Superfund Liability Alternatives for the Innocent Purchaser

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) imposes liability for cleanup costs where there has been a release to the environment of a hazardous substance. Liability has been construed by the courts as strict, even though Congress rejected an explicit provision of strict liability. Moreover, CERCLA liability permits no defenses except those found in the Act. CERCLA provides an affirmative defense to liability actions where a third party has solely caused the release of the hazardous substance. Congress attempted to clarify the land contract issue as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This Note will focus on two classes of innocent purchasers: first, a prospective purchaser who hopes to avoid CERCLA liability, and second, an actual purchaser who, after buying property, discovers a release of a hazardous substance. The statutory defense for the innocent purchaser is relevant no matter which forum the purchaser chooses to reduce his liability. Accordingly, this Note will examine judicial interpretations of both defenses. This Note will argue that the substantive basis can be found in SARA. While CERCLA intended liability to be strict, SARA intended in a limited way to reintroduce concepts of negligence. SARA introduced reasonableness concepts into its guidance for evaluating appropriate inquiry. Appropriate inquiry should invoke the standard of a reasonable person with the same requisite knowledge as the purchaser, and involved in the same type of transaction

Superfund Liability Alternatives for the Innocent Purchaser

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) imposes liability for cleanup costs where there has been a release to the environment of a hazardous substance. Liability has been construed by the courts as strict, even though Congress rejected an explicit provision of strict liability. Moreover, CERCLA liability permits no defenses except those found in the Act. CERCLA provides an affirmative defense to liability actions where a third party has solely caused the release of the hazardous substance. Congress attempted to clarify the land contract issue as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This Note will focus on two classes of innocent purchasers: first, a prospective purchaser who hopes to avoid CERCLA liability, and second, an actual purchaser who, after buying property, discovers a release of a hazardous substance. The statutory defense for the innocent purchaser is relevant no matter which forum the purchaser chooses to reduce his liability. Accordingly, this Note will examine judicial interpretations of both defenses. This Note will argue that the substantive basis can be found in SARA. While CERCLA intended liability to be strict, SARA intended in a limited way to reintroduce concepts of negligence. SARA introduced reasonableness concepts into its guidance for evaluating appropriate inquiry. Appropriate inquiry should invoke the standard of a reasonable person with the same requisite knowledge as the purchaser, and involved in the same type of transaction

Probiotic Amelioration of Azotemia in 5/6th Nephrectomized Sprague-Dawley Rats

The present study was to test the hypothesis that selected bacteria instilled into the gastrointestinal tract could help in converting nitrogenous wastes accumulated due to renal insufficiency into nontoxic compounds; thereby, ameliorating the biochemical imbalance. Herein we describe a prospective, blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study, using 5/6th nephrectomized Sprague Dawley rat as a chronic renal failure model. The study group consisted of 36 nephrectomized and 7 non-nephrectomized (control) rats. After two-week nephrectomy stabilization, cohorts of six nephrectomized rats were fed casein-based diet plus one of the following regimens: (A) Control, (B) Placebo (casein-based diet without probiotics), (C) Bacillus pasteurii, (D) Sporolac®, (E) Kibow cocktail, (F) CHR Hansen Cocktail, and (G) ECONORMTM. Subsequently, blood (retro-orbital) and urine (collected for measurements of blood urea-nitrogen and creatinine respectively), body weight and bacterial counts (feces) were obtained at regular intervals. The study end-points were to determine if any of the probiotic dietary supplements facilitated, (1) decreased blood concentrations of uremic toxins, (2) altered renal function, and (3) prolonged survival. After 16 weeks of treatment, regimens C and D significantly prolonged the life span of uremic rats, in addition to showing a reduction in blood urea-nitrogen levels, concluding that supplementation of probiotic formulation to uremic rats slows the progression of azotemia, which may correlate with prolonged life span of uremic rats. Derivative trials of probiotic treatment of larger animals and humans will further assess the potential role of probiotic formulations in delaying the onset and clinical severity of clinical illness at different stages of renal failure

The evaluation of the quality of teaching in the university: A review of the literature

[ES] Este artículo ofrece un panorama general del estado de la literatura sobre la evaluación de la docencia en educación superior universitaria. La revisión parte de los principales desafíos que, desde diferentes publicaciones, reportes de investigación y la literatura en general, enfrenta la evaluación de la docencia en educación superior en términos de concepciones, propósitos, enfoques e instrumentos. A través de este lente se han considerado cuatro aspectos transversales que estos desafíos conservan: la complejidad de la tarea docente, la falta de consenso frente a lo que significa ser un docente de calidad en la universidad, limitar la responsabilidad del docente únicamente a la adquisición de conocimientos por parte del estudiante y la proliferación de criterios de evaluación de un docente de calidad que podrían materializarse en algunas perspectivas sobre la “buena enseñanza”. La revisión proporciona una idea clara del estado del arte con respecto a la investigación en evaluación de la docencia en la universidad, aportando elementos de análisis que pueden servir para el desarrollo de futuros estudios sobre un tema actual y que merece un espacio dentro de las agendas de la investigación en educación. El texto finaliza con una propuesta flexible y abierta de un sistema integral de evaluación de la docencia, al servicio de la calidad en la universidad y algunos principios orientadores de su construcción.[EN] This article provides a general overview of the literature about faculty evaluation. The review process begins from the main challenges that have been found in different publications, research reports and literature, where faculty evaluation has been addressed by its conceptions, purposes, approaches and instruments. Through this lens four aspects has been considered: the complexity of the teacher activity, the lack of agreement towards what to be a good teacher at university is, to limit the teacher’s responsibility only to student learning, and the growth of the criteria for teaching evaluation. These criteria could be materialized in some perspectives about “good teaching”. The review offers a clear idea of the state of the art regarding faculty evaluation research. It gives elements of analysis for the development of research in the future. The paper concludes by describing a comprehensive, open and flexible approach to teaching evaluation. In addition, we describe some foundations for the development of this approach.Ramírez Garzón, MI.; Montoya Vargas, J. (2014). La evaluación de la calidad de la docencia en la universidad: Una revisión de la literatura. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 12(2):77-95. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2014.5641OJS7795122Alles, M. A. (2002). Desempeño por competencias: evaluación de 360o. Ediciones Granica SA.Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation. New York: American Council on Education.Bain, K. (2007). Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios. Universitat de València.Bass, R. J. (2000). Technology, evaluation, and the visibility of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 35-50.Biggs, J. (1999). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. (3ra Ed.). Madrid, España: Narcea S.A. Ediciones.Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Braskamp, L. A. (2000). Toward a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. New directions for teaching and learning, 2000(83), 19-33.Buller, J. L. (2013). Best practices in faculty evaluation: a practical guide for academic leaders. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-BassChism, N. V. N. (2004). Characteristics of effective teaching in higher education: Between definitional despair and certainty. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 15 (3), 5-36.Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5-26.Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and Practice (pp. 368-395). NY: Agathon Press.Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. The Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.Fox, M. A. & Hackerman, N. (Eds). (2002). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.Hanushek, E. A. (2005). Economic outcomes and school quality (Education Policy Series, Volume 4). Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of educational research, 79(1), 491-525.Johnson, T. D., & Ryan, K. E. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 109-123.Kember,D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255± 275.Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students' approach to learning. In B. DART & G. BOULTON-LEWIS (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1± 25). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Kember, D. & Leung, D. (2008). Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaires. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33:4, 341-353.Marczely, B. (1992). Teacher evaluation: research versus practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5(3), 279-290.McKeachie, W. J. (1987). Instructional evaluation: Current issues and possible improvements. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(3), 344-350.Meeus, W., Van Petegem, P., & Engels, N. (2009). Validity and reliability of portfolio assessment in pre-service teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 401-413. doi: 10.1080/02602930802062659Murillo, F. J. (2007). Evaluación del desempeño y carrera profesional docente. Un estudio comparado entre 50 países de América y Europa. Santiago: OREALC/UNESCOMurphy, T., MacLaren, I., & Flynn, S. (2009). Toward a summative system for the assessment of teaching quality in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 226-236.O'Hanlon, J., & Mortensen, L. (1980). Making Teacher Evaluation Work. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(6), 664-672.Ory, J. C. (2000). Teaching Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 13-18. doi: 10.1002/tl.8302Palomba, C. A. & Banta, T. W. (2001). Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines: pionnering approaches to assessment in higher education (1st Ed.). Canada: Stylus Publishing.Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 5-16.Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience of higher education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics'conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217± 232.Rueda, M. (2009). La evaluación del desempeño docente: consideraciones desde el enfoque por competencias. Revista electrónica de investigación educativa, 11(2), 1-16.Samuelowicz, K. (1999). Academics' educational beliefs and teaching practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education, Grif® th University, Australia.Samuelowicz, K.& Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93± 111.Sarramona, J. (2003). Los indicadores de la calidad de la educación. In Trabalho apresentado no IX Congresso Interuniversitario de Teoria de la Educación, San Sebastián.Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (s.f). Effective University Teaching and Learning.Shulman, L. S. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education. P. Hutchings (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching The State of the Art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642.Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J. (2000). Situational Evaluation of Teaching on Campus. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 51-72.Stake, R. E., Contreras P., G., & Arbesú, I. (2011). Evaluando la calidad de la Universidad, particularmente su Docencia. Paper presented at the III Coloquio Internacional de la RIIED, Bogotá.Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2000). Creating Responsive Student Ratings Systems to Improve Evaluation Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 95-107.Uniandes (Producer). (2011). M. Scriven: El estado del arte de la evaluación de los profesores: fallas en la valoración de los pares, valoraciones de los estudiantes y mejoras del aprendizaje como base para la evaluación. RIIED: III Coloquio internacional. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo0dYwcIO3E&list=PL057113F01F9F84DC&index=2&feature=plpp_vide