done Good, Kid, 28 Stetson L. Rev. 1009 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Infant Class Sizes in the New Admissions Framework: A Devolution of Power, 11 Educ. & L. 253 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
It was one of the major planks of the Blair government's legislative programme that it would set a limit on school class sizes for the youngest children. Whilst the objective of reducing class sizes no doubt has much to recommend it from the point of view of raising educational standards, it is also inevitable that parental choice of school, already emasculated, will be limited even further. It is particularly likely to be borne out in practice wherever governing bodies and Head Teachers are insufficiently aware of the ramifications of all the other rules and regulations enacted alongside the '30 pupil' limit. Nevertheless, it will be argued in this essay that, if Head Teachers and governing bodies are prepared to persevere with the small print of the Act and the extraordinarily convoluted regulations and departmental Codes of Practice, circulars and guidance issued along with it, then there is a case for saying that the new infant class size limit can - when coupled with other changes in the law introduced by SSFA 1998 - sometimes be used as a tool both to increase the devolution of power down to individual schools and to improve parental choice.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Academic Judgement, the University Visitor and the Human Rights Act 1998, 11 Educ. & L. 165 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Students have proved increasingly willing to challenge academic judgements in court, and the passage into English law of the Human Rights Act 1998 is likely to have a major bearing on future challenges. The Act will make it unlawful for a public authority (including both a university and the courts) to act in a way which is incompatible with many of the provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights (and the Protocols attaching thereto). It will also permit a victim of such unlawfulness to bring proceedings in an appropriate court or tribunal, whether in the High Court as part of an application for judicial review or as an ordinary civil action for negligence or breach of contract. The court will have the power to grant whatever remedy it considers to be just and equitable, including an award of damages where it feels such an award to be appropriate. This could have significant consequences for the use of the Visitor in chartered universities as the final arbiter in disputes over academic judgments. For the Visitor does not conduct hearings in public and often fails to follow any recognised procedure. It may even be doubted whether the Visitor can be said to be truly independent of the institution against whose decision the student is appealing. In future, therefore, universities may have to be prepared to justify any marks awarded in the public forum of the courtroom.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Casting Aside the Tulloch Rule, reprint, 10 Environmental Litigation Committee Newsletter 11 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
James W. Fox, Citizenship, Poverty, and Federalism: 1787-1882, 60 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 421 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Casting Aside the Tulloch Rule, 20 Nat'l Wetlands Newsletter 5 (1998)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Cynthia Hawkins DeBose, The Socratic Method-Problem Method Dichotomy: The Debate over Teaching Method Continues, 1998 BYU Educ. & L.J. 1 (1998)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article examines the positive and negative attributes of the two primary teaching methods used in law school classrooms -- namely, the Socratic Method and the Problem Method. It addresses in particular the questions of whether there is benefit to teaching law by the Problem Method rather than the time honored Socratic Method; and whether there is some combination of the two methods that would be most appropriate. The author argues that a combination of the two, with a strong emphasis on the Problem Method, will better prepare law students for the legal environment they will enter after law school. Law schools need to graduate students who not only “think like lawyers” but who are able to “perform like lawyers.” The author concludes that by implementing more of the Problem Method in first-year and other doctrinal courses -- along with an increased emphasis on skills-based and clinical courses -- law schools can create an overall curriculum that better prepares students to practice law.