Some public schools have switched to a four-day school week — do kids learn more or less?

first_imgEmail How would you react if you were told that your local public school planned to change the schedule from the traditional Monday-through-Friday model to a schedule that contained four longer school days? Would you worry about long days for young children, their academic accomplishments and, of course, childcare?Across the US many public school districts have considered the option of schedule change as a way to manage budget cuts and reallocations. A surprising number of schools, especially in the western United States, have adopted just such a policy. In most cases, students in these schools now attend school Monday through Thursday.Parents can easily imagine that young children would suffer from longer school days. Also, children of all ages could have too many opportunities to forget what they had learned over a three-day weekend. Share on Twitter Pinterest So, what impact is the four-day-week schedule actually having on student achievement?Mark Anderson, a faculty member at Montana State University, and I embarked on a study to examine the impact of the four-day week on student learning. Our results show a positive impact on student achievement.Here’s how we did our studyWhen we started, we found only few evaluations of the policy change had been carried out. Furthermore, most evidence was anecdotal and simply described the changes in a single district.We found these descriptions to be unsatisfactory. It allowed for too many other factors that could influence student performance, other than a district’s decision to switch schedules.For example, if the four-day schedule were adopted in school districts where scores were already going up, the existing trend would confound the effect of the schedule change.We were not able to do a large-scale experiment whereby we could assign some children to four-day schedules and some others to traditional schedules to examine the impact. But we did the next best thing.We gathered data over time for schools that had adopted a four-day week and then we chose a “matched” sample of schools that had stuck with a traditional five-day week.The schools were “matched” in terms of size and school characteristics, as well as socioeconomic characteristics such as ethnicity and free- and reduced-lunch enrollment.We could then examine average grade achievement on the state‐mandated tests over a longer period and compare changes in achievement for the four-day-week schools versus the traditional-schedule schools.In order to avoid the problems in comparing state achievement scores across states, we used data only from schools in Colorado, where over one‐third of the school districts have adopted the four‐day schedule.What did we find?Our results, based on fifth grade mathematics scores, generally show that achievement rises after the introduction of a four-day week. We found that, even after we take into account the variations due to different socioeconomic levels, the four-day school week is associated with an increased achievement.We found that, on average, math scores increased by about seven points, meaning that the percentage of fifth graders scoring either proficient or advanced in mathematics went up from about 60% to about 67%, after the schedule change to a four-day week.These results were statistically significant, meaning there is a very low probability that the results occurred by chance.The relationship between the schedule change and achievement in reading is also positive, although the increase was smaller. We found scoring proficient or advanced changed from about 66% to about 69%. But in the results for reading, we could not reject the possibility that they occurred by chance.Overall, we found no evidence that switching to a four‐day week harms student performance.These results naturally led to speculation on the mechanisms that drove the results. Could teachers be using alternative instruction methods that enhance learning?Maybe students on a four-day schedule miss fewer days of school; a number of prior studies have pointed to attendance being a factor in achievement. Or, is it that teachers miss fewer days of school on the alternative schedule?We did not have enough information in our data to really examine the different possible ways in which the schedule change could improve academic outcomes. Incomplete data on attendance suggested that attendance improved when the schedule was shortened to four days.But more work would be required on this issue. We also don’t know what is the impact of a four-day week on high schoolers, or how teachers manage this change.Overall, we believe that the evidence that we found is an important one and should be part of the conversation on education policy.By Mary Beth Walker, Dean of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State UniversityThis article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.center_img Share Share on Facebook LinkedInlast_img read more

Read More →

JPEC: Your Vote Shapes Our Judiciary

first_imgJPEC’s evaluations are posted in English and Spanish on our website, www.nmjpec.org. Printed information is available by calling 1.800.687.3417. This year, don’t be a spectator. Participate by voting in all elections in which you are eligible to cast a ballot, including the judicial retention elections. By DENISE TORRES and JAMES HALLNew Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation CommissionMarian Wright Edelman, founder and president emerita of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), may have said it best: “Democracy is not a spectator sport”.This fall, you can have a voice in shaping New Mexico’s judiciary by voting whether or not to retain one New Mexico Court of Appeals judge and seven district court judges in the First Judicial District, which includes Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties.In New Mexico, judges must first run in and win a partisan election, whether they have been appointed to their position or are running for the position in the election. Once a judge is elected (except for magistrate judges), they stand for retention in all future elections. Judicial candidates standing for retention do not face an opponent. Instead, they must receive 57 percent voter approval to remain on the bench. Most people have no idea who these judges are and no way to learn about them. That’s where the New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) comes in. JPEC is a volunteer, nonpartisan commission created by the New Mexico Supreme Court to: Improve the performance of judges; and Provide useful, credible information to voters on judges standing for retention.JPEC provides detailed information to voters including one of four recommendations: Retain; Do not retain; No opinion; or Insufficient time in the current position to evaluate. Under JPEC rules, judges can only be evaluated if they have served in their current positions for at least two years or if JPEC has sufficient data to achieve a statistically valid sample. JPEC evaluates each judge twice. Midway through their term on the bench, JPEC conducts a confidential evaluation to help the judge assess their performance and develop a plan, if needed, to address any areas of weakness. The second evaluation is conducted before the judge stands for retention, and is released to the public.JPEC compiles its evaluations from several sources, including confidential surveys with individuals who regularly come in contact with each judge. Survey groups include other judges (for appellate judges only), attorneys, court staff, jurors and resource staff (law enforcement, probation/parole officers, etc.). JPEC also reviews statistics for each judge including caseloads, excusals (attorneys who ask that the judge be recused from hearing a case) and the time it takes to get cases resolved. Sometimes, JPEC sends court observers to personally observe and comment on the judge’s actions in court.Finally, JPEC meets one-on-one with each judge being evaluated to review the survey results as well as their self-assessment of performance. Judges who receive a “do not retain” recommendation are given a second opportunity to meet with the Commission, if desired, to make their case for retention. This year, JPEC makes the following recommendations: Retain First Judicial District Court Judges T. Glenn Ellington, Sylvia F. LaMar, Francis J. Mathew, Mary Marlowe Sommer and Matthew Justin Wilson; andInsufficient Time in Current Position to Evaluate Jacqueline R. Medina, New Mexico Court of Appeals, and First Judicial District Court Judges Jason C. Lidyard and Maria E. Sanchez-Gagne.last_img read more

Read More →

Just the tonic

first_imgTo access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletterslast_img

Read More →

SIBUR reveals expansion plans

first_imgGet instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribelast_img

Read More →

Bureau Veritas, LM Team Up on Wind Turbine Blades Certification

first_imgBureau Veritas, a global leader in testing, inspection and certification, has announced the signing of a framework agreement with LM Wind Power, the world’s leading supplier of components and services to the wind industry. The framework agreement covers the certification of wind turbine blades to international standards.The contract follows a successful collaboration between both companies, sharing knowledge and working together to fully understand the requirements and needs. This engagement and shared commitment are now cemented with the framework agreement and the first certification assignments are being undertaken.LM Wind Power’s VP Business Development & Strategic Alliances, Frank V. Nielsen, is confident that the new agreement will benefit LM Wind Power’s customers and the industry in general.Mr. Nielsen says: “We already have a successful working relationship with Bureau Veritas on our ISO 9001/14001 and OHSAS 18001 certifications. It was only natural for us to include the rotor blade certification as well, thereby effectively expanding the qualified certification offer in the industry. Based on its large competence base, customer focus and global footprint, Bureau Veritas lives up to our requirements for a value-adding certification, which allows us to deliver a documented and highly reliable product to our customers.”Press release, March 11, 2014; Image: MERLINCOlast_img read more

Read More →

Patent

first_img Mark Chacksfield (instructed by Bond Pearce) for the claimants; Robert Deacon (instructed by Hansel Henson) for ESPL; MH did not appear and was not represented. H was the inventor and owner of a patent granted on 1 May 2002. In July 2009, H granted EM Ltd (EML) an exclusive licence under the patent. EML was owned and run by the Black family, in particular JB and SB. In 2010, EML decided to set up a new company, ESP Ltd (ESPL) as the vehicle to buy the patent. On 5 February, H executed an assignment of the patent to his company, MAD Ltd (MAD). On 22 February, an agreement, embodied in a written agreement signed on that date, was reached between MAD and EML to sell the patent to EML. The agreement had four parties, namely MAD, EML, ESPL and H. The agreement included a provision for assignment of the patent from MAD to ESPL expressly in consideration of the payment of £80,000 (see clause 2.1) and the relevant payment terms (see clause 4.1). Clause 7.2, provided that if any three consecutive sums under the agreement remained outstanding for more than 90 days cumulatively, the assignee should, on demand by the assignor, forthwith provide to the assignor an executed assignment of the patent back to the assignor or its designate in registrable form. On the same day the agreement was signed, MS Ltd (MSL) started a claim in the Patents County Court to revoke the patent (the main proceedings), claiming ownership of it. H and MAD contended that the patent belonged to them. EML contended that the patent belonged to it as it had purchased it from MAD for £80,000. From the date of the agreement until April, all the relevant payments were made. However, the May payment was not made. On 9 June, EML wrote to H requesting a repayment holiday to enable it to continue the legal fight with MSL over the validity of the patent. In that letter, EML was saying that it could not afford to fight EML in court and pay the instalments due. H did not accept EML’s proposals. The June payment was not made and on 22 June, the matter came before the county court for a case management conference. In the course of the main proceedings, the question of who the proper parties were arose and it was ordered that the defendants were to be H, EML and JB. The judge refused to order ESPL to be made a defendant but directed that it would be named as a defendant if ESPL became registered proprietor. At that stage, the register showed H as proprietor and EML as exclusive licensee. None of the subsequent transactions had been registered. On 13 July, SB sent another email to H about the payments, proposing a way forward. H did not accept those proposals. In the event, the July payment was not made. On 5 August, MAD and H entered into an agreement with MH plc (MH), a company associated with the claimant company in the main proceedings. Under the agreement with MH, inter alia, the debt owed by EML (at that stage totalling £15,000) was assigned to MH along with the right to receive the remaining monthly payments. Consideration for the assignment of the contract debt (including the right to future instalments) was £15,000, paid by MH to MAD. On that same date, MAD sent a notice pursuant to clause 7.2 requiring ESPL to reassign the patent to MAD. On 10 August, MAD sent another notice of assignment of the debt to EML. That letter included a copy of the assignment of the debt to MH signed by H on behalf of MAD. No payment was made by EML and the patent was not assigned. Following the failure by EML to make the August payment, MH served a statutory demand on EML pursuant to section 123(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986. On 17 September, EML paid the outstanding debt to MH and MH accepted the payment. After that, ESPL continued to make payments of the instalments due under the agreement. The payment due in January 2011 was three days late as a result of the weekend. However, a second statutory demand was served on ESPL by MH for that payment. ESPL never assigned the patent back to MAD. MAD’s case was that ESPL was obliged by clause 7.2 to execute a reassignment of the patent back to MAD. MAD sought specific performance of the contract to achieve that objective. On 7 April 2011, it was ordered that the question of who the correct defendant to MSL’s claim for revocation of the patent was, should be tried as a preliminary issue. There were three camps claiming ownership of the patent, namely: (i) MS Ltd (the claimant in the main proceedings); (ii) H and MAD; and (iii) ESPL and its associated companies. That issue was tried as a part 20 claim in the main patent proceedings, with H and MAD as claimants and ESPL as the defendant. By that time, MAD had settled its differences with MSL, whereas EML had not. Consequently, if MAD owned the patent and should be defendant to the main action, the revocation action would cease as those parties were agreed. However, if ESPL owned the patent and was the correct defendant, the revocation action would continue. EML contended that clause 7.2 was not engaged at all. It argued that the way in which MAD calculated the days had been wrong. It argued that by 5 August 2010, the clause had been engaged because by that time three consecutive sums under the agreement had remained outstanding and the cumulative total number of days the payments had been outstanding had been more than 90. MAD’s calculation was that by 5 August, the relevant number of days was 133, with the result that the patent should be reassigned to MAD. EML denied that clause 7.2 had been engaged at all. It contended that the way in which MAD calculated the days was wrong. If the relevant days were calculated in a manner EML contended for then the number by 5 August would only have been 11 or 12. EML further contended that even if MAD was correct about the way in which clause 7.2 worked and therefore correct that it had been engaged, there were a number of further defences. Against that background, the following issues fell to be determined, including: first, the true construction of clause 7.2, both in terms of the triggering event and its place in the contract as a whole: if EML was right, then the case did not get off the ground. Secondly, the doctrines of waiver and affirmation, as raised by EML, and in particular the effect of the acceptance of EML’s payments by MSL. In respect of those doctrines, EML contended that the right to enforce the clause had been waived or that EML’s ownership of the patent had been affirmed on the basis that, in the full knowledge that the payments had not been made, MAD had assigned the debt and the right to future instalments to MH and had stood by while MH had demanded and accepted the payments from EML. The claim would be dismissed. (1) MAD’s alternative construction of the clause was the right one. Three payments had to be outstanding, but a relevant day was a day on which a payment remained outstanding. That was what the word ‘cumulatively’ in clause 7.2 was intended to achieve. The accumulation was to aggregate outstanding days for one payment together with days for another and for a third. Once the total passed 90 days, the clause was triggered. Consequently, on that basis, MAD had the right to call for a reassignment when it had done so on 5 August 2010 (see [51] of the judgment). (2) In the instant case, on 17 September 2010, EML had proffered the outstanding sums due and they had been accepted. From EML’s point of view, it had offered to pay and had paid the money which had been due as a contract debt at that time. In substance, the party with whom it had contracted had been affirming the contract by accepting the money. At that point, the right to demand reassignment pursuant to clause 7.2 had come to an end (see [59] of the judgment). ESPL would be entitled to be named as defendant to the main revocation action (see [69] of the judgment). Petition for revocation – Validitycenter_img Horler and another v Everseal Stationery Products Ltd: Patents County Court (Judge Birss QC sitting as a judge of the Patents County Court): 21 October 2011last_img read more

Read More →

Furtive behaviour

first_imgStay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Subscribe now for unlimited access Get your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAYlast_img read more

Read More →

The Friday Flyer – September 27th 2013

first_imgThe news that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is in talks with Chinese investors relating to the sale of its 35 percent stake in all-cargo carrier Cargolux Airlines International, is just the latest development in China’s growing interest in foreign airline investment. Chinese aviation investment in the past has been mainly targeted at domestic services. Now, Chinese business and Beijing are looking at foreign carriers such as Cargolux.Any move on Cargolux would follow the country’s HNA Group’s 49 percent stake in Turkish cargo operator ACT Airway, growing the country’s interest in the global freight market. A delegation from Henan Province and its investment arm, the Henan Civil Aviation Development and Investment Co. (HNCA), conducted an extensive tour of Luxembourg International airport earlier this month, meeting airline Luxair SA, a 43.4 percent shareholder in Cargolux, as well as liaising with other logistics players based at the European gateway.According to the Luxembourg government, HNCA is one of a number of firms expressing an interest in the shares of Cargolux. The Chinese look set to acquire the 35 percent stake in the freighter airline that the government bought back from Qatar Airlines for its original sale price of USD117.5 million.Project cargo shippers moving containerised cargo will note the news that the IMO has agreed draft amendments to require container weight verification. Its sub-committee has accepted the compromise proposals by shipping firms and governments to provide for two independent methods for the verification of container weights.The draft amendments will now be submitted to the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) for approval with a view to subsequent adoption. Prior to the discussions the two sides of the supply chain had been trading blows and the European Shippers Council (ESC) had issued a statement saying it felt that “measures do not add anything to safety of containers at sea in the immediate (sic) and in the future”. This week’s Friday Flyer is sponsored by Broekman Project Services, located in the Port of Rotterdam, which offers a total solution for handling and assembly of project cargoes – www.broekman-group.com/bpsIn the corporate worldAbnormal Load Engineering (ALE) has secured funding from a lending club of four banks to support its international expansion plans and strategic objectives.Afriguide Logistics has completed the construction of its new head office in Durban (pictured top right).Caracal Energy has selected Geodis Wilson as its logistics partner for the exploration of a new resource field in Chad, its primary market, in a deal worth USD46 million.Capacity developmentsJumbo has launched its first new K3000 class vessel, Jumbo Kinetic (pictured right), which will be equipped with dual 1,500-tonne mast cranes, at the Brodosplit shipyard, Croatia.Scheuerle and Kamag used the facilities of Precision Enterprises in Florida to demonstrate the K25 PowerBooster modular trailer to the US market.Gebrüder Weiss’ new 10,500 sq m of handling and logistics space alongside 600 sq m of office space in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi has become operational.The Port of Newport in Wales has taken delivery of a new 64-tonne capacity, 50 m high Liebherr LHM 180 mobile harbour crane (pictured second right).Wagenborg Nedlift’s new 750-tonne capacity Liebherr LR1750 crawler crane has completed its first heavy lift job on behalf of ThyssenKrupp in Duisburg-Bruckhausen.Port Manatee will work with The Pasha Group to develop and market a full-service multipurpose ro-ro terminal near the entrance of Tampa Bay, Florida.Notable shipmentsAustralian Customs Professionals (ACP) has completed the shipment of a glass-bottom boat and an aluminium pontoon to Fiji on a journey that started in Cairns in North Queensland.A number of Hitachi turbine housings, rejected at Brisbane because of the state of the timber casings, were secured by ACP who then successfully shipped them to Japan.Jumbo Shipping has completed the transportation of the first of two 1,600-tonne flexible pipe lay towers (pictured second right) to Okpo, South Korea for French company Imeca.Toll NQX has transported five USD5.6 million, 129-tonne railway locomotives on five separate 2,200 km truck journeys across Australia.Super Cargo Service Co Ltd (SCS) has organised the shipment of a rotor from the South Korean port of Mesan to Vietnam in a two-piece consignment weighing 154 tonnes.Network newsTo mark the signing of its 200th member, the Project Cargo Network (PCN) has re-launched its website and is now preparing for its annual summit in November, its largest member gathering to date.Freight Expert, Inc. from Japan has joined the Pacific Power Logistics Network (PPL).Grand Arabia has joined the Project Cargo Network (PCN) as the third and final member in Jordan.People and placesLance Schneider has joined Afriguide Logistics.Peters & May has named Noel Viera (pictured right) as general manager of its US operations.A2SEA has named Andy Reay its new key account manager in the UK and Ireland, which he joins from ABB Consulting where he served as UK power sector business manager.All about EvieEvie was all of a flutter when she learned how big-hearted broker Air Partner had joined a major project to relocate live sea eagle chicks from Norway to Edinburgh, which helped the first sea eagle chick to be hatched in East Scotland in just under 200 years.The girl is keenly watching and waiting for Tian Tian and Yang Guang, the pandas in Edinburgh Zoo, to become parents. In the meantime, she was tickled to learn that a ‘panda’ is now flying between Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport and London Heathrow. After her initial surprise, she quickly learned that the panda turns out to be a British Airways 777-200 given a unique panda design to mark the start of the three times weekly service.Getting socialHeavy Lift & Project Forwarding International is upping its game in the social media arena. Our well established LinkedIn group complements the print and online editions of HLPFI and offers you the opportunity to discuss key issues and network with your peers and a wide cross-section of industry experts. Join the discussion now at: http://tinyurl.com/ces7odb Our Twitter feed @heavyliftpfi is now being populated with several tweets every day and we now have a page on facebook where news will also be posted daily. If you use facebook, search for HLPFI and like our page.Career opportunitiesRecruiting the right person can be a costly business. Agency fees can be prohibitively high and going through countless irrelevant applications can be very time consuming. Why not advertise your employment vacancy on our website???If you have a job vacancy to fill contact us today via ian@heavyliftpfi.com or on +44 (0) 1689 860660.Join us on LinkedInWith work complete on Issue 34, copies are now in the mail and should be hitting your desks by the end of the month. Work has started on issue 35, our November/December 2013 issue, which will include country reports on Austria & Switzerland, France, Denmark and the Nordic Countries, as well as South Africa; plus a review of project cargo logistics within the non-renewable energies sector; an industry focus on inland waterways; an operational review of cargo warranty surveying; a focus on equipment hire companies, plus our regular articles on law, insurance and safety; and letters from our regional correspondents. It will also include our annual supplement on the Caspian States and Central Asia. To discuss possible editorial contributions, or book advertising, contact Ian Matheson on +44 (0) 1689 857631 or ian@heavyliftpfi.com for more information.last_img read more

Read More →

Clarke in Jackson reform climbdown

first_imgJustice secretary Kenneth Clarke today made a surprise U-turn to postpone Jackson reforms for mesothelioma cases. The issue has been the most controversial aspect of part two of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill, with the Lords voting for a second time on Monday to oppose the government. Clarke today tabled an amendment in the House of Commons postponing LASPO reforms for all claims relating to mesothelioma cases. The postponement will allow time for a review of the likely effect of the reforms. The Ministry of Justice will report on the review’s conclusions. The amendment means that in mesothelioma cases, after-the-event insurance and success fees are likely to remain recoverable from losing defendants after April 2013, the date when Jackson reforms are due to be implemented. The amendment is a surprise climbdown from the government, which as recently as the Lords debate on Monday was arguing that cases could not be differentiated. Justice minister Lord McNally told the House of Lords mesothelioma cases could not be treated differently to other types of serious illness, but the government lost by nine votes. Labour claimed the move as a victory. Sadiq Khan, shadow justice secretary, said that people suffering from mesothelioma ‘have worked hard contributing to the British economy in heavy industry and manufacturing. To call them part of the “compensation culture” is an insult.’ He said the opposition still had questions on the last-minute review. ‘We need assurances it will be truly independent and not just a whitewash. We also need confidence there’ll be sufficient time allowed to see how the [Jackson] changes brought about impact on other successful claimants before rolling them out for mesothelioma sufferers.’last_img read more

Read More →

Peers alarmed at Henry VIII powers in divorce bill

first_imgThe House of Lords has urged the government to chop elements of the divorce bill that would enable the lord chancellor to radically alter the reforms without parliamentary scrutiny.The Lords’ delegated powers and regulatory reform committee has been scrutinising the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill, which the government says will end ‘needless antagonism’, and published its findings and recommendations last week.The bill introduces a minimum six-month period between the first and final stages of the divorce process. This comprises 20 weeks between the start of proceedings and confirmation to the court that a divorce confirmation can be made, and six weeks between a conditional divorce order and final dissolution.Ministers have described the minimum timeframe as a ‘key element of the reformed legal process’ which gives couples an opportunity for reflection.However, the Lord committee says the new sections of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Civil Partnership Act 2004 confer so-called Henry VIII powers on the lord chancellor to shorten the timeframe between the first and second stage of the divorce process.According to the report, the government submits that the lord chancellor would be able to make adjustments if ‘policy considerations’ made it appropriate. However, the committee says the government ‘has given no consideration at all as to what the policy considerations might be’ and calls it a ‘very weak justification for an important Henry VIII power’.The committee says: ‘New section 1(8) of the MCA permits a court to reduce the length of either stage of the divorce process in a particular case. This might allow a judge to shorten either stage if, for example, there is an urgent need to finalise a divorce in order to protect an applicant from an abusive spouse or civil partner. It is therefore wholly unclear to us why the government need to have powers which allow them to change the length of both stages for all divorces.’The government also argues that the powers re-enact existing legislation.However, the committee disagrees: ‘Existing legislation allows only for the alteration of the period between a decree nisi and a decree absolute or (for a civil partnership) between a conditional and final dissolution order. In contrast, the new powers conferred by this bill could be used in a way which radically altered the rationale for the revised divorce process.’The government is told to remove the clauses from the bill ‘on the ground that they contain an inappropriate delegation of power’.Narrower powers could be acceptable but the committee says the lord chancellor should first consult judges, the Law Society and divorce lawyers.last_img read more

Read More →