Ireland back to the Middle Ages
Ireland has made a law that forbids blasphemy, that is to violate the dignity of religions. Nobody can be happier than the islamists and the autocratic Arab statesmen, who have struggled for such draconic laws through the UN. Religions have three elements that are essential to discuss criticlly and without restrictions, namely: (i) Outlooks on life, how we shall live our lives and guided by what norms and ethical considerations (ii) Worldviews, what we think about the reality, particularly how earth, universe and humanity came in place and why, (iii) Authorotative guiding and control of other people’s lives. All these things are essential matters for totally free and critical debate. Part of freedom of expression is that things are sometimes said that some people dislike, make them feel violated etc. That is why there are constant attacks agaisnt feedom of expression. But it is the most essential freedom of all. Religious people have in all times said negative and shabby things about heathens, but we the secular humanists do not cry out that we are violated and the the religious zealots should be punished. We just take it. I think the lawmakers in Ireland violate the religious people by presupposing that they are so dull so they are unable to take a joke about their beliefs. It is sad to see an EU-country on the fast track back to the Middel Ages.
UN’s human rights disaster
UN’s previous human rights organ became a club for human rights abusers protecting each other. The new Humans Rights Council is not better. It has recently, after preasure from Islamic states taken a resolution that defaming religion should be outlawed. Countries other than Islamic states supported the resolution, among them Venezuala beceause of Hugo Chavez notorious antiamericanism. In 1948, UN took a declaration on humans rights wich is very clear on the right to freedom of expression. The new resolution is the contrary.
Religions are about world views, outlooks on life and authority over people’s daily life.These things are essential aspects of what must be openly and critically discussed and scrutinized. The new resolution contradicts UN’s own human rights declaration. An open society and the right to free expression is never guaranteed for ever. It must be defended and regained continously. Therefore, it is time for all open societies to stand up aginst the defemeation resolution. Religions can never be protected from critical scrutinize.
I do not understand Theology but I would anyway make a comment on God. Can there be a God who is allmighty but is unable to stand a joke and who accepts to be praised and respected through repression and not trough true respect and devotion. I would not like to make friends with such a God.
Replace the Swedish Krona with Euro NOW!
Sweden is one of the EU-countries that have not replaced the national currency with Euro. The reason is that we had a referendum on the issue. It was badly wrong to arrange a referendum for three reasons.
1: Referendums tend with very few exceptions to end up in a NO to changes and work as a conseravtive force. 2: We have a representative democracy with elected praliamentarians who have committees and experts at hand to prepare decisions based on well founded facts and background information as well as consequence analyses. Why shall we make the parliamentarians to act against their own convictions? (A vast majority of MP:s were in favour of joining in) 3: Voting behaviour tend to be guided by other considerations than the topical issue, such as for example demonstrations agingst the ruling party.
What happened in the referendum was that irrelevant sentiments played a big role. People have a sentimental liking of the national currency. Isolationist/nationalist forces (in Sweden connected to the leftists), made a campain to present a YES attitude as the opinion of the elites and a NO vote as the people´sresistance. How wrong they were. Anybody who has lived in a country with a marginalized currency knows that who suffers most from it are common people and poor people. The economic elites have reserves or at least access to other currences wether legally or illegally. I happened to live in Sri Lanka at the time for the campaign and the Lankese had good laughs when I talked about the coming referendum. They just wondered if anybody would vote NOto the opportunity to get their salary in a fully convertible, international strong currency instead of in a marginal national currency. Who could be so stupid to say no thanks to such an offer. But Swedish people had a far too strong self esteem when it came to creed in the Krona. Some people said: We know what we have but not what we get. Totally wrong. We knew quite for sure that the Euro had turned a success and became strong and nobody could forsee what a such marginal currency as the Krona would become in the future. So we knew what we would get but not what we had.
Now we know. The Krona has become week. Had we joined from the beginning, the Krona would have been fixed at 8,70 to a Euro. Now we have to pay 9,80 for a Euro and it will soon cost more than ten Kroner. This happens even though the real economy and the growth in Sweden is higher than in the Euro area. The reason is simply that it is a small and mariginalized curreency and as such less attractive. Those who suffer lower standard of living beceause of higher prizes for all imported goods and a relativly lowered salary in comparison to other European countries with more than 10% , is not the elites. The victims are common people.
What should be done before the Krona slides even more downhills? The Government should take immedeate action to forward a bill to Parliament proposing an immediate application to EU to join into the Euro area. The referendum was, by constitution, not binding but an advice. Therefore, it is constitutionally correct to act against a five year old referendum result. The situation has changed and the Krona slided more downhills than anybody had foreseen. So please dear Government. ACT NOW. Let us get rid of the downsliding Krona and have the strong Euro. By the way, take a look at our previously much poorer neigbour, FInland. They joined in and the counjtry is becoming one of the most prosperous in Europe (not only beceause of joining the Euro but that in combination with other factors).
The Zimbabwe Crisis and EU
This blog article will dwell on the Zimbabwe crisis, development aid and EU, and on human rights and EU policy. Each theme is written as a separate essay. In the end, I will make an effort to knot them togeather to some kind of conclusion.
AFRICAN UNION APPEASEMENT
When the African Union recently met in Egypt it did not reach any agreement on joint action to condemn or deal with Robert Mugabe’s theft of the election. The toothless outcome of the discussions was a call for a government of national unity without any condition that it may not be lead by Mr.Mugabe.
The AU reluctance to use its influence can be understood from how previous liberation movements have turned into ruling parties of their countries. Liberation heroes do not retire when they have done there commendable work. They continue as leaders of the new independent states, though being a liberation partisan and being a president in peace times call for very dfferent skills and talent. The ruling parties have used the strategy of combining patriotic affection for the country to loyality to the ruling party lead by the liberation heroes. Supporting or being a member or a voter for an opposition party has been inculcated in the minds of people as unpatriotic, sometimes as a reactionary inclination to neo-coloniialism and and renouncing of the value of the independence. The ruling parties do not have to compete for re-election in most African countries and they are, thus, not so scrutinized and criticized by the opposition as would be healthy for them. This is a sad situation as it does not boost development. The brotherhood between the leaders of these ruling parties in Africa explains to a large extent why AU is toothless in dealing with Mr. Mugabe. It explains to some extent also why many Africans in neigbouring countries support Mr. Mugabe.
A stronger force for the popular support that M. Mugabe has in other countries, not least the neighbouring Namibia, is that ZANU-PF has sucessfully managed to plant the disinformation that the Western critique aginst Mr. Mugabe is a critique aginst the land reform. It is not. It is a critique against human rights abuse and against some aspects of the land reform such as the use of thugs and the mismanagement of the expropriated land, leading to a food crisis.
THE SENSITIVE LAND ISSUE IN ZIMBABWE
People in Zimbabwe and in the neighbouring countries know that the Brittish colonisation of Zimbabwe was exceptionally cruel as regards the grabbing of land. In pre-colonial Zimbabwe there were agreements in place between tribes, clans and families on who was allowed to use which land. There was, thus, a regulated ownership. The Brittish surveyors did not care of existing ownership and handed out allready owned land to Brittons. The indegenous inhabitants were often brutally removed and many starved to death beceause of that. This is living history in Zimbabwe and it explains to a large extent that the anti Brittish and anti Western rethoric appeal to people.
But history cannot excuse the present human rights abuse and total mismanagement of the country.
WHO SHALL ACT AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE?
Politcal leaders acused of human rights abuse usually respond by spinal reflex that the critique is an unacceptable interference in internal matters. That is of cause nonsense. If human rights abuse were an internal matter, it should be the goverment to act aginst it. Impossible of cause as the goverment is the perpetrator. The citizens cannot act either as they would become next victim if they did. Action must, thus, come from external sources, both governments and civil society organisations and by bodies like UN, EU, AU and so forth. Claiming that human rights abuse is an internal matter and not a mankind matter is to say that human rights abuse is OK.
RICH AND POOR COUNTRIES’RELATIONS
Development aid directed to poor countries through bilateral goverment agencies in rich countries began in the early nineteen sixties. An early doctrine was that aid should be given on the conditions of the receivers. In practice development aid was used as a battlefield of influence between the West, the East and the Non Alignment Movement. Later on, the doctrines have changed and development aid is after the tumbling down of the Berlin wall more coordinated between donors and it is connected to comprehensive sectorwise general plans. It is also more connected to conditions on the part of the donors. This could be critisised as unfair interference. But it is not unfair. A donor who is willing to support development in another country does this beceause there is a commitment to a goal that is shared between both parties such as for example quality improvements of primary education, improvement of mother and child health, access to clean water and so forth. Of cause, the donor has the right to set up conditions for the financing that the methods of work, the auditing etc. enhance the wanted results. And the receiving party has of cause the right to negociate the conditions and to reject them and say no thanks to the project if it finds the conditions unacceptable. It is normal in all kinds of business deals between two parties that both can give and take in conditions discussions and they can withdraw if they do not like the deal.
Within EU, there are a lot of bilateral governmenteal donor agencies: It would be a lot more practical to channel more of the aid through the European Commission. The coordination between donors and the connection to sectorwise general plans have gone far enough for a more coordinated EU aid.
Let us now ask the question what kind of conditions EU should set up for its development aid. Except for the common conditions on transparency, auditing, reporting etc. EU could create a certain profile which is to champion good governance.
A preliminary characteristic of good governance is:
Freedom of expression, broad participation in debate on public matters, active opposition parties, promoting broad civil society activity, respect for rule by law and democratic rules of the game, transparency, rational public adminstration that reponds to what people want from it ,and so forth.
Good governance is probably the factor that most enhances prosperity in a country and well being among its citizens. Pumping in money in devlopment projects (I am not talking about emergency aid) when the goverment is bad is in most cases a waste of money and it boosts corruption. In other words, connecting development projects in the various sectors to support for good governance would amplify the effects of the projects and enhance better life for many people . What can be done by aid agencies for supporting good governance? A lot such as various kinds of partnerships and twinning arrangements, study visits for bench marking and learning from best practice, exchange programmes, technically orientd projects to improve the judicial, home affairs and othe key sectors etc. All that lot implies that the donor agencies in the dialogue with the recipient country must have the possiility to openly discuss matters of good and bad governance. It must also dare to condition improvements for good governance for the financing of projects. Does this sound as interference in sovereignity?
WHO GAINS WHAT FROM WHAT SOVEREIGNITY
An interesting thing about soverignity is that it is very seldom referred to by leaders of states in other situations than when receiving critique for bad governance and human rights abuse. The good guys never need to refer to soverignity.
Official decisions are mainly taken on theree levels. The local level in municipalitis that to a large extent are service providing decisions such as building a new day care center, improving infrastructure, arrange care for the elderly etc. Next level is the national level where the most repressive decisions are taken. The third level is the supernational level suh as UN and EU where most of the provision of rights stem from. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the UN is one example and the rights within EU such as to move to another EU country without the need for a permit to live and work in that country are other examples. All the rights that stem from supernational bodies are in the same time restrictions of the national sovereignity. This said, taming and restricting national sovereinety is good for the rights of individuals. Freedom is something that belongs to individuals not to states. Therefore, we should not be so shy to critically scrutinise what happens in other countries, criticize bad governance in other countries and discuss good governance conditions in development aid dialogues between donors and receivers. Observe that all what I have written about restriction of national sovereignety is about mutual agreements between the supenational decision makers and the nations. The EU countries have deliberately signed the rights of other EU citizens to come to their country and live, work and do business there. The countries that have signed the Universsal Declaration of Human Rights have opted to so and they have, thus, given up part of its own sovereignety. Conditions of good governance in development aid dialogue is also mutual as it is a question of give and take dialogue where both parties may pull out if they do not like it (like in other business deals).
But how to handle interference in other countries’ affairs when there is no mutality? How should other countries handle the Zimbabwe crisis? The ZANU-PF attitude is that Western critics “can go hang a thousand times”. As said before, human rights abuse by goverments can logically not be regarded as internal matters but as mankind mattes. Therefore, EU do not have to hesitate to act to get Mugabe out in order to give people the right to express themselves and to give them a chance to rebuild their lives.
AU AND EU
The African Union is a club of states in one continent. So is EU. These two clubs could be dialogue partners. As AU appeasement removed the chance of helping the Zimbabwean people to get rid of the dictator, EU as a fellow club could act and EU culd start a discussion on Europe- Africa relations. EU could present a programme for rebuilding of ZImbabwe. It could also discuss how to relate to governments in Africa that actively support Mr. Mugabe such as Gabon, Mozambique and Namibia. Shall European goverments pump in money to support devlopment in African countries whose goverments back up a dictatorship that ruins another African country? Sould EU finance projects in Gabon, Mozambique and Namibia as long as the goverments back up Mr. Mugabe. It is an open question.
To summarize my conclusions:
Human rights abuse must be dealt with from external bodies such as other goverments and various organiations. EU could play a great role as it must anyway formulate a joint forreign policy and what would be better than taking the role as the musceteur of human rights. EU could by its strength acheive results (UN has allways been powerless when it comes to human rights abuse. Abusive member states have their say). EU should enter a dialogue with AU and put a stong preassure on AU to act in the Zimbabwe crisis. This preassure may include conditions on support for development aid projects in African countries that back up the dictatorship. The reason for EU to act is to free individuals who suffer under dicatorship and give them a chance to a better life. Freedom is for individuals, not for goverments.
Do you think I propose too much interference in other countiries’ affairs. I do not propose more interference than what the global community did against the apartheid regime before it gave in. The global community won the match.
Best regards
Göran Linde
Portugal’s Public Administration Mess
First of all. Dear reader, pleae have forbearance with my Swinglish (Swedish/English)
Portugal is a wonderfull country with stunning landscapes, a characteristic beautiful arcitecture, wonderfull wines (particularly the Alentejo brands) and tasty food. People are nice and tolerant. They live and let live. The language is a living medivial latin dialect consolidated in the 12th century and it sounds beautiful. I have chosen Portugal as my country of residence after retirement. But everything has more than one side to it and Portugal has also got some disadventages. The public administration mess stands out. I will give some comments on what characterises it, what are the probable reasons for it and what can constructively be done to rectify it.
First, I will give four answers to the hypothetic comment of: “If you don’t like it, why don’t you go home to your own country”
1. A country is more than the state that dwells in it. A country can be very nice despite a not so successful state. After all you deal hundred times more with the civil society than with the authorities.
2. If you deliberately move to another country, you should accept its basic values and culture, and I do so -very much.
3. The freedom of expression is for all and it is not restricted to citizenship. It is the cornerstone of a living democracy. Critical analysis and critical comments on what the public authorities do is a necesary part of public life. Without it, the autorities in any county go lazy, power abusive, inefficient, overspending corrupt and so on. So all states should be thankfull to criticism, even if it sometimes hurts a bit. Criticism of a state is a gift to it.
4. If you live by the sea, you do not hear the rushing of the waves until it gets calm and the sund disappears. If you are born in a country, you take the way the authorities work for granted and natural. A forreigner looks upon things with fresh eyes and sea different things. Forreigners are good evaluators.
Now to the characteristics of the Portuguese public administration mess. It is not about service provision but about licences, authorisations and document issues. There is combination of OBSOLETE LAWS, DOCUMENT FETISHISM and INEFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION. Exemple: If you transport anything that is considered a “mercadoria” in your car, you are obliged to cary a “guia de transporte” stating your route, fiscal numbers of buyers and sellers, invoice details etc. This means that if you happen to have spare bag of cement and want to lend it out to friend who is doing works at home on a Sunday, you break the law by transporting it. During the drought in 2004 it was very difficult to buy straw for horses. A friend of mine offered to sell a load of bales to a reasonable price. No one dared to transport it of fear for the police. I had to give away a horse that I couldn’t feed beceause of this law. This is absurd. Law restrictions of what you may do and may not do must have an objective to protect individuals or to protect genuine common interests (such as traffic safety, environmental care etc.) Guia de transporte is a sheer state power abuse that has got no positive effect of any kind and that does not protect anybody from any evil. It does not exist outside Portugal and it does not confer to the standards of a “Estado de Direito” that the polce can stop you and ask for this paper without suspicion of crime and without a serach warrant. Guia de tranporte should just be abolished if Portugal wants to live up to European standards of governance.
An EU citizen who reside in another EU country has the right to the same public health provision as a citizen. It took for me more than a year to obtain the plastic card. For simple renovations of a house in a non sensitive arcitectural area is required paperwork that takes months and sometimes years. Untill recently, there were four different processes to go thru for legally buildning a swimming pool. To rent out a property to tourists, a licence is required in spite of allready existing laws on taxing the income, contractual law, laws on responsibilty in case of accidents etc. Why does the authorties not just issue a brochure to inform about what is required for renting out to help landlords doing it lawfully? Even worse, the municipalities that should issue the licenses are completely inefficient and don’t know how to do it. They sometimes refuse licences inventing various Catch 22 pretexts just beceause you run less risk of formal wrongdoing by saying no than by saying yes. After failiure by the municipalities to issue the licences many landlords rent out anyway (otherwise, the tourist industry would be hurt and lots of people would loose income). There are crack downs and fining of property owners who rent out without the licence that they lack just because of the lack of capacity on the part of the muncipalities. Are we in a European developed country or are we some elsewhere?
What follows from the adminstrative failiures is that people avoid the authorities. They do their business without registring a firm, they transport their goods on small roads, They build without permission. The silent contract between citizen and state gets broken. The looser is the state, that gets less tax revenue and meats avoidence and distrust. The state also looses control beceause of the avoidance. The loosers are also the citizens who cannot manage to do all they do according to the law, even if they want to, and who often have to live with some faer for authorities.
The reasons for all this is a deeply rooted attitude of not criticising and confronting. The P.M. Mr. Socrates said regarding human rights abuse in Russia: “Ninguem pretenda dar licões a ninguem” (Nobody should lecture anyone). Mr. Socrates infamous comment defines very clearly the root of Portugal’s problems. The pinciple of not lecturing others might be sympathic in private social life but it is devastating in public life and it is incompatible with a dynamic democracy. (Mais pessoas que dao licões às autoridades) More people who lecture the authoritie is what Portugal needs. The basic reason for Portugal’s backwards public administration is the reluctance to actively engage in public affairs and to act as concerned critical citizens. The gost of Salzar still casts its shaddow over the mentality formation.
What can be done? It is easy. The answer is BENCHMARKING – LEARNING FROM BEST PRACTICE. There are countries in Europe where you can register a private firm over th counter in minutes, where you do not have to drive with documents as the police can get all information from the central vehicle register by computer and never disturbs people driving if they do not do anything wrong. In some countries you can present your own drawings to get an instant permit for simple building renovations and exensions. In many countries you never have to visit a public office as all errends can be solved by post mail (since nearly a hundred years) or over the internet.
The private sector in Portugal is in par with the most developed countries in the world, for exemple the bank service and the shopping malls. The methods of work were not invented in Potugal but the companies have been wise enough to learn from benchmarking. They pick up the best of best that is practised in other countries. This could easely be done in public adminstraton too. Why not form delegations for study visits to the countries that are most effcient in the various sectors? Connect legal drafters to the delegations and let them draft sugestions for law changes deemed necessary to make it possible to adapt the most rational methods and let the legal drafters present the ideas to the ministers in charge. In the next step the minsters concerned take initiatives to propositions to the legislature. Such a project would be very simple to launch and it could have tremendous positive effects to bring Portugal’s public administrtion forwards
And remember – do never ever give the counter argument to administrative rationalisation that some civil servants would loose their jobs. That argument is like deciding not to use copiators but let a hundred civil servants write copies with goosequills. New jobs that are productive in education, health care, infrastructure etc. can be created in the public sector financed by retention of thousands of counter productive jobs,
If Portugal took this measure and arrived at a rational public adminstration and abandoned unnecessary red tape laws, it would become a lot more prosperous and dynamic and it would be the best country in the world to live in. So, Dear Madams/ Sirs heading State organs - Go on!
Good luck
Göran Linde
São Marcos da Serra
A Not-in my-name movement is needed
There are about one and a half billion muslims in the world. Most of them are nice good guys like you and me. A very small minority is not. If we hypthetically say that one in a hundred thousand are violent islamists, it would make fifteen thousand of that kind and that is a massive critical mass. The very small minority (in percentage terms but not in consequence terms) taints the name of the others. Violent crimes in the name of Islam happens and it threatens us every day and it causes a lot of inconvenience in airports. It can not be rasonable to urge us non-muslims to keep silent about the sad facts of islamic violence. In open societies we must have the right to talk and write about it and in other ways comment on it. The Danish paper Jyllandposten commented on it by the use of Muhammed cartoons. They were in their full right to do so as we all have our right to comment on anything that we are concerned about. If we say that freedom of speach allways must be respectful, it would be the end of freedom of speach. Critique sometimes hurts and that is part of the game. The cartoons stirred up a lot of anger in the Muslim world. The anger was turned in the wrong direction. It was directed to the commentators of islamic vilolence, not against the perpertrators of islamic vilolence. If the good guys who are Muslims want to clean their names from the connection of vilolence to Islam, they should have told the violent jihadist movements to stop tainting the name of Muslims. The right answer would have been a strong Not-in-my-name movement to isolate the vilolent groups from the peacefull mainstream Muslim majority. I think that the day when the majority of Muslim good guys establish a strong worldwide Not-in-my-name movement, the tensions between Muslims and others will easen a lot. I think it would be one of the most productive ways of establishing moore peaceful living togeather on earth. So go on, start a Not-in-my-name movement now!
All the best to all of you
Göran Linde
Betygsfrågan
Återigen behandlas betyssystemet i skolpolitiken och återigen används betygsfrågan som ett slagträ för politiska punktmarkeringar i stället för att hanteras utifrån en genomtänkt mätteoretisk grund och med möjlighet att skapa ett varaktigt och allmänt accepterat system.
Att sätta betyg är att göra en mätning och en mätning är en jämförelse/matchning mellan en verklighet och en en symbolmängd som skall representera denna verklighet. Matchningen skall vara entydig och strukturlik. Lika skillnader i verklighetsmängden skall motsvaras av lika skillnader i symbolmängden. Lika värden i verklighetsmängden skall motsvaras av lika värden i symbolmängden.
För att åstadkomma detta med betyg krävs att vi förstår vad skillnader i kunskaper är. Det är inte kvantitativa skillnader i en dimension utan det är kvalitativa skillnader i sättet att uppfatta och förstå fenomen, lösa problem och kunna utföra uppgifter. Skillnader mellan mycket och ganska lågt presterande befinner sig inte i samma dimension som skillnader mellan ganska högt och mycket högt presterande. En betygsskala som är strukturlik mot verkliga kunskapsskillnadr kan bara uttryckas i kvalitativa termer och det görs på ett bra sätt i det nuvarande betygssystemet där det finns beskrivande kunskapsmål för de olika stegen. En del lärare är inte så bra på att matcha betygskriterierna till sin egen kursplanetolkning men det fungerar mycket bra då lärare i samma ämne kan tala ihop sig om hur de bedömer elevers arbeten i relation till tolkning av kriterierna. Ju mer sådant samarbete, ju mer entydig bedömning blir det.
Hur många steg ska vi ha? Har vi för många så blir det svårt att entydigt matcha elevarbeten till kriterier och risken är att man gör det säkrast mätbara till det viktiga i stället för att göra det som man räknar som mest giltig kunskap mätbart. En del elever tycket att steget mellan godkänt och väl godkänt är för stort och det kan vara möjligt att införa ytterligare ett steg men mer än ett ytterligare kommer ofelbart att leda till ett stoffurval på mätningens villkor. Vilken funktion fyller flera steg? Knappast någon. Den viktigaste funktionen som betyg har är att de är ett kvitto på genomgången kurs/genomgånget stadium där godkänt skall vara en kvalitetssäkring för uppnådda kunskapsmål. Att hävda flera steg för att de behövs som urvalsgrund för högre studier är nonsens. Skolan är inte en serviceinrättning för att hjälpa avnämare med sina urval. Betygen skall serva avnämare genom att ge garantier för att ingångsnivåer som krävs är uppnådda och sedan får avnämarna finna sina egna vägar för ytterligare urval. Endast få av eleverna som går ut ur gymnasiet söker sig till de utbildningar där nuvarande betygssystem är otillräckligt för urval och de utbildningarna bör utveckla sina egna instrument för urval. Flera steg kan också tjäna som motivation men finns det några beägg för att t.ex. sju steg är mer motiverande än nuvarande fyra? I så fall vilka belägg? Vi har inga behov av att ändra vårt nuvarande mycket väl genomtänkta betygssystem men vi kan ha behov av att vidadreutveckla användningen av det genom mer organiserade utvecklingsarbeten med kriterietolkning i samarbete mellan lärare kring verkliga elevarbeten och att vidareutveckla de nationella proven med öppenhet för lokal kursplanetolkning och ändå fungerande som instrument för likvärdighet. Alltså – inse att utspelen i betygsfrågan endast är politsika symbolmarkeringar och osedvanligt klåfingriga sådana. Riksdagsdebatter där den ena sida talar om knskap och kvalitet som om fler betygssteg vore avgörande och den där den andra sidan talar om stress och press är fasansfullt ogenomtänkta och okonstruktiva tillställningar.
Bästa hälsningar
Göran Linde
prof. emeritus i pedagogik.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
