Whatever the Government may claim about students becoming increasingly clever or increasingly better taught, there is little doubt that "A" levels are easier to pass, whether because of modularity and re-sits, work done away from school or less demanding subject content.
As a consequence, with so many students achieving A grades it has become necessary to create a higher grade still, A*, in order to introduce some discrimination in student performance.
Addtionally, Students in selected pilot groups will also begin the new "Diploma" next month. This qualification will be rated as worth 16% more in Ucas points than three "A" level passes at grade A, - 420 as against 360.
We should not dismiss the Diplomas before they have even been tried, but clearly a number of universities have considerable doubts about them, not least because there will be vocational or practical elements added to what was supposedly already a full academic content.
The Government, responding to the criticism that the Diploma will lack sufficient academic rigour to enable a student to attempt a good university degree programme, has announced that students will be able to "bolt on" additional academic elements. This seems to be the A* appearing again.
Nobody questions the need to have vocational elements for those not able or not wishing to enter higher education, especially if the Government succeeds in keeping all young people in full time education until they are 18, but it is still more evidence of the "No-one should be seen to fail" mentality.
Many graduates will need vocational training, if they are embarking on a professional career, but the time for this is after graduation, when they will receive "on the job" training.
If the Government is trying through the Diploma to put right some of the deficiencies of secondary education, - teaching how to write letters or CVs, and other things, should these be part of a final qualification which assesses a student's potential to study in higher education? This may be the real problem throughout, - trying to have a qualification which all can pass, and yet one which enables universities to be able to assess student academic potential.
Saturday, 23 August 2008
Friday, 22 August 2008
What has turned people off politics?
The Labour Party has lost almost 300,000 members since its peak in the early Blair years. The Conservatives less dramatically are losing members - perhaps 100,00 down to 200,00. They have the largest membership, but if you add the 80,00 of the LibDems and the 170,000 of labour the total membership of the three main parties is just 450,000, or about one tenth of 1% of the total adult population - approximately one in a thousand belongs.
We should include some of the minority parties, like the SNP in Scotland, the Greens, UKIP (partly but not exclusively ex-conservatives concerned about the the European issue), the Welsh Nationalists and Ulster political parties. But even with these, it is doubtful if the total would be much more than 2% of the adult population.
It should be said that the number of people joining "causes", - charities of all sorts, trade unions, drama clubs and other groups have ageing memberships and are struggling to recruit in many cases. Perhaps because many younger couples are both working, and by the time they are home from work, had their meals and dealt with children there does not seem much time or energy.
But what is specific about politics in all this?
1) Do politicians have such a poor reputation generally, - dishonesty, self-seeking, whip fodder, remote, etc.? People will not turn out and vote, let alone join a party, if party leaders and politicians generally are seen as indulging in spin (or lies), lining their own pockets or revealing their lack of morality generally.
2) Do people think that it is a wasteful exercise?
a) Nothing changes. A clue may be the popularity of Margaret Thatcher, giving the nation pride and facing down the unions,etc., and of Tony Blair who promised a new beginning, with honesty and openness? Did people think, "I must vote for this party because they are making change, making things happen!" Is this the reason for the growth of support for the SNP, - people have been convinced that breaking the Union will liberate Scotland to great things.
b) More and more decisions are being made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, of by a small gang round the prime minister and rammed through parliament. Even if you live in a marginal constituency, your elected MP will have little power.
3) Do political parties, by smearing and sneering at other parties or their leaders, actually turn people off politics.? Politics is seen as negative.
One final comment. It used to be said that there was something wrong with somebody who was not a socialist by the age of 20 or was still a socialist by the age of 40. Forget socialism and remember that many young people are establishing all their values, including their political values. The conservatives have a large youth membership, in fact as large as the other parties added together, and there are actually many young activists in all parties. How then do they lose it, become apathetic about politics? Do they lose the idealism and eventually submit to cynicism?
We should include some of the minority parties, like the SNP in Scotland, the Greens, UKIP (partly but not exclusively ex-conservatives concerned about the the European issue), the Welsh Nationalists and Ulster political parties. But even with these, it is doubtful if the total would be much more than 2% of the adult population.
It should be said that the number of people joining "causes", - charities of all sorts, trade unions, drama clubs and other groups have ageing memberships and are struggling to recruit in many cases. Perhaps because many younger couples are both working, and by the time they are home from work, had their meals and dealt with children there does not seem much time or energy.
But what is specific about politics in all this?
1) Do politicians have such a poor reputation generally, - dishonesty, self-seeking, whip fodder, remote, etc.? People will not turn out and vote, let alone join a party, if party leaders and politicians generally are seen as indulging in spin (or lies), lining their own pockets or revealing their lack of morality generally.
2) Do people think that it is a wasteful exercise?
a) Nothing changes. A clue may be the popularity of Margaret Thatcher, giving the nation pride and facing down the unions,etc., and of Tony Blair who promised a new beginning, with honesty and openness? Did people think, "I must vote for this party because they are making change, making things happen!" Is this the reason for the growth of support for the SNP, - people have been convinced that breaking the Union will liberate Scotland to great things.
b) More and more decisions are being made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, of by a small gang round the prime minister and rammed through parliament. Even if you live in a marginal constituency, your elected MP will have little power.
3) Do political parties, by smearing and sneering at other parties or their leaders, actually turn people off politics.? Politics is seen as negative.
One final comment. It used to be said that there was something wrong with somebody who was not a socialist by the age of 20 or was still a socialist by the age of 40. Forget socialism and remember that many young people are establishing all their values, including their political values. The conservatives have a large youth membership, in fact as large as the other parties added together, and there are actually many young activists in all parties. How then do they lose it, become apathetic about politics? Do they lose the idealism and eventually submit to cynicism?
Thursday, 21 August 2008
NICE mark II
The Government is considering removing care for elderly, infirm and disabled people from local authority control, because of the existence of "patchy" service standards across the country, - a post code lottery of different standards. Social Service departments have been warned that they must improve their supervision over the next three years, or else lose their responsibility.
This is despite, or because of, activities by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), who are charged with inspecting and rating care homes. Of the 10,000 or so homes in the private sector and others in the public sector, 370 have been given a "no star" rating after an inspection, and 31 have been sent legal notices of plans to cancel their registration and be closed.
The threat seems to be to remove badly performing local authorities, but if necessary a new commissioning authority will be created.
In either event we shall have national bureaucratic control in place of local and accountable control, in some districts at least.
In part the problem is one of finance. There is insufficient good care at affordable prices. The Government is to be blamed for this, in part, because homes have closed down through over regulation and sometimes when local councils have insisted that private homes have higher specifications than their own homes. If there were more care provision and the elderly and infirm had more choice, standards would be driven up. The question should be, "What can we do to make more people consider offering social care?" The answer would not be, "Tighten the red tape even more tightly."
It is ironic that NICE, about which there is so much criticism, was intended to drive up health standards nationally and remove the "post code lottery" but has led to enormous differences between areas. It is doubtful if whether some new national social care quango is any more likely to produce uniformity.
And why should it? The object ought to be to maintain minimum standards, and to allow local and informed discretion to set the rest. We wish to weed out the poor homes and encourage greater provision. Over-zealous central diktat is likely to weed out poor and good, without promoting extra accommodation to compensate.
This is another example of well meaning people who can see nothing but centralisation and greater control. Will they never learn?
This is despite, or because of, activities by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), who are charged with inspecting and rating care homes. Of the 10,000 or so homes in the private sector and others in the public sector, 370 have been given a "no star" rating after an inspection, and 31 have been sent legal notices of plans to cancel their registration and be closed.
The threat seems to be to remove badly performing local authorities, but if necessary a new commissioning authority will be created.
In either event we shall have national bureaucratic control in place of local and accountable control, in some districts at least.
In part the problem is one of finance. There is insufficient good care at affordable prices. The Government is to be blamed for this, in part, because homes have closed down through over regulation and sometimes when local councils have insisted that private homes have higher specifications than their own homes. If there were more care provision and the elderly and infirm had more choice, standards would be driven up. The question should be, "What can we do to make more people consider offering social care?" The answer would not be, "Tighten the red tape even more tightly."
It is ironic that NICE, about which there is so much criticism, was intended to drive up health standards nationally and remove the "post code lottery" but has led to enormous differences between areas. It is doubtful if whether some new national social care quango is any more likely to produce uniformity.
And why should it? The object ought to be to maintain minimum standards, and to allow local and informed discretion to set the rest. We wish to weed out the poor homes and encourage greater provision. Over-zealous central diktat is likely to weed out poor and good, without promoting extra accommodation to compensate.
This is another example of well meaning people who can see nothing but centralisation and greater control. Will they never learn?
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Worse than a white elephant
The TaxPayers Alliance recently published a report on the "progress" of the Regional Development Agencies. It makes sorry reading.
Many of us are concerned that the Government is thinking of giving extra responsibilities to the Agencies, even taking over some Local Authority functions, and becoming embryonic regional governments by the back door. The fact that like all quangos they are unaccountable to the local communities they are supposed to serve, unaccountable even to Parliament and therefore the tool of a small number of MPs alone, and that they are stuffed with Party members and most of these from London, should give us real concern. As unaccountable bureaucracies they have been guilty of expansion in staff and of great waste - estravagant trips abroad, huge travel expenses at home and the promotion of lavish events.
The greatest condemnation is however, according to the report, that they have failed in their main remits laid out at their outset in 1999.
1) They have failed to promote employment. The number of jobs and the number of people in work rose by 9.5% between 1995 and 2000, while in the years 2000 and 2005 it increased by 3%. Employment was growing faster when they took over than afterwards.
2) They have failed generally to promote Economic Growth. Apart from London and the South East the regions grew more rapidly in the seven years before the agencies' set-up than in the seven years afterwards. This is true whether we consider growth per head or whether we consider total output.
3) They have failed to reduce inter-regional inequality, and also equality within regions. To illustrate the first, in 1992 output from the regions apart from London and the South East was 64% of national output. By 2006 the seven other regions contributed only 52%.
We thus have a lumbering, wasteful and unaccountable set of quangos which has failed to achieve their main reasons for existing, indeed they seem to have made them worse. Of course the agencies will defend themselves with anecdotes or isolated statistics of what has happened in various places which may or may not have happened precisely and only because of the regional agency, but they have to explain the general failures outlined above. These are objective, and unmistakeable.
The cost is difficult to quantify, in terms of lost or wasted potential in at least 7 regions out of 9. What may be quantified is the taxpayer's money devoted to all this. The regional agencies since their inception have cost £15 billion, or about £600 per household. I would like our £600 back!
Many of us are concerned that the Government is thinking of giving extra responsibilities to the Agencies, even taking over some Local Authority functions, and becoming embryonic regional governments by the back door. The fact that like all quangos they are unaccountable to the local communities they are supposed to serve, unaccountable even to Parliament and therefore the tool of a small number of MPs alone, and that they are stuffed with Party members and most of these from London, should give us real concern. As unaccountable bureaucracies they have been guilty of expansion in staff and of great waste - estravagant trips abroad, huge travel expenses at home and the promotion of lavish events.
The greatest condemnation is however, according to the report, that they have failed in their main remits laid out at their outset in 1999.
1) They have failed to promote employment. The number of jobs and the number of people in work rose by 9.5% between 1995 and 2000, while in the years 2000 and 2005 it increased by 3%. Employment was growing faster when they took over than afterwards.
2) They have failed generally to promote Economic Growth. Apart from London and the South East the regions grew more rapidly in the seven years before the agencies' set-up than in the seven years afterwards. This is true whether we consider growth per head or whether we consider total output.
3) They have failed to reduce inter-regional inequality, and also equality within regions. To illustrate the first, in 1992 output from the regions apart from London and the South East was 64% of national output. By 2006 the seven other regions contributed only 52%.
We thus have a lumbering, wasteful and unaccountable set of quangos which has failed to achieve their main reasons for existing, indeed they seem to have made them worse. Of course the agencies will defend themselves with anecdotes or isolated statistics of what has happened in various places which may or may not have happened precisely and only because of the regional agency, but they have to explain the general failures outlined above. These are objective, and unmistakeable.
The cost is difficult to quantify, in terms of lost or wasted potential in at least 7 regions out of 9. What may be quantified is the taxpayer's money devoted to all this. The regional agencies since their inception have cost £15 billion, or about £600 per household. I would like our £600 back!
Monday, 18 August 2008
What happened to the continental drinking culture?
After one year, carefully choosing starting and ending dates, the Government tried to convince us that 24-hour drinking culture had resulted in better behaviour. Was anyone really convinced by the spin?
The opposite was the case, as is now becoming clear, after four years. A week ago the Daily Telegraph published figures, from data collected via the Freedom of Information Act. They obtained information from 35 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The picture is common among them all.
In the year to April 2008 161,431 penalty notices for disorderly behaviour, - excessive drinking, urinating, vomiting, shouting abuse and damaging property were issued, requiring fines of between £50 and £80, depending on the severity of the offence.
The comparable figure for 2004-05, the last full year before the law became active in December 2005, was 68,342. The police are emphatic that alcohol plays a very large part in the disorderly behaviour during the night.
The police are at pains to point out that it is possible that offending is no greater in total, but whereas officers could be numerous in the period 10.30 to 11.30 in the evening, they are more thinly present through the long hours of the night.
There is a further unsought consequence of all this. The need to deploy large numbers of officers during the night means that there are necessarily fewer available during the day for regular policing duties.
It may not be possible to return to where we were before December 2005, by repealing the legislation, but the Government should (but won't) have the grace to admit that they got it wrong.
The opposite was the case, as is now becoming clear, after four years. A week ago the Daily Telegraph published figures, from data collected via the Freedom of Information Act. They obtained information from 35 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The picture is common among them all.
In the year to April 2008 161,431 penalty notices for disorderly behaviour, - excessive drinking, urinating, vomiting, shouting abuse and damaging property were issued, requiring fines of between £50 and £80, depending on the severity of the offence.
The comparable figure for 2004-05, the last full year before the law became active in December 2005, was 68,342. The police are emphatic that alcohol plays a very large part in the disorderly behaviour during the night.
The police are at pains to point out that it is possible that offending is no greater in total, but whereas officers could be numerous in the period 10.30 to 11.30 in the evening, they are more thinly present through the long hours of the night.
There is a further unsought consequence of all this. The need to deploy large numbers of officers during the night means that there are necessarily fewer available during the day for regular policing duties.
It may not be possible to return to where we were before December 2005, by repealing the legislation, but the Government should (but won't) have the grace to admit that they got it wrong.
Sympathy for the police?
Yes, they have been badly treated - as the end of last year's negotiations and squeezed as if they were the beginning of the next negotiation year.
But they are now talking about "working to rule" - I thought that they were already, with the risk and health and safety assessments before tackling serious matters. Given the requirements laid on them, including the paperwork and targets, some of the police will struggle to get out of the station at all.
At the moment they have mine, if not our, good will, but if they are taking industrial action disguised as rules and if public safety is compromised as a consequence our goodwill is likely to disappear fast.
In the end by merely not doing voluntary overtime, policing could be threatened. If as a consequence police forces have to cover as best they can, - something the Police Federation thinks will cost £90 million a year or twice what they full pay award would have cost, then everyone loses.
The police will obviously have to concentrate their limited labour-time on more serious issues, such as accidents, murder, serious crime. It means that the annoying and worrying so-called minor problems like vandalism and anti-social behaviour will have a freer run.
But they are now talking about "working to rule" - I thought that they were already, with the risk and health and safety assessments before tackling serious matters. Given the requirements laid on them, including the paperwork and targets, some of the police will struggle to get out of the station at all.
At the moment they have mine, if not our, good will, but if they are taking industrial action disguised as rules and if public safety is compromised as a consequence our goodwill is likely to disappear fast.
In the end by merely not doing voluntary overtime, policing could be threatened. If as a consequence police forces have to cover as best they can, - something the Police Federation thinks will cost £90 million a year or twice what they full pay award would have cost, then everyone loses.
The police will obviously have to concentrate their limited labour-time on more serious issues, such as accidents, murder, serious crime. It means that the annoying and worrying so-called minor problems like vandalism and anti-social behaviour will have a freer run.
Saturday, 16 August 2008
It's no good complaining!
It seems that proposals in the new Planning Bill will mean that householders will have little right to complain in the process of major infrastructure projects, whether disruption, noise, smell, light or pollution. This refers to construction projects such as airports, rail links, roads and power stations.
The decision on these projects will be made by the new Planning Commission, with a nominal opportunity for councils to present negative impact assessments, but councils will not be able to act on elector complaints. In effect the local community and council may be "consulted" and then ignored.
Th implication is that contractors will be able to work through the night, whatever this means to local residents who are affected.
The emphasis is on speed, cost and the general public interest, (and of course at times to dig the Government out of delays from dithering). Does anyone doubt that the way is now open to build the power stations of whatever kind which should have been planned and built by now?
Adolf Hitler was reported to have said, "Society's needs come before the individual's." Perhaps we could add that the proposals come dangerously close to the behaviour by the Chinese authorities in the compulsory demolition of housing to build the Olympic sites.
The decision on these projects will be made by the new Planning Commission, with a nominal opportunity for councils to present negative impact assessments, but councils will not be able to act on elector complaints. In effect the local community and council may be "consulted" and then ignored.
Th implication is that contractors will be able to work through the night, whatever this means to local residents who are affected.
The emphasis is on speed, cost and the general public interest, (and of course at times to dig the Government out of delays from dithering). Does anyone doubt that the way is now open to build the power stations of whatever kind which should have been planned and built by now?
Adolf Hitler was reported to have said, "Society's needs come before the individual's." Perhaps we could add that the proposals come dangerously close to the behaviour by the Chinese authorities in the compulsory demolition of housing to build the Olympic sites.
There's no shortage!
Recently the Ministry of Defence admitted that it was cutting one fifth of aircrew who man the search and rescue service in order to send them to Helmand province in Afghanistan.
It seems that with the change in Taliban tactics from open skirmishes to roadside bombs travel and transport are more and more undertaken by helicopter. (How soon before the Taliban are equipped with the very latest surface to air missiles to replace the grenade launchers they have already?)
So the search and rescue service here will have a slightly reduced capability. The six RAF stations involved will still offer a service, but the promise to respond within 15 minutes 24/7 may be something that they will not always be able to manage. Of course there are also four civilian coastguard teams and two Royal Navy teams. Perhaps better integration of these can make up the shortfall in some way.
It seems that we may also have to hire helicopters on a commercial basis from other countries, for use in Afghanistan. We are short of helicopters as well as crew.
Not only did we go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with canvas covered Landrovers and inadequate personal body armour. It seems that our Government and military planners did not foresee that we might actually need a range of different helicopters to back up troops on the ground. This has to be seen as a major blunder, but then when we sent extra troops into Helmand our defence secretar, John Reid, said that he would be disappointed if they ever fired a shot in anger!
It seems that with the change in Taliban tactics from open skirmishes to roadside bombs travel and transport are more and more undertaken by helicopter. (How soon before the Taliban are equipped with the very latest surface to air missiles to replace the grenade launchers they have already?)
So the search and rescue service here will have a slightly reduced capability. The six RAF stations involved will still offer a service, but the promise to respond within 15 minutes 24/7 may be something that they will not always be able to manage. Of course there are also four civilian coastguard teams and two Royal Navy teams. Perhaps better integration of these can make up the shortfall in some way.
It seems that we may also have to hire helicopters on a commercial basis from other countries, for use in Afghanistan. We are short of helicopters as well as crew.
Not only did we go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with canvas covered Landrovers and inadequate personal body armour. It seems that our Government and military planners did not foresee that we might actually need a range of different helicopters to back up troops on the ground. This has to be seen as a major blunder, but then when we sent extra troops into Helmand our defence secretar, John Reid, said that he would be disappointed if they ever fired a shot in anger!
Friday, 15 August 2008
And now the A levels....
Where to start?
Clearly there is something wrong when 27% of all A levels are awarded an A grade. Add in the B grades and you reach half. There is a problem, whatever the cause. How can universities decide who are the students most likely to perform well on a degree course if most applicants have one of the top two qualifications? Whatever the future of the A level, and the Government seems to recognise the problem, something must change, - the international baccalaureate, one or two or three stars to grade A, universities setting their own entrance exams, or even the diploma being developed by the Government.
The question should be asked, why have there been improvements for so many consecutive years?
It is probably a mixture of several things:
Modularisation - Learning is now in short lumps, which can then be forgotten as a new area is started. For previous generations all depended on the examination at the end of two years study, involving examination of any material over the two years.
Re-sits - A large number of students now resit module examinations almost routinely, improving marks until satisfied. This, to some extent, obviously reduces the advantage of modularity, as students have to carry forward material on modules no longer studied.
The ability of students is increasing - This may contribute, but probably does little to explain the annual increases.
Improved teaching- Educational technology and method may have made a contribution.
The reduction in conceptual content - This overlaps with the the familiar accusation of "dumbing down". The suggestion is that changes have made the content of courses less conceptually demanding. There is research evidence for this. Durham University research came to the conclusion in terms of conceptual difficulty there is at least a two grade difference between papers now and those of 20 years ago. In mathematics the difference is more like 3.5 grades.
(This is not a new thing. Until the late 1980s I was a lecturer in higher education. We frequently had to revise the content of our course because topics were being omitted from "O" and "A" level subjects, and students were thus less well prepared for the degree course we taught.)
The Durham research is supported by that undertaken by King College London educationalists on even younger students. They found in 2004 11 year-olds were 2 to 3 years behind their counterparts in 1990, in terms of conceptual understanding.
The subjects studied - including the popular media studies, sports studies and even business studies, which are multi-discipline subjects, are probably also less demanding - requiring breadth rather than depth of study.
Perhaps the most worrying thing is the findings of employers, - many graduates are bordering on the illiterate and innumerate , and their readiness to employ eastern European immigrants who often have a better command of English!
Clearly there is something wrong when 27% of all A levels are awarded an A grade. Add in the B grades and you reach half. There is a problem, whatever the cause. How can universities decide who are the students most likely to perform well on a degree course if most applicants have one of the top two qualifications? Whatever the future of the A level, and the Government seems to recognise the problem, something must change, - the international baccalaureate, one or two or three stars to grade A, universities setting their own entrance exams, or even the diploma being developed by the Government.
The question should be asked, why have there been improvements for so many consecutive years?
It is probably a mixture of several things:
Modularisation - Learning is now in short lumps, which can then be forgotten as a new area is started. For previous generations all depended on the examination at the end of two years study, involving examination of any material over the two years.
Re-sits - A large number of students now resit module examinations almost routinely, improving marks until satisfied. This, to some extent, obviously reduces the advantage of modularity, as students have to carry forward material on modules no longer studied.
The ability of students is increasing - This may contribute, but probably does little to explain the annual increases.
Improved teaching- Educational technology and method may have made a contribution.
The reduction in conceptual content - This overlaps with the the familiar accusation of "dumbing down". The suggestion is that changes have made the content of courses less conceptually demanding. There is research evidence for this. Durham University research came to the conclusion in terms of conceptual difficulty there is at least a two grade difference between papers now and those of 20 years ago. In mathematics the difference is more like 3.5 grades.
(This is not a new thing. Until the late 1980s I was a lecturer in higher education. We frequently had to revise the content of our course because topics were being omitted from "O" and "A" level subjects, and students were thus less well prepared for the degree course we taught.)
The Durham research is supported by that undertaken by King College London educationalists on even younger students. They found in 2004 11 year-olds were 2 to 3 years behind their counterparts in 1990, in terms of conceptual understanding.
The subjects studied - including the popular media studies, sports studies and even business studies, which are multi-discipline subjects, are probably also less demanding - requiring breadth rather than depth of study.
Perhaps the most worrying thing is the findings of employers, - many graduates are bordering on the illiterate and innumerate , and their readiness to employ eastern European immigrants who often have a better command of English!
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
The SATS results
The publication of results this week has raised at least two issues:
One is the effect of regular testing.
Civitas, the think tank, recently released the results of a telephone survey undertaken among school teachers. Among other things, it emerged that almost 80% of the respondents believe that the tests exaggerate the level of competence in children, because many schools to preserve their reputation, or defend themselves against others who do, by orientating their teaching over long periods towards passing the tests as well as possible, "teaching to the test".
Other people have claimed that the test are such an interruption that important time is wasted on them, while still others feel that tests are an imposition on young children with possible unknown harmful effects.
There seem to be two broad approaches to ensuring quality standards in our schools. The one adopted by the 1988 Education Reform Act is to have tests at ages 7,11 and 14, underpinned by the National Curriculum and Ofsted inspections. It was felt that without outside checks the subjective teacher apraisal and reporting would be open to question.
There is an alternative way, if people wish to avoid tests. This is to make the system more open and locally accountable, allowing parents the possibility of "voting with their feet" if performance is poor. Germany has selective education without the final "eleven plus", by having marks accumulated throughout junior school. This chimes with the best of public schools who regularly report on attainment and effort to parents who are the customers. So, why not make all parents customers, able to seek other schools if they are disappointed?
The second issue is what the tests reveal, even if exaggerated.(There seems to be no measure or agreement of how much the abilities are exaggerated.)
Today's Daily Telegraph reveals that the test results show that almost a third of 14 year olds lack important ability in reading, especially among boys, and that levels have fallen since the tests began. If schools are "teaching to exams" and exaggerating ability then the education system is failing the less able fairly dramatically. If reading is inadequate then all subjects will prove difficult.
Further evidence is that almost four in ten failed to reach the expected standard in all three subjects, English, Mathemtics and Science. This is not a good sign in the run up to GCSEs. Worse, about 20% of boys and 10% of girls have reading skills less than average 11-year-olds.
In general, despite all the extra spending, and some worthwhile initiatives there has been a recent small but general decline in the percentages of pupils achieving expected standards at stage three.
Nick Gibbs, the Shadow Schools Minister, is conerned at the number of children who achieve a satisfactory level at age 11 but not achieveing the expected standard at age 14.
Leaving aside the administrative blunders and lateness, and the inconsistency of some marking, it is obvious that secondary education is not building on earlier achievements.
One is the effect of regular testing.
Civitas, the think tank, recently released the results of a telephone survey undertaken among school teachers. Among other things, it emerged that almost 80% of the respondents believe that the tests exaggerate the level of competence in children, because many schools to preserve their reputation, or defend themselves against others who do, by orientating their teaching over long periods towards passing the tests as well as possible, "teaching to the test".
Other people have claimed that the test are such an interruption that important time is wasted on them, while still others feel that tests are an imposition on young children with possible unknown harmful effects.
There seem to be two broad approaches to ensuring quality standards in our schools. The one adopted by the 1988 Education Reform Act is to have tests at ages 7,11 and 14, underpinned by the National Curriculum and Ofsted inspections. It was felt that without outside checks the subjective teacher apraisal and reporting would be open to question.
There is an alternative way, if people wish to avoid tests. This is to make the system more open and locally accountable, allowing parents the possibility of "voting with their feet" if performance is poor. Germany has selective education without the final "eleven plus", by having marks accumulated throughout junior school. This chimes with the best of public schools who regularly report on attainment and effort to parents who are the customers. So, why not make all parents customers, able to seek other schools if they are disappointed?
The second issue is what the tests reveal, even if exaggerated.(There seems to be no measure or agreement of how much the abilities are exaggerated.)
Today's Daily Telegraph reveals that the test results show that almost a third of 14 year olds lack important ability in reading, especially among boys, and that levels have fallen since the tests began. If schools are "teaching to exams" and exaggerating ability then the education system is failing the less able fairly dramatically. If reading is inadequate then all subjects will prove difficult.
Further evidence is that almost four in ten failed to reach the expected standard in all three subjects, English, Mathemtics and Science. This is not a good sign in the run up to GCSEs. Worse, about 20% of boys and 10% of girls have reading skills less than average 11-year-olds.
In general, despite all the extra spending, and some worthwhile initiatives there has been a recent small but general decline in the percentages of pupils achieving expected standards at stage three.
Nick Gibbs, the Shadow Schools Minister, is conerned at the number of children who achieve a satisfactory level at age 11 but not achieveing the expected standard at age 14.
Leaving aside the administrative blunders and lateness, and the inconsistency of some marking, it is obvious that secondary education is not building on earlier achievements.
All in the national interest
It seems that the law pages of the Times newspaper recently carried the report that the Government has included a clause in the Counter-Terrorism Bill which is of great concern.(This was reported by the ever vigilant Guido Fawkes, on his website yesterday.)
The clause would give the Government power to decree secret courts where openness is not deemed deemed to be in the (ubiquitous) "public interest". The Home Secretary could order that a jury not be summoned and exclude the public from inquests or replace the coroner with a Government appointee.
Coming on top of the forcing through of detention without trial for up to 42 days, frequent statements about abolishing the right to jury trials for some offences, the summary justice and warnings/cautions by police, this seems another attack on our traditional open system of justice - that justice must be done and seen to be done.
The motivation is not difficult to imagine. If coroners sitting in inquests where the result could be embarrassing to the Government can be replaced with "safe"chairmen, or their verdicts not revealed to the public the Government could relax safely. This could be especially true in the case of inquests on servicemen killed in action, where coroners have begun to question the quality of equipment provision or its availability.
"The public interest" is such an elastic term that anything could be concealed, even to the biscuits eaten by civil servants with their coffee.
The is a Government which began in 1997 with the intention to be open and accountable, and passed the Freedom of Information Act, but has ever since rowed back on its commitments and is now undoing rights enjoyed by the people of this country for centuries.
The clause would give the Government power to decree secret courts where openness is not deemed deemed to be in the (ubiquitous) "public interest". The Home Secretary could order that a jury not be summoned and exclude the public from inquests or replace the coroner with a Government appointee.
Coming on top of the forcing through of detention without trial for up to 42 days, frequent statements about abolishing the right to jury trials for some offences, the summary justice and warnings/cautions by police, this seems another attack on our traditional open system of justice - that justice must be done and seen to be done.
The motivation is not difficult to imagine. If coroners sitting in inquests where the result could be embarrassing to the Government can be replaced with "safe"chairmen, or their verdicts not revealed to the public the Government could relax safely. This could be especially true in the case of inquests on servicemen killed in action, where coroners have begun to question the quality of equipment provision or its availability.
"The public interest" is such an elastic term that anything could be concealed, even to the biscuits eaten by civil servants with their coffee.
The is a Government which began in 1997 with the intention to be open and accountable, and passed the Freedom of Information Act, but has ever since rowed back on its commitments and is now undoing rights enjoyed by the people of this country for centuries.
Monday, 11 August 2008
Well, what did they expect?
Last Friday the Daily Telegraph reported that there was between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2008 a fall in the amount of traffic on our roads. The second quarter's fall was also a fall on the first quarter in 2008.
Car traffic fell from 100.7 billion car miles in 2007 to 99.1 billion in 2008, a 1.5% reduction.Overall, including buses, lorries and vans, the overall fall was 0.5%, though it was 2% on A roads both urban and rural. The calculations were done by the Department for Transport using readings from automatic censors and also by human counters.
The consequence was that on the slowest journeys on average the average delay fell from 3.95 minutes to 3.86 minutes.
This compares with an increase in traffic of 14% over the period 1997-2007.
The AA in a survey of 18,500 members reported that 55% were making fewer journeys because of the high fuel costs. In June 2007 the average price of petrol was 97p a litre. By June 2008 this had risen to 118.2p.
It is possible that general belt tightening also contributed, with uncertainty about the future making people think twice about non-essential journeys
What did they do in place of travelling? No answer is available, but it is probably a mixture of several things, such as walking in place of short journeys, sharing transport with friends or colleagues and where possible travelling on public transport.
The motorists are acting like "economic man" as envisaged by economists. When the price rises in most cases individuals will tend to reduce consumption.
This suggests that government schemes of differential vehicle duties are engaged in an expensive bureaucratic exercise of stealth taxation. The "gas guzzlers" they so wish to attack are being attacked by increased mileage usage costs, as they use more petrol. In other words they are attacking ownership when they ought to be attacking consumption of a polluting good.
Substitution by other means of travel, and a reduction in emissions, would happen naturally without the expensive bureaucracy, if motorists are confronted with taxes on usage rather than ownership. Of course, left wingers like to feel that they are protecting the poor and attacking the (undeserving) rich. As it stands some may decide not to buy a car and use it once or twice a year because of the heavy VED, whereas if the tax were "all" on fuel they could perhaps own a car and use it infrequently.
The heavy polluters should pay, - the Government have this right, but they should pay in proportion to their usage, not the engine size, and if they wish manufacturers to produce more efficient engines tax the fuel used.
Car traffic fell from 100.7 billion car miles in 2007 to 99.1 billion in 2008, a 1.5% reduction.Overall, including buses, lorries and vans, the overall fall was 0.5%, though it was 2% on A roads both urban and rural. The calculations were done by the Department for Transport using readings from automatic censors and also by human counters.
The consequence was that on the slowest journeys on average the average delay fell from 3.95 minutes to 3.86 minutes.
This compares with an increase in traffic of 14% over the period 1997-2007.
The AA in a survey of 18,500 members reported that 55% were making fewer journeys because of the high fuel costs. In June 2007 the average price of petrol was 97p a litre. By June 2008 this had risen to 118.2p.
It is possible that general belt tightening also contributed, with uncertainty about the future making people think twice about non-essential journeys
What did they do in place of travelling? No answer is available, but it is probably a mixture of several things, such as walking in place of short journeys, sharing transport with friends or colleagues and where possible travelling on public transport.
The motorists are acting like "economic man" as envisaged by economists. When the price rises in most cases individuals will tend to reduce consumption.
This suggests that government schemes of differential vehicle duties are engaged in an expensive bureaucratic exercise of stealth taxation. The "gas guzzlers" they so wish to attack are being attacked by increased mileage usage costs, as they use more petrol. In other words they are attacking ownership when they ought to be attacking consumption of a polluting good.
Substitution by other means of travel, and a reduction in emissions, would happen naturally without the expensive bureaucracy, if motorists are confronted with taxes on usage rather than ownership. Of course, left wingers like to feel that they are protecting the poor and attacking the (undeserving) rich. As it stands some may decide not to buy a car and use it once or twice a year because of the heavy VED, whereas if the tax were "all" on fuel they could perhaps own a car and use it infrequently.
The heavy polluters should pay, - the Government have this right, but they should pay in proportion to their usage, not the engine size, and if they wish manufacturers to produce more efficient engines tax the fuel used.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
All in the name of security
Ian Traynor in the Guardian, in an article in which I can at last agree with some of the contents, suggests that we should be worried about European Union plans.
Brussels wants an international bank of biometric data, in other words for our own to be incorporated into theirs! It wants a Union-wide police force, at least in some respects. It wants to harmonise criminal law.
All this at a time when some of us, with even empty gestures from the Government, want to bring decision-making closer to the the people. We want to devolve decisions beyond even the nations of the UK to local resolution. The European Union wants to wrest control to unaccountable and undemocratic control somewhere among faceless people in Europe.
Why do they want to achieve this? To some extent, of course, it panders to those who are trying to create Europe, - a country which can stand up to the big boys in the world, now their own little country on its own has lost influence.
Such people will go along with it all as achieving their dreams. The real reason seems to be one of greater security. Almost anything may be agreed if a threat to security, real or imaginary, is raised.
"It's freedom or security", we are told. That's why Brown stopped dithering for once and rushed through 42 days of detention without trial or charge. In the name of security we have endured many things.
Well, here's one person who does not feel greatly reassured by the fact that nearly thirty other governments with many thousands of officials, some of who have been complicit in defrauding the Union of vasts sums of money almost yearly, will have so-called confidential data on me, and have the ability tap my telephone or read my e-mails, or to lose files or CDs with data. Nor do I wish to be subject to a foreign controlled and unaccountable police force, with remote decisions made about me and my community, and I certainly do not wish to be subject to a criminal law system radically different to my own. Nothing in the proposals makes me feel more secure.
We already have the threat, openly declared by our own Government, to make all government held databases and some private ones subject to common access. If this were spread to similar databases across Europe the potential to spy on or manipulate citizens would be immense, and the potential for corrupt use of the data even greater.
We read yesterday and today of the ease with which a computer expert can clone a biometric passport or ID card. How valuable would such cards be, even if issued by the majesty of the EU?
The only good thing I can find in the proposals is that the 42 day detention provision would fall. On second thoughts if the EU could be persuaded that EU security was at stake....
Brussels wants an international bank of biometric data, in other words for our own to be incorporated into theirs! It wants a Union-wide police force, at least in some respects. It wants to harmonise criminal law.
All this at a time when some of us, with even empty gestures from the Government, want to bring decision-making closer to the the people. We want to devolve decisions beyond even the nations of the UK to local resolution. The European Union wants to wrest control to unaccountable and undemocratic control somewhere among faceless people in Europe.
Why do they want to achieve this? To some extent, of course, it panders to those who are trying to create Europe, - a country which can stand up to the big boys in the world, now their own little country on its own has lost influence.
Such people will go along with it all as achieving their dreams. The real reason seems to be one of greater security. Almost anything may be agreed if a threat to security, real or imaginary, is raised.
"It's freedom or security", we are told. That's why Brown stopped dithering for once and rushed through 42 days of detention without trial or charge. In the name of security we have endured many things.
Well, here's one person who does not feel greatly reassured by the fact that nearly thirty other governments with many thousands of officials, some of who have been complicit in defrauding the Union of vasts sums of money almost yearly, will have so-called confidential data on me, and have the ability tap my telephone or read my e-mails, or to lose files or CDs with data. Nor do I wish to be subject to a foreign controlled and unaccountable police force, with remote decisions made about me and my community, and I certainly do not wish to be subject to a criminal law system radically different to my own. Nothing in the proposals makes me feel more secure.
We already have the threat, openly declared by our own Government, to make all government held databases and some private ones subject to common access. If this were spread to similar databases across Europe the potential to spy on or manipulate citizens would be immense, and the potential for corrupt use of the data even greater.
We read yesterday and today of the ease with which a computer expert can clone a biometric passport or ID card. How valuable would such cards be, even if issued by the majesty of the EU?
The only good thing I can find in the proposals is that the 42 day detention provision would fall. On second thoughts if the EU could be persuaded that EU security was at stake....
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Education, Education, Education?
Yesterday in the Guardian newspaper John Hayes, Conservative Spokesman for Innovation, Universities and Skills, revealed one significant way in which the Government has failed almost totally to achieve its mantra, - in the fairly unglamorous area of further education.
Since 1997 enrolments at FE colleges have plummeted, and there are now almost one million less further education students than when NuLabour came to power. Further, the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education reports that since 2005 1.4 million adult education places have been lost.
Among the younger age groups, the other side of the coin is the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs). This number has risen by nearly a quarter since 1997.
A callous observer could remark that basket weaving for the elderly, flower arranging or cookery and other similar courses for retired people will probably not make much difference to the national economy, - perhaps why fees on these have risen astronomically, but the loss of classes could make much difference to the participants themselves.
It would be much more difficult to argue that young people sitting about at home on benefit, having given up on education, is not much cause for concern. This is a terrible waste of young lives and a severe loss of dignity.
John Hayes promised that the next Conservative Government will restore spending in these areas, to enrich lives and to help younger people contribute to society. Democracy surely demands nothing less.
Is the real mantra of NuLabour really "Education, Education, Education, despite the massive amounts of our money they have poured into education? Mr. Hayes pointed out that the budget for the Learning and Skills Council has risen to nearly £11 billion, while at the same time the number of people on all LSC funded programmes is falling. Does this sound like something out of "Yes, Minister"?
Since 1997 enrolments at FE colleges have plummeted, and there are now almost one million less further education students than when NuLabour came to power. Further, the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education reports that since 2005 1.4 million adult education places have been lost.
Among the younger age groups, the other side of the coin is the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs). This number has risen by nearly a quarter since 1997.
A callous observer could remark that basket weaving for the elderly, flower arranging or cookery and other similar courses for retired people will probably not make much difference to the national economy, - perhaps why fees on these have risen astronomically, but the loss of classes could make much difference to the participants themselves.
It would be much more difficult to argue that young people sitting about at home on benefit, having given up on education, is not much cause for concern. This is a terrible waste of young lives and a severe loss of dignity.
John Hayes promised that the next Conservative Government will restore spending in these areas, to enrich lives and to help younger people contribute to society. Democracy surely demands nothing less.
Is the real mantra of NuLabour really "Education, Education, Education, despite the massive amounts of our money they have poured into education? Mr. Hayes pointed out that the budget for the Learning and Skills Council has risen to nearly £11 billion, while at the same time the number of people on all LSC funded programmes is falling. Does this sound like something out of "Yes, Minister"?
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Statistics are what I say they are
Michael Gove, Shadow Children's Secretary, from a series of questions he asked in parliament, has presented evidence of the failure of the educational system to help children from the poorest families in our society.
It emerged that of secondary school children eligible for free school meals, frequently taken as indicating poverty and deprivation, about 44% , or 33,909, fail to gain any GCSE pass of grace C or better, a so-called "good pass". Only one in 16 stays on in education after the age of 16. In 2006 year only 176, or 0.2% achieved the three grade A passes at A-level. (In 2006 25,948 children achieved three A grade passes altogether.)
If you subscribe to the notion that all children are of the same academic and intellectual potential, as certainly the lefties are inclined, and that differences in achievement are due to nurture and not nature, than those results are a terrible indictment of our system, however much we may disagree over explanation. In fact the numbers are far worse than in the days or selective education!
It is not surprising that Michael Gove made use of such statistics in an important speech yesterday. It is equally unsurprising that a Government spokesman could say on Toady this morning that there are big improvements in the year since. He gave no actual figures, and seems to be relying on us to forget what he said when the figures emerge.
It emerged that of secondary school children eligible for free school meals, frequently taken as indicating poverty and deprivation, about 44% , or 33,909, fail to gain any GCSE pass of grace C or better, a so-called "good pass". Only one in 16 stays on in education after the age of 16. In 2006 year only 176, or 0.2% achieved the three grade A passes at A-level. (In 2006 25,948 children achieved three A grade passes altogether.)
If you subscribe to the notion that all children are of the same academic and intellectual potential, as certainly the lefties are inclined, and that differences in achievement are due to nurture and not nature, than those results are a terrible indictment of our system, however much we may disagree over explanation. In fact the numbers are far worse than in the days or selective education!
It is not surprising that Michael Gove made use of such statistics in an important speech yesterday. It is equally unsurprising that a Government spokesman could say on Toady this morning that there are big improvements in the year since. He gave no actual figures, and seems to be relying on us to forget what he said when the figures emerge.
Town Hall bullies - by appointment
The Sunday Times, followed by yesterday's Daily Telegraph, told us that rubbish collection has acquired a more sinister turn.
Central Government has told local councils to impose fixed penalties of between £75 and £110 for misdemeanours with rubbish bins. There have been penalties before, but the Government has decreed the range within which penalties must fall.These "crimes" include failure to close the lids of wheelie bins (- this when collections are now fortnightly and rubbish accumulates), putting out extra black plastic bags, putting out the bin on the wrong evening or putting it in the wrong place.
The Government is recommending a penalty of £100, payable on the spot to a council inspector. If so this fine will be higher than that typically levied by police on shoplifters and people deemed drunk and disorderly. It is also higher than fines handed out to people guilty of fly-tipping. Failure to pay on the spot will lead to a higher charge. A Cardiff bus driver who was "fined" £100 because his wheelie bin was open 4 inches refused to pay and was taken to court. There he was ordered to pay £210, or about a week's wages. In the first instance when ordered to pay £100 for his crime, he was confronted by Council inspectors wearing stab-proof vests and carrying photographic evidence of his crime.
From April 2006 until April 2007 44,000 households were fined. In due course we shall find out if in the next year even more hard-pressed households have been fined.
Is it (yet another) stealth tax? The Government claims that it is not, and have included mixed explanations - claiming that the charges which were requested by local councils had been agreed in1990, are designed to avoid the necessity and expense of court action and are designed to cover expensive new conditions to arise on re-cycling measures over the next 5 years!
Is the crime worse than than others, specifically shoplifting, drunken disorder or fly tipping? Surely not!
We used to have a system where only the courts can fine, because there is possible legal redress. We now the police and local authorities able to levy fines, the same local authorities which have discontinued a weekly collection and already charge large rate elements for rubbish collection.
Worse still, all this is happening when council officials are required to act as "storm trooper" tax collectors. Is there any real surprise that politicians are held in such low esteem, and that more and more people feel that voting is a waste of effort?
Central Government has told local councils to impose fixed penalties of between £75 and £110 for misdemeanours with rubbish bins. There have been penalties before, but the Government has decreed the range within which penalties must fall.These "crimes" include failure to close the lids of wheelie bins (- this when collections are now fortnightly and rubbish accumulates), putting out extra black plastic bags, putting out the bin on the wrong evening or putting it in the wrong place.
The Government is recommending a penalty of £100, payable on the spot to a council inspector. If so this fine will be higher than that typically levied by police on shoplifters and people deemed drunk and disorderly. It is also higher than fines handed out to people guilty of fly-tipping. Failure to pay on the spot will lead to a higher charge. A Cardiff bus driver who was "fined" £100 because his wheelie bin was open 4 inches refused to pay and was taken to court. There he was ordered to pay £210, or about a week's wages. In the first instance when ordered to pay £100 for his crime, he was confronted by Council inspectors wearing stab-proof vests and carrying photographic evidence of his crime.
From April 2006 until April 2007 44,000 households were fined. In due course we shall find out if in the next year even more hard-pressed households have been fined.
Is it (yet another) stealth tax? The Government claims that it is not, and have included mixed explanations - claiming that the charges which were requested by local councils had been agreed in1990, are designed to avoid the necessity and expense of court action and are designed to cover expensive new conditions to arise on re-cycling measures over the next 5 years!
Is the crime worse than than others, specifically shoplifting, drunken disorder or fly tipping? Surely not!
We used to have a system where only the courts can fine, because there is possible legal redress. We now the police and local authorities able to levy fines, the same local authorities which have discontinued a weekly collection and already charge large rate elements for rubbish collection.
Worse still, all this is happening when council officials are required to act as "storm trooper" tax collectors. Is there any real surprise that politicians are held in such low esteem, and that more and more people feel that voting is a waste of effort?
Saturday, 2 August 2008
Impartial decision makers or political animals
I write as a non-lawyer, but as one who is very interested in law and democracy
In criminal trials the judge, or magistrate, will oversee the conduct of cases to make sure that all procedures conform to the traditions of justice, including the decision as to what is admissible as evidence, what questions may be asked of witnesses, etc. The judge will also sum up, giving an indication of the value of some evidence. Finally, in the event of a guilty verdict the judge has to decide on the suitability of various penalties and the level and severity of the one chosen.
As time passes and new areas of wrong or crime become possible, the judiciary collectively will create precedent and in effect create new laws.
All this ideally is done with keen intelligence, independence, experience and a complete absence of personal consideration.
It is true that Parliament could repeal any law or modify it, or could lay down penalties for various offences.
We have seen at times over the past twenty years conflict between the judiciary and Parliament. Home secretaries have attempted to circumscribe judicial limits in sentencing, for instance. Who should prevail, the elected Parliament or the non-accountable judiciary? This question seems not to have been decided, and the contention continues.
More recently judges have become involved in other "political areas.
1) Judicial Review - judges have been asked to make decisions on areas which may not be strict interpretation of laws, but rather involve elements of morality and politics. In the latter areas judges may not be better qualified than many other members of society. The judges undoubtedly bring keen analytical minds to bear, but they are used not because they possess all the necessary skills but rather because of their probity. A famous case would be the Hutton Report, where the learned judge came to conclusions very different to those of many other experienced and able observers.
2) Judicial pronouncements. Recently Lord Phillips, the Chief Justice, made a statement to the effect that certain parts of Sharia Law should be adopted into UK law, at least for some citizens. In this he was following the Archbishop of Canterbury who had advocated that Sharia Law could be incorporated. Both men come from the liberal, multicultural tradition, which is discredited in the eyes of some people. In other words both men were making political utterances, not based on their specialised disciplines and in any casemaking statements which are normative, that is to say value judgements. Such judgements are not objective, or positive, not conducive to logical proof. They are in the area of political resolution only. So why were the two men flying kites from within their own areas?
There is a potential democratic problem here. If judges are going to behave in ways which embroach on political areas, then somehow they must be made accountable for any power they employ in these areas, or else shut up. Perhaps public confirmation hearings to try to weed out out judicial candidates who are unsafe, or to try to find a balance among them, is one way. We are familiar with this in American hearings for members of the supreme court or cabinet posts.
Perhaps this has all been true for some time, but with an ever more educated electorate and ever easier disemination of information it is not aceptable merely to act in deference to the judiciary and permit them unaccountable political, as opposed to judicial, power.
In criminal trials the judge, or magistrate, will oversee the conduct of cases to make sure that all procedures conform to the traditions of justice, including the decision as to what is admissible as evidence, what questions may be asked of witnesses, etc. The judge will also sum up, giving an indication of the value of some evidence. Finally, in the event of a guilty verdict the judge has to decide on the suitability of various penalties and the level and severity of the one chosen.
As time passes and new areas of wrong or crime become possible, the judiciary collectively will create precedent and in effect create new laws.
All this ideally is done with keen intelligence, independence, experience and a complete absence of personal consideration.
It is true that Parliament could repeal any law or modify it, or could lay down penalties for various offences.
We have seen at times over the past twenty years conflict between the judiciary and Parliament. Home secretaries have attempted to circumscribe judicial limits in sentencing, for instance. Who should prevail, the elected Parliament or the non-accountable judiciary? This question seems not to have been decided, and the contention continues.
More recently judges have become involved in other "political areas.
1) Judicial Review - judges have been asked to make decisions on areas which may not be strict interpretation of laws, but rather involve elements of morality and politics. In the latter areas judges may not be better qualified than many other members of society. The judges undoubtedly bring keen analytical minds to bear, but they are used not because they possess all the necessary skills but rather because of their probity. A famous case would be the Hutton Report, where the learned judge came to conclusions very different to those of many other experienced and able observers.
2) Judicial pronouncements. Recently Lord Phillips, the Chief Justice, made a statement to the effect that certain parts of Sharia Law should be adopted into UK law, at least for some citizens. In this he was following the Archbishop of Canterbury who had advocated that Sharia Law could be incorporated. Both men come from the liberal, multicultural tradition, which is discredited in the eyes of some people. In other words both men were making political utterances, not based on their specialised disciplines and in any casemaking statements which are normative, that is to say value judgements. Such judgements are not objective, or positive, not conducive to logical proof. They are in the area of political resolution only. So why were the two men flying kites from within their own areas?
There is a potential democratic problem here. If judges are going to behave in ways which embroach on political areas, then somehow they must be made accountable for any power they employ in these areas, or else shut up. Perhaps public confirmation hearings to try to weed out out judicial candidates who are unsafe, or to try to find a balance among them, is one way. We are familiar with this in American hearings for members of the supreme court or cabinet posts.
Perhaps this has all been true for some time, but with an ever more educated electorate and ever easier disemination of information it is not aceptable merely to act in deference to the judiciary and permit them unaccountable political, as opposed to judicial, power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
