Legal Education Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Legal Education Review |
|
THE GROWTH OF LEGAL EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIAN SECONDARY
SCHOOLS: IMPLICATIONS FOR TERTIARY AND SECONDARY LEGAL EDUCATION
MARLENE LE BRUN AND EUGENE E CLARK*
INTRODUCTION
The success and popularity of various law-related
education programs in secondary schools is evident again in the recent formal
introduction
of legal studies into the school systems in Queensland and New
South Wales. Law-related education is not a new idea in Australia,
however. In
some Australian states, particularly Victoria and Tasmania, legal studies
programs have grown and apparently flourished.
In this article we argue that
it is time for a review of law-related education. Such a review is especially
useful to school systems,
such as those in Queensland, embarking on a program of
law-related education and provides a foundation for the further development
of
existing school programs. Moreover, much can be learned by tertiary educators
from an examination of the legal studies programs
in various states: it can be
used to establish and strengthen the links between tertiary and secondary levels
of legal education
and build upon the foundation of legal knowledge acquired by
students in schools prior to their entry to the study of law at universities
and
colleges. In addition, as educators in tertiary institutions we should be aware
and begin to consider how the completion of law-related
courses before higher
education admission may affect the curriculum taught and pedagogical approaches
adopted in first year law study
at tertiary level.
In this article we
briefly address the development of law-related education in secondary schools.
We discuss the rationale behind
the development of legal studies courses and
focus on the program in Tasmania, one of the first states to institute legal
studies
at matriculation level. We also draw upon our own
experiencesl in teaching introductory courses in law at
both tertiary and secondary levels and reflect on our research and committee
work with
curricula for Legal Studies and for Introduction to Law, offered to
prospective law students at the University of Tasmania. In addition
we outline
the approaches adopted, the materials developed and our thoughts on ways to
facilitate cooperation between tertiary and
secondary levels of legal education.
WHY TEACH LEGAL STUDIES?
We are informed by the Rev. A. Hawkins Jones, of Bedford (who is a graduate in law as well as a clerk in orders), that the experiment of teaching law in a public school has been tried with considerable success. A class was formed ... to hear a course of lectures on the Elements of the Law of Contract. Ninety boys attended, and the results were such, ... that ... fully half of them had followed the lectures with satisfactory intelligence. This confirms the truth of what Mr. Justice Stephen and others have for many years insisted upon — that the law is in itself a deeply interesting subject, and in order to be generally recognised as such, only needs to be put before people in the right way.2
An underlying assumption of the importance of law-related education is that the law itself will improve if individuals feel some responsibility for it and understand its content. As Justice Michael Kirby notes,
an informed people, instructed broadly in their basic legal rights and duties and with knowledge of their government and legal institutions, will be more likely to support those laws and institutions than a people kept in ignorance.3
Both the rationale of the Queensland and New South Wales’ syllabuses as well as the aims and objectives of the Tasmanian curriculum reflect this educational philosophy: these courses are not designed solely with the prospective tertiary student in mind.
The Queensland syllabus is not intended to act as a prerequisite for entry into tertiary law courses. It is not geared to provide formal legal education at the level of tertiary courses. It is not required that students at the secondary level have detailed knowledge of case law or specific legal enactments although these could be used for illustrative purposes. Rather, the syllabus focuses on the skills, understandings, thinking processes, attitudes and values that Year 11 and 12 students could well benefit from as they participate in society in more comprehensive and meaningful ways.4
In a similar vein, Goldring describes the syllabus in New South Wales:
It is certainly not designed as a course for those who hope to become lawyers, but rather is an exercise in community education about the law. It is concerned with themes and concepts which are examined through the study of particular areas of law. The central theme is the inter-relationship between the concepts of justice, law and society.5
THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAW-RELATED EDUCATION
The development and popularity of law-related
education has grown almost by geometric proportions in some states in Australia
since
the early 1970s. Since its introduction in Victoria in 1973, courses in
legal studies have become increasingly popular and widespread.
Recently
Queensland admitted more than 3,500 students to undertake Legal Studies as a
recognised Board subject “to be used
for tertiary entrance
purposes”6 while the New South Wales Board of
Education has just approved the Years 11 and 12 syllabus, even though legal
studies has been available
as an other approved subject for a number of years in
some schools in New South Wales.7
Although Victoria
appears to be acknowledged as the leader in legal studies education at the
secondary school level in Australia,8 Tasmania has made
a significant contribution to the development of law-related education in
Australia. There has been a marked yet
steady increase in student
enrolments9 in both Level II and Level III Legal
Studies and plans exist for the formal introduction of law-related education
into grades 9 and
10.
The growth and interest in law-related education has
been greatly aided by the work of teachers, legal academics and members of the
judiciary. In some instances the development and success of the program has been
attributed, in part, to the cooperative nature of
its development.
LEGAL STUDIES IN TASMANIA
In 1980 Tasmania piloted its course in legal studies. In 1981 Legal Studies achieved limited matriculation status.10 One year later, every government secondary college and several non-government schools offered a course in legal studies. As Kirby points out, the success of the program in Tasmania may be attributed to: teacher commitment and interest; the assistance and support of a number of individuals and associations (for example, the Faculty of Law at the University of Tasmania, especially in curriculum development); the participation of ACT, NSW, South Australian and Victorian consultants in teacher and curriculum development in the embryonic stage of the program; the secondment of a teacher for course development; the work of experienced teachers, some with substantial backgrounds in law and other related disciplines; and, especially, the fact that there was,
total agreement among all parties that the subject must be a study of law in its social context and should not be seen as a crash course in law as such. The object is not to turn out a nation of lawyers but to produce a society of citizens with respect for, knowledge of, and healthy criticism about the law as it operates.11
The Syllabus: Aims and Objectives
Although a review of the Tasmanian legal studies syllabus is planned for 1989, the aims and objectives of Level II and Level III Legal Studies have changed little since the inception of the program. As stated in the Higher School Manual the aim of the Level II syllabus is,
to develop an awareness of the law as it relates to individuals in a dynamic society and an understanding of their responsibilities and rights within the framework of the Australian legal system.12
This and a second, more critically oriented aim, provide the goals for Level III:
to encourage objective inquiry into the nature of and possible alternative solutions to legal problems, with a view to enhancing the individual’s understanding of and ability to cope with a changing society.13
Again, the objectives of Level II, stated below, are incorporated into Level III:
i. To achieve a general understanding of the structure and operation of the Australian legal system in its relation to Australian society.
ii. To enable students to examine legal processes and legal systems and to see them as means of resolving conflict.
iii. To help to close the “social distance” between the law and the individual, so that individuals may become participants rather than recipients in legal processes.14
Three additional objectives are included in Level III:
iv. To provide the means for students to evaluate and analyse the present legal system in Australia and reach conclusions about its ability to respond to the changing needs of society.
v. To assist and encourage students to identify and analyse issues rather than merely to learn legal rules.
vi. To help students (a) to develop abilities in problem solving; (b) to learn and use research techniques; and (c) to put an argument in a convincing manner, both orally and in writing.15
Organisation
Most subjects offered by the Schools Board of
Tasmania at Higher School Certificate level are available at two levels: Level
II and
Level III, the latter reflecting a higher standard of achievement. Legal
Studies in Tasmania is offered at both levels. Both the
Level II and Level III
Legal Studies syllabuses in Tasmania are organised around core units, which are
complemented by a number of
optional units. As might be expected, the core unit
is compulsory for all students enrolled in Legal Studies.
Level II students
must complete the core unit, which is divided into Law and the Legal System and
Law and the Individual and three
optional units chosen from the Environment and
the Law, Jobs and the Law, Law and the Consumer, Law and the Family, Young
People
and the Law and the Application Section.16
The Level III syllabus is more intensive and extensive. Each student must
complete the core unit, which is divided into The Australian
Legal System and An
Analysis of the Australian Legal System, and can choose from six optional units
of study — Crime and the
Criminal Justice System, Family Law, Civil
Liberties in Australia, Consumer Protection Law, Compensation for Civil Wrongs
and Comparative
Law.17 The core unit for Level III
students is intended to provide students with an appreciation of the
inter-relationship between law and
society and an awareness of the dynamism in
the Australian legal system. Students are encouraged to enrol in three optional
units
developed to provide students with an opportunity to explore individual
interests as they study the law in action and more time within
which to increase
the knowledge and skills introduced in the core.
Assessment
The Schools Board of Tasmania stipulates that at
least 120 hours of class contact time are necessary for certification for Level
II
subjects in Tasmania.18 Although internally
assessed, Level II awards are determined by each school after the school has
participated “in a consultative
system which aims to provide comparability
of standards between schools and colleges for a particular subject field or for
a group
of units in a particular subject
field.”19
Awards available at each level
range through credit, higher pass, pass, lower pass and failure, although an
award of a failure is
not recorded on the Higher School Certificate itself.
In general a student need not attempt a Level II course before proceeding to
Level III. Similarly, a Level II award does not count
towards a Level III award
in the same subject. The Level II course in Legal Studies, therefore, can be
taken as a terminal course
of study or can be used to provide a foundation for
Level III study in law. To date, it would appear that a considerable number of
students proceed to Level III after completion of Level II.
Tertiary and Secondary Links in Tasmania
Some of the success of the legal studies program in Tasmania can be attributed to the joint effort of tertiary and secondary educators. Links are being strengthened partly as a result of the initiatives of the Faculty of Law, the collegiality and cooperation of teachers and administrators in the legal studies program and commitment by institutions, such as the Law Foundation of Tasmania which is funding the publication of New Perspectives for Teaching Legal Studies20 The idea of the text, which applies ideas from teaching and learning theory to legal education, arose as a result of some of the concerns raised in this paper.21 It received input and support from many of the legal studies teachers and has contributed to the communication between the University and schools. At present there is some discussion of offering a regular legal update series, compiled by members of the University staff, to enable legal studies teachers to keep abreast of current developments in the law as they affect the teaching of law in schools.
EMERGING ISSUES IN LEGAL EDUCATION
The rapid growth in secondary legal education in Australia clearly
demonstrates that education about the law is not the sole province
of those in
tertiary institutions. Recent government initiatives, especially in Australian
higher education, highlight the need to
use scarce educational resources as
economically as possible to avoid duplication, and unnecessary overlap of
courses. In states
such as Tasmania, it is envisaged that legal education might
be extended to grades 9 and 10. Thus some students will have four years
of
law-related education before entering a tertiary institution. It would be
educationally unsound, economically wasteful, and certainly
imprudent were
tertiary institutions to ignore potentially four years of previous legal
education.
Despite the educational, pragmatic, and economic arguments which
support the need for a co-ordinated approach, the debate about legal
education
to date has been frequently characterised by diverse groups, each advocating a
particular position or interest, with little
effective discussion. In addition
even proponents of the study of law-related education in schools have warned of
issues involving
curriculum, teaching materials, student attitudes towards the
law, pedagogy and teaching staff.22
Tertiary and
secondary institutions have not always worked harmoniously together. Boud, for
example, notes that tertiary educators
have criticised their secondary school
counterparts for failing to give tertiary-bound students the necessary skills
for higher education
courses, especially in the maths and
sciences.23 On the other hand, some secondary teachers
and parents complain that university-dictated pressures have resulted in an
upper secondary
curriculum which is increasingly unsuited to a growing number of
students who have chosen to remain at school to grades 11 and 12.
Recently,
Professor Kenneth Wiltshire of Queensland University described the degree of
education in Australia about the political
system and the Constitution as
“appalling.”24 Similarly, Professor Patrick
Weller of Griffith University has referred to this lack of knowledge about
Australian politics as atrocious.”25 Legal
practitioners, too, have sometimes expressed concern about the danger of young
people possessing a little knowledge about the
law. At the same time that
national curriculum proposals emphasise the need for more political awareness on
the part of youth, little
emphasis has been given to what teachers may actually
teach in the classroom in this respect. Innovative teachers who have designed
promising strategies may nevertheless lack the support of conceptual frameworks.
Educational researchers appear to have been preoccupied
with other dimensions of
learning and have failed to address the concerns of legal educators. Few
educational and legal philosophers
have devoted much attention to the issue of
legal literacy and the role of legal education in a modern
democracy.26
Lawyers Who Can Teach or Teachers Who Are Lawyers?
Opinions about the requisite qualifications of legal studies teachers illustrate some of the problems which must be overcome if a harmonious working relationship is to develop between tertiary and secondary institutions. Various concerns have recently been expressed in Australia whether lawyers with no formal educational qualifications or trained teachers with at least some acquaintance with the law should offer courses in legal studies. Classes conducted by lawyers, seldom if ever trained as teachers, may drown school students as they become immersed in the legal culture into which lawyers are, often unconsciously, socialised. Trained teachers, on the other hand, may have an insufficient knowledge and appreciation of the depth, complexity and most importantly, the process of law. As Goldring notes,
very little thought has been given to the qualifications of law teachers or to the training that should be available for them. Nor has there been much thought given to the relation between the aims of the various types of legal education and the best people to do the teaching.27
Many teachers of legal studies in Tasmania are
trained in commerce or economics completing one or two law courses as part of
their
degree. In a survey conducted by Le Brun, Clark and Lansdell at the
University of Tasmania in 1988, more than half of the legal studies
teachers in
the State who responded possessed an average of 3.9 years’ experience in
teaching the HSC Legal Studies Course.
This is significant given that the
Tasmanian course has been in existence less than ten years and represents one of
the earliest
Australian attempts to introduce legal studies at the HSC level.
Further, approximately one-fifth held formal qualifications in law,
a third had
degrees in business, commerce and economics while the remainder held a variety
of degrees, most commonly a BEd or BA.
As Goldring pointed out ten years
ago, however, the existence of legal studies courses presupposes that those who
are not trained
lawyers can in fact teach law, even though “the depth and
legal accuracy of their knowledge will in many cases be
questionable.”28 Still, Goldring appears to
prefer teachers trained in law to the reverse. “Law teachers at secondary
level... should be teachers
first, yet they cannot teach what they do not
know.”29
Both academics and teachers can help
to address these issues if the links between the tertiary and secondary
institutions are encouraged
and developed.
Achieving a Balance Between Content and Learning Processes
Arguably, a major shortcoming in legal education is
the schism which exists between those who aim to teach law and those who wish
to
teach about law. Some, perhaps many, of the law schools in Australia tend to
teach legal rules and the techniques of black letter
law at the expense of
teaching law in its context. Only in the last decade has there been a broad and
concerted attempt to bridge
this gap in approach.
This schism may also
appear in legal studies education. Several teachers in Tasmania who were
surveyed in 1988 expressed concern that
the content of the Legal Studies course
and some examination papers appeared to require more technical, rule-oriented,
sophisticated,
and in some cases, factual legal knowledge than had been expected
in prior examinations. While this might be desirable for students
planning to
study law at university, it conflicts with the generally held view that legal
studies courses are primarily intended
as an introduction to the legal system,
especially for those who do not wish to study law at tertiary level. To adopt
such an aim
departs from the overall goal of the legal studies program reflected
in the various syllabuses for legal studies.
Related to this problem of
content is the general dominance of subject matter over process. While one major
purpose of an introductory
course in law is to introduce students to the legal
system, equally important aims are to teach students to think critically about
the legal system and its relationship to Australian society and to encourage
students to become informed and involved citizens. Thus
there should be more
room in the curriculum for the development of vital skills in analysis and
critical judgment. These are learnt
through discussions, debates and other
experiences which, regrettably, are sometimes neglected because of the pressure
to cover more
content.
Collaboration Towards a Vision of Legal Education
Various issues and questions remain to be addressed:
the type of curriculum that will best prepare students for further tertiary
study;
how such a curriculum can accommodate students who enter the work force
after secondary school and for whom Legal Studies will be
their only formal
training in legal literacy; whether there is any unnecessary duplication of
content between secondary and tertiary
legal studies; how tertiary teachers can
best build upon the introduction students receive in secondary school; whether
secondary
level legal studies should be a pre-requisite for the tertiary study
of law.
Any vision of legal education should take into account national,
state and local needs. Such a vision will only be effective, however,
if it is a
product of consultation with and collaboration among those most concerned in its
achievement. A unified and coherent program
of legal education cannot be
dictated from the top down, nor imposed by government fiat. As Holt has
convincingly argued, educational
problems are essentially ethical
problems.30 They involve fundamental questions
regarding the nature of the educational good in a given society — in this
instance, legal
education for secondary and tertiary students. More
collaboration rather than confrontation between secondary and tertiary educators
is therefore needed.
LEGAL EDUCATION IN TERTIARY AND SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS
Any discussion of the role of tertiary education must
take into account the wider current educational debate about the roles, purposes
and goals of tertiary education in modern society. In Australia, for example,
the Government’s Green Paper31 and
White Paper32 on tertiary education have
called for reforms which will have a significant impact on higher education at
all levels. This wider educational
debate underscores a profound conflict
between two broad definitions of the aim of education. The vocational approach
adopts the
view that education is the process of integrating individuals into
society with knowledge acquired for the sake of advancing society’s
economic development. The other approach emphasises the aesthetic cultivation of
the individual and the importance of learning for
its own
sake.33
How tertiary institutions resolve these and
related conflicts will obviously have an impact on the kind and quality of
education offered,
including legal education. Thus, in addition to deciding upon
basic goals and purposes, tertiary institutions must formulate answers
to
related educational questions such as: the relative need for applied as opposed
to pure research; whether courses should be broad-based
or specialised; the
relationship between teaching and research; the connection between education and
industry — as well as
the nature of the relationship between tertiary and
secondary institutions.34
Tertiary/Secondary Linkages Viewed From the Perspective of Tertiary Institutions
Tertiary educators should be concerned about and involved with the legal education which occurs in secondary schools. First, tertiary legal educators have a responsibility to the community to promote legal literacy as a prerequisite to a democratic way of life.35 As Kirby states,
the citizens of future Australia have a right to a fuller appreciation of the institutions of the law and at least their chief legal rights and duties: more than was thought necessary in times gone by. A society which acknowledges this proposition will act to put it into practice. There is no better place for community legal education to start than in schoo1.36
If legal education is to take place in a coherent
fashion, tertiary and secondary legal education should complement one another so
that educators in each can learn from the other and build upon their respective
work. Thus, for example, a proper foundation in legal
education at secondary
level should greatly enhance the teaching of legal studies at tertiary level; it
will enable students to gain
valuable background experiences which should form
the basis of further and more specialised legal education.
It is important
to realise that the relationship between secondary and tertiary educators must
of necessity be reciprocal and respectful
of the special needs of each. While
the tertiary level educator often has valuable expertise in subject matter, many
tertiary educators
have little or no formal training in education. Accordingly,
there is much about pedagogical technique and educational theory and
practice
which the tertiary educator can learn from colleagues at secondary level, many
of whom have a wealth of experience and professional
training in teaching. This
training in educational history, philosophy, psychology and teaching methods
should enable secondary teachers
of legal studies to make a significant
contribution to a secondary/tertiary legal studies partnership formed for the
purpose of advancing
legal education at both levels.
Tertiary/Secondary Linkages as Viewed From the Perspective of Secondary Schools
As the Tasmanian experience shows, there is much the
tertiary institution can do to facilitate legal education at the secondary
level.
Many teachers, possibly the majority in most states, are not formally
trained in law.
Given that an increasing number of secondary students will
undertake further education, teachers are in an excellent position to offer
advice and guidance concerning the skills and learning experiences which might
best prepare students for tertiary studies.
Many tertiary legal educators
also have much to offer their secondary school counterparts regarding the best
pedagogical methods to
apply to the teaching of law, especially in particular
areas such as criminal, family and consumer law which are often covered in
secondary courses. For example, tertiary teachers of legal subjects are ideally
placed to give secondary teachers feedback on which
aspects of criminal,
consumer and family law are best left to tertiary level and which might be best
introduced at secondary level.
FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRATEGIES TO BUILD A WORKING PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN TERTIARY AND SECONDARY LEGAL EDUCATORS
There are many strategies which our experience and that in other states suggest might be employed to facilitate a working relationship between secondary and tertiary legal educators.
Formal Strategies
Informal Strategies
Many informal strategies can be adopted which would also promote better links between secondary and tertiary education. These include:
NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH
Legal education, both within and between tertiary and
secondary educational institutions, requires more attention and research.
Educational
theory and practice remain under-theorized and under-researched in
part because legal education, especially at the secondary school
level, is a
recent phenomenon.
However, a more inherent reason underlying our paucity of
knowledge about the teaching of law lies in the reality that it is a process
which is “highly complex, experiential, purposeful, sometimes digressive,
and context-bound.”37 Being context-bound, it is
highly likely that effective strategies for incorporating the teaching of skills
will “vary by subject
matter, by an individual teacher’s conception
of that subject matter, by the way that conception is represented in work tasks
for students, and by a teacher’s ability to engage and sustain student
attention to those tasks.”38 Accordingly, further
research is needed about how a teacher’s understanding of a specific
subject is translated and transformed
into multiple forms which result in
student acquisition of identifiable skills.39 Perhaps a
good place to start would be a case study of legal educators, who are
acknowledged as successes in this area.
Similarly, we need to consider much
more fully the implications of recent research by
Perry40 and others41 which
suggests the existence of various stages of cognitive development which make
certain kinds of learning experiences and teaching
approaches appropriate at one
stage of student maturation, while other approaches are more effective as the
person fully matures.
On the tertiary level especially, definitions of
research should be sufficiently broad to take into account research about the
nature
of legal education. As the Pearce
Report42 noted, traditionally law schools
have focused almost exclusively on doctrinal research. Accordingly the Pearce
Report recommended a shift from the view that fundamental research is more
important than reform-oriented research (that which is evaluative,
accomplishes
change or improves effectiveness) or theoretical (philosophical, linguistic,
economic, social or political) research.
What is being decried is not the view
that doctrinal, subject matter research is important, but the attitude which
states that it
is the only legitimate form of research. Certainly if job
descriptions require a major portion of an academic’s time be devoted
to
teaching, research about the theory and practice of teaching law must also be of
vital interest.
Finally, it is important to stress that research about the
theory and practice of legal education must not be the sole province of
the
tertiary educator. For secondary schools and legal educators this means
allocating enough time and resources for self-reflection
and collaborative
deliberation on how to enhance teaching
effectiveness.43 It also means that much more work must
be done to enable educators to learn about themselves and their particular
styles of teaching
and learning,44 and about their
students and their learning styles.45
CONCLUSION
This article has chronicled the growth and
development of secondary legal education in Australia and considered the
implications of
that growth for both tertiary and secondary educational
institutions. Formal and informal strategies were suggested by which tertiary
and secondary legal educators can work in partnership to ensure that legal
education proceeds to develop in ways which are both economically
efficient and
educationally and politically sound.
Both teaching and learning how to teach
are immensely challenging tasks. Their fulfilment will be greatly aided and
facilitated through
professional collegiality and collaboration. Unfortunately,
relationships among legal educators have more often been marked by congeniality
than collegiality. There has been comparatively little talk about the practice
of teaching and learning, infrequent observation of
one another’s teaching
and course administration and limited research on the planning, design and
evaluation of legal studies
curricula. Yet, relationships between teachers at
all levels must become less competitive and more cooperative if legal education
is to continue to improve in the future.
* University of Tasmania. The authors wish to thank MS G Lansdel, Mr M Grant
and Mr R Nurse for their assistance and, in particular,
Mr D Chen, for his
support and helpful comments on this article.
© 1989. (1989) 1
Legal Educ Rev 217.
1 Some educationists stress the importance of reflective practice in developing good teaching skills. Donaldson, for example, argues that education, particularly professional education, suffers from an artificial division between practice and theory. Thus students find that their education bears little resemblance to the kinds of experiences they will have in their work as professionals. Education should, therefore, attempt to enhance the student’s abilities through the development of “reflection-in-action.” DA Schon, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions (San Franciso: Jossey-Bass, 1987).
2 Notes, (1885) 1 LQ Rev 515, at 515.
3 M Kirby, Teaching the Law is an Asset (1983) 18 Educ News (NO 5) 16, at 17–18. For additional arguments in support of law-related education at the tertiary and secondary levels, see A Haines, Legal Studies and the Developmentally Disabled Person, 9 Aust & NZJ Developmental Disabilities (No 3) 129; P Harley, Legal Studies: A Bicentennial Subject? (1984) 14 Independent Educ (No 4) 33; KE Lindgren, Legal Studies in Australian Secondary Schools — An Account and Some Issues (1980) 54 ALJ 399; KE Lindgren, Law for Non-Lawyers (1973) 16 Vestes 134; TH Little, Law-Related Education (1987) 1 Mich Soc Stud J 65.
4 Note, Legal Studies in Queensland (1988) 13 Legal Service Bull 173, at 123.
5 J Goldring, Legal Studies in New South Wales Schools (1988) 13 Legal Service Bull 215, at 215.
6 Note, supra note 4, at 173.
7 Goldring, supra note 5, at 21 5.
8 Kirby, supra note 3, at 16.
9 Students who received an award in Level III Legal Studies have increased from 540 in 1983 to 1,111 in 1988. Of approximately 50 subjects offered, Legal Studies is the fifth most heavily subscribed course after English Studies (approximately 1800 students in 1988), Maths, Socia1 Psychology and the various Biologies.
10 The Schools Board of Tasmania has had exclusive power to examine and certify students at secondary school level since 1969. Schools Board of Tasmania, Higher School Certificate Manual for 1988 (Hobart: 1988) at 5. In general the Higher School Certificate is available to any student at the “end of both the fifth and sixth years of secondary education and to other students who follow the required course of study.” Id at 19. The results of these assessments are used by the University of Tasmania “in determining the requirements for matriculation.” Id at 6.
11 Kirby, supra note 3, at 17.
12 Schools Board of Tasmania, supra note 10, at 151.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. At 152.
16 This gives Level II students the opportunity to engage in independent research within the scope of the options offered and outside the pressure of formal, external assessment.
17 At present plans are being made by the Board of Studies for Legal Studies for the development and likely inclusion of an optional unit on International Law.
18 Schools Board of Tasmania, supra note 10, at 19.
19 Id. Internal grades are standardised against external awards. Thus two raw scores reflecting internal and external assessment are not merely added together. The Schools Board is currently reconsidering the role of external examinations altogether.
20 MJ Le Brun, GT Lansdell & EE Clark, New Perspectives for Teaching Legal Studies (forthcoming).
21 The text is divided into two parts. The first section discusses pedagogical and curriculum issues; the second acts as a companion text to the second edition of DRC Chalmers, Legal Studies for Tasmania, 2nd ed (Sydney: Butterworths, 1989).
22 See K Daniels, The Culture of Work (1988) 7 Aust Soc’y (No 2) 27. Daniels argues that curriculum issues should be at the centre of the debate about the direction of tertiary education.
23 D Boud ed, Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, 2nd ed (London: Kogan Page, 1988).
24 K Wiltshire quoted in, Report of the Advisory Committee on Executive Government (Canberra: Canberra Publishing & Printing, 1987) at 14.
25 P Weller quoted in, Report of the Advisory Committee on Executive Government (Canberra: Canberra Publishing & Printing, 1987) at 14.
26 A Gutmann, Democratic Education (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987).
27 J Goldring, Learning Law and Learning About Law (1979) 16 Educ News (No 2) 8, at 13.
28 Id.
29 Goldring outlines the qualities and capabilities which Legal Studies teachers should have: an ability to carry out research to find the primary sources of law; an understanding of the structure of the legal system; and a basic familiarity with the language and concepts of the law and the process of legal reasoning. These capabilities might be possessed by an individual, who, though not formally trained in law, undertakes the study of “two or three basic areas of law in considerable detail, so that they have an appreciation of what the subtleties of the law are.” Id.
30 M Holt, Judgement, Planning and Educational Change (London: Harper & Row, 1987).
31 Australia, Higher Education: A Policy and Discussion Paper (Canberra: AGPS, 1987).
32 Department of Employment, Education and Training, Higher Education: A Policy Statement (Canberra: AGPS, 1988).
33 MD Allen, The Goals of Universities (Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 1988).
34 MD Stephens ed, Universities, Education and the National Economy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988); J Pratt & S Silverman, Responding to Constraint: Policy and Management in Higher Education (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1988).
35 See T Kuc, Why Teach About the Police? (1982) 39 Educ Magazine (No 6) 46, at 47 n 7.
36 MD Kirby, A New Approach To Teaching Law In Schools (1981) 8 Aust Educ Res (No 3) 5, at 14.
37 GE Grant, Teaching Critical Thinking (New York: Praeger, 1988) at 3.
38 Id at 2.
39 J Calderhead ed, Exploring Teachers’ Thinking (London: Cassell Educational, 1987).
40 WG Perry, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: a Schema (New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1970).
41 J Katz & M Henry, Turning Professors into Teachers: A New Approach to Faculty Development and Student Learning (New York: Macmillan, 1988); Grant, supra note 37; RM Gagne & MP Driscoll, Essentials of Learning for Instruction, 2nd ed (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1988).
42 D Pearce, E Campbell & D Harding, Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (Canberra: AGPS, 1987) at sec 9.139–9.142.
43 LS Schulman & JH Moore, Teaching Alone, Learning Together: Needed Agendas For the New Reforms, in TJ Sergiovanni & JH Moore eds, Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reform to Issues that Count (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1989) at 1687.
44 C Easthope, R Maclean & G Easthope, The Practice of Teaching: A Sociological Perspective (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986); Katz & Henry, supra note 41.
45 RR Schmeck ed, Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (New York: Plenum Press, 1988).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/1989/16.html