The purpose of this paper is to clarify how scholars have argued for parental rights to home schooling, and to critique issues of previous arguments. Parental rights of home schooling, though guaranteed by statute in all the states today, have not been established in the courts. This is largely influenced by Wisconsin v. Yoder, a landmark case among the decisions related to home schooling. According to this decision, when parents claim an exemption from the compulsory school-attendance law, they must demonstrate that the action is their exercise of the constitutional rights as parents and that the related interests of the law are sustained substantially. In addition, the decision by the Yoder Court also assumes that only parents like the Amish, whose children have completed the eighth grade, can accomplish these demonstrations. Scholars arguing for parental rights to home schooling criticize this assumption through the following arguments. Concerning the Constitutional rights of parents, there are two arguments. First, when parents are motivated religiously, parental rights to home schooling should be protected as the exercise of freedom of religion under the First Amendment. This argument is based on those court decisions that refer to actions protected under the First Amendment. Second, the rights of all parents to home schooling should be protected as the exercise of freedom of conscience or that of privacy under the First and Ninth Amendments. This argument assumes home schooling is the exercise of school choice, based on criticisms to Yoder Court interpretation of parental rights protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Concerning the related interests of the compulsory school-attendance law, first, the arguments based on Yoder and Parham v. J. R., deny the necessity of balancing parental interests with the children's own interests. Second, they hold that the related interests of the state be fulfilled in all grade levels of home schooling by standardized achievement tests requirements to assure that children are taught a basic education. But if home schooling in which parental decisions about education are respected as a whole is admitted by these arguments, the duty and the limitation of rights based on parental values are imposed not on the parents themselves but on the children. According to the Yoder Court and these arguments, assuming that parental interests are surely harmonious with children's, the diversity of education should be preserved for parents. There may be a danger of affirming an exclusive assimilation in the community or in the family, although they may also criticize the standardization of public education. The diversity provided through home schooling, based on the consideration on court laws and academic arguments, does not necessarily preserve diversity for children.

抄録全体を表示

症例は20代女性．外陰部発生の類上皮肉腫で術後経過観察中であった．2013年に左気胸を発症し保存的加療で軽快したが2014年に再度左気胸を発症した．CTで両側肺野に薄壁空洞性病変を認め左肺部分切除術を施行した．病理検査で類上皮肉腫肺転移の診断を得た．他部位の薄壁空洞性病変も類上皮肉腫肺転移を疑い右肺下葉部分切除術および左肺S6区域切除術を施行した．病理検査にて同様の所見であった．類上皮肉腫は稀な軟部腫瘍でありしばしば肺転移をきたすとされるが，本邦において転移巣が薄壁空洞を形成した報告は少ない．また転移巣により続発性気胸をきたした報告も少なく，その機序も明らかではない．本例は，腫瘍によるチェックバルブ機構により空洞病変の形成および続発性気胸をきたしたと考えられた．類上皮肉腫肺転移による続発性気胸をきたした稀な1例を経験したので報告する．

抄録全体を表示

The purposes of this paper are to examine the changes of the Texas public school teacher's tenure and to discuss procedures and causes required for teacher dismissal and nonrenewal. Before the 1960's, all teachers in Texas were employed under term contract with local boards, which had exclusive statutory authority to hire and dismiss teachers. The vast majority of teachers in Texas had been hired on one-year term contracts that were renewed annually. But in 1967 the legislature adopted the probationary and continuing contract law as set forth in Texas Education Code § 13. 101 et seq. and in 1981 the Term Contract Nonrenewal Act as set forth in Texas Education Code § 21. 201 et seq., so that teacher status would be guaranteed. Now, there are two types of contractual relationships with teachers in Texas: "term contract" and "continuing contract." School districts may choose one of the two types. In the probationary and continuing contract school districts, a newly employed teacher is on probationary status during the first three, or in a special case four, years of teaching and then the teacher will obtain continuing contract status. When continuing contract status is obtained, the employment relationship automatically continues without the necessity of nomination and school board approval. The probationary and continuing contract law spells out procedures for a notice and a hearing, which must be followed in the dismissal of a teacher. It also requires good and just causes for dismissal of probationary or continuing contract teachers. In the term contract school districts, a teacher's term contract is automatically renewed unless the district initiates nonrenewal procedures pursuant to the Term Contract Nonrenewal Act in a timely manner. The Act further requires the district to adopt policies establising the reasons that will support a decision not to renew a teacher's employment at the end of a contract term. In addition, the Act establishes procedures for nonre-newal decisions of teachers. The findings of this study are as follows: Teacher dismissal or nonre-newal procedures and causes are set forth in law, so that school boards in Texas cannot absolutely dismiss or not renew a techer. Teachers are entitled to a hearing and an appeal pursuant to the procedure set forth in law and are not dismissed or nonrenewed except for good and just causes. We can thus conclude that in the teacher's dismissal or nonrenewal clear standards of causes and procedures are necessary.

抄録全体を表示