FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailiStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) — Here are the scores from Friday’s sports events:NATIONAL LEAGUEMilwaukee 7, L.A. Dodgers 2NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATIONCharlotte 120, Orlando 88Brooklyn 107, N.Y. Knicks 105Minnesota 131, Cleveland 123Toronto 113, Boston 101New Orleans 149, Sacramento 129Memphis 131, Atlanta 117Milwaukee 118, Indiana 101Golden State 124, Utah 123L.A. Clippers 108, Oklahoma City 92NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUESO Florida 6, Washington 5Minnesota 3, Dallas 1Nashville 5, Calgary 3Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved. Written by Beau Lund October 20, 2018 /Sports News – National Scoreboard roundup — 10/19/18
Home » News » Housing Market » Remove barriers to boost house building levels, says Savills previous nextHousing MarketRemove barriers to boost house building levels, says SavillsNew report says that there is an annual housing shortage of 100,000 homes in England.PROPERTYdrum17th June 20150556 Views Private house builders could start building significantly more new homes in England if barriers to growth were cut, according to Savills.A new report from the property firm makes various recommendations on ways that house building levels could be increased, with a view to reducing the ever growing supply-demand imbalance in the market.The recommendations include increasing planning consents in high demand areas; boosting the supply of land; continued support for residential property developers and a rise in the building rate of local authorities and other bodies.In spite of a rise in the volume of new housing starts in recent months, Savills reported that there still remains a major shortfall, owed in part to insufficient land available for residential development.The report by Savills said there was the potential to construct 205,000 new homes per year, up 64,500 compared to the existing rate, if the supply of development land and planning consents increased in areas of high demand.At present, more than half of new homes – 54 per cent – are being built by the 11 largest house builders, while a third of new properties are being built by medium sized house builders. But Savills said that a wider mix of developers and organisations need to get involved with building more residential properties in order to boost the supply of new homes.Analysis by Savills revealed that 2,020 local authorities have the potential to develop 35,000 new homes and housing associations can build 10,000 homes per year. The report also predicted that a further 10,000 new homes could be built if the Government supported companies which deliver build-to-rent properties.Savills also said that access to funding needs to continue easing for SME house builders and it hopes that competition among lenders means that the range of choice will continue to grow.The estate agency also pointed to the Government’s Help to Buy Equity Loan and NewBuy schemes, which supported 30,146 sales of new homes in England in the year to March 2015, as crucial in the battle to boost residential construction levels.Savills estimate Help to Buy will support 30,000 new home sales per year and its estimate of potential delivery of residential properties by the private sector up to 2020 relies on its continuation.‘If Help to Buy comes to an end after its current funding expires in 2020, we are likely to see start volumes tapering off up to two years before the end of the scheme in anticipation,’ the report says.private house builders more new homes house building 000 new homes per year 205 annual housing shortage June 17, 2015The NegotiatorWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles 40% of tenants planning a move now that Covid has eased says Nationwide3rd May 2021 Letting agent fined £11,500 over unlicensed rent-to-rent HMO3rd May 2021 BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021
The York Central development has come closer to fruition with the announcement that the road, access bridge and rail link essential to the development have moved a step closer, as the City of York Council has selected John Sisk & Son as construction partner to deliver infrastructure to open up the site.The approved plans for the York Central site include proposals to build up to 2,500 homes, and a commercial quarter creating up to 6,500 jobs adding a £1.16 billion boost to the economy.John Sisk & Son will work with the council and partners to finalise the design of the first phase of essential infrastructure for the access bridge, the spine road and the NRM rail link.Cllr Keith Aspden, Leader of the council, said, “The delivery of York Central development is a once in a lifetime opportunity to build much needed affordable homes and new public spaces, attract better paid jobs, and create sustainable transport links for the city.“We look forward to working with the York Central Partnership to secure further improvements to the scheme and with Sisk to begin this essential first phase of work in preparing the York Central site for development.”Ian Gray, Homes England on behalf of York Central Partnership, said, “This is a really exciting and important milestone towards the delivery of our ambitious plans at York Central.“A lot of hard work has been put in by York Central Partnership to get this far and this contract demonstrates our commitment to delivering the ambition and vision for the site.”Paul Brown, Managing Director, UK Civils at John Sisk & Son, added, “We are delighted to have been selected by the City of York Council to work with the stakeholders on this exciting project and to progress the design of some of the key enabling infrastructure.“This is a project of huge ambition which will transform underused land in the centre of York into vibrant and distinctive residential neighbourhoods, cultural spaces and a high-quality commercial quarter. We are really excited to be able to bring our broad range of experience and commitment to a collaborative approach to the project.”The council’s £77.1m bid for the Government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund is at an advanced stage, with a decision expected in the autumn.York Central Development York September 17, 2019Chris SmedleyWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles Letting agent fined £11,500 over unlicenced rent-to-rent HMO3rd May 2021 BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021 Home » News » Land & New Homes » York Central development to bring 2,500 new homes previous nextLand & New HomesYork Central development to bring 2,500 new homesA major new development in the ancient cathedral city of York is gathering pace with a rail link and 6,500 new jobs projected.Sheila Manchester17th September 20190642 Views
View post tag: USS Back to overview,Home naval-today USS Gonzalez Departs Naval Station Norfolk View post tag: Naval View post tag: Defense Guided-missile destroyer USS Gonzalez (DDG 66) departed Naval Station Norfolk, on Friday, for a deployment to the U.S. 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility to participate in anti-piracy and maritime security operations.“Our crew is ready and motivated for the work that lies ahead,” Lt. Alexa Forsyth, Operations Officer, said. “This ship remained focused throughout the training cycle; I am confident that we will be a valued asset for Combatant and Naval Component Commanders.”“Our mission, to assist with regional maritime security by helping to keep sea lands free and safe, is one that we are prepared for and ready to undertake,” she said.The deployment is the culmination of two years of strenuous preparations by the ship. The crew, led by Cmdr. Christopher H. Inskeep, recently completed the Board of Inspection and Survey’s five-year material inspection (INSURV) and received the highest score of any destroyer in the last six years.The crew is looking forward to the opportunity for more hands-on training in a real-world environment, as well as port visits through the Mediterranean and Africa.Commissioned in 1996, Gonzalez is named for Marine Corps Sgt. Alfredo Gonzalez. He received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his leadership in the Battle of Hue City, where he was killed protecting the members of his platoon.[mappress]Naval Today Staff, January 6, 2013; Image: US Navy View post tag: Defence View post tag: Gonzalez Share this article Training & Education January 6, 2013 View post tag: News by topic USS Gonzalez Departs Naval Station Norfolk View post tag: station View post tag: Departs View post tag: Norfolk View post tag: Navy
Appointments have been made for a term of 3 years. Claire Feehily, Sarah Flannigan and Rene Olivieri will start their terms on 01 March 2018 to 28 February 2021, whilst Maria Adebowale- Schwarte and David Stocker will start their terms on 16 May 2018 to 15 May 2021.Maria Adebowale- SchwarteMaria is an inclusive place and urban renewal strategist, and the Founding Director of LivingSpace Project, a place making and green space think tank and consultancy.She has over twenty-five years of hands on and strategic expertise in national andinternational organisations with a major place, heritage, environment and grant makingfocus. And, has been an advisor for several funding programmes, amongst others, the BigLottery, NESTA, Artists Project Earth and Natural England.Maria’s current public appointment roles include a board member of the EnvironmentAgency, the Chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund’s South East Committee, and aCommissioner on the Mayor of London’s Sustainable Development Commission. She’s alsoa former commissioner of English Heritage.She holds a first degree in Organisational Studies and Business Law from the University ofLancaster, a Masters in International Law from SOAS, University of London, and is arecipient of a Clore Social Leadership Fellowship.Maria’s the author of the book ‘The Place Making factor’ based on her research andexperience of using place led thinking as a disruptor of siloed grant making andphilanthropy.Claire FeehilyClaire is a qualified accountant and MBA and has particular expertise in financial and risk governance, and in helping organisations to engage properly with those who use services and to learn from what they say.She has more than 30 years’ experience at executive and then non-executive levels across the public and charitable sectors.Board non-executive experience includes serving on three NHS boards since 2010, and Claire is currently a non-executive director at Gloucestershire Hospitals Trust, following four years as Chair of Healthwatch Gloucestershire.Currently, Claire has one other government appointment as NEBM and Audit Chair at the National Archive (Remuneration approx 12k per annum).She also holds board positions with The Guinness Partnership (to September 2018), Alliance Homes and volunteers as a Trustee with Stroud and Cotswolds Citizens Advice and as a Committee member with the National Trust.Claire’s academic background was originally in modern history and she completed a first degree at King’s College London and worked in the archive of the War Studies Dept. there. She later gained a PhD in English in 2008 from London University, examining the political debate about how to teach the humanities and literary heritage, and taught at Birkbeck College and the School of Advanced Study. She has particular research and teaching interests in Cultural Memory and has published on the memorialisation of military conflict. She is currently working on the University of Bradford archive of Dr William Allchin, POW, psychiatrist and peace builder.Sarah FlanniganSarah has been Chief Information Officer at EDF Energy since 2016. She was previously CIO at the National Trust where she led a major 3 year digital transformation programme. Sarah was named “European CIO of the Year” in 2017. She is a member of the Board of Trustees at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and of the Board of Governors at Wells Cathedral School.Rene OlivieriRené Olivieri was for many years the chief executive of the international scientific and scholarly publisher, Blackwell Publishing. Under him Blackwell became the leading publishing partner for scientific academic and professional societies world-wide. He continues to mentor senior management teams in the media and technology sectors on innovation, new business models and cultural change. He is a non-executive director of IOP Publishing and has also been the Chair of several start-up companies.He continues to play a role in the development of higher education. He served on the Board of the Higher Education Funding Council for England between 2008 and 2014 and is a member of the Chancellor’s Court of Benefactors at Oxford University. René is passionate about protecting the natural environment and improving farmed animal welfare.Between 2012 and 2017 he was the Chair of the Wildlife Trusts and, prior to this, Chair of Tubney Charitable Trust.He takes a keen interest in the performing arts, and particularly in regional theatre. He has been the Chair of the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry and he and his wife are long-time supporters of the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-on- Avon.David StockerDavid is hon. visiting professor at the University of Leeds and works in the heritage sector in Lincolnshire and the East Midlands. He has worked as an archaeologist and architectural historian in the heritage sector since 1978 and has held posts with many heritage charities, English Heritage (1986-2012) and the Heritage Lottery Fund, where he sits on the East Midlands Committee.David’s interests lie principally within medieval archaeology (buildings, churches, settlement and landscape), about which he has written many articles and books.He is currently a trustee of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, trustee and President of the Lincoln Record Society, and also Council for British Archaeology (CBA) nominee to the Council of the National Trust.The role is remunerated at £6,560 per annum. This appointment has been made in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments. The appointments process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Under the Code, any significant political activity undertaken by an appointee in the last five years must be declared. This is defined as including holding office, public speaking, making a recordable donation, or candidature for election. Maria Adebowale- Schwarte, Sarah Flannigan, Rene Olivieri and David Stocker have declared no such political activity. Claire Feehily has confirmed that she is a member of the Labour Party and that she pays an annual membership subscription.
in deliberate parallel with examination performance tables. They were introduced in tandem to ensure greater transparency, accountability and educational improvement in the interests of children, parents and the wider national community’. Good morning. And thank you for inviting me to be here today.David’s invitation specifically asked me to consider what the ‘implications of key system wide challenges are for Ofsted’. So, nice and simple!Of course these challenges are manifold but for the sake of brevity and focus today I want to consider Ofsted’s perspective on multi-academy trusts, or MATs.The rate of change in the school landscape continues: in 2016 to 2017 around 1,200 new academies opened. We are already up to around 900 new academies this year. In addition, around 100 more multi-academy trusts have opened since August last year. This makes for a total of 1,100 in the system, of which 150 are what Ofsted define as large MATs – that is, with at least 9 constituent schools. Existing MATs continue to grow, as the vast majority of new academies join trusts. And on top of that we have more rebrokerage of existing academies, either into a trust for the first time, or to a different trust when things aren’t working as they should.And of course there remain over 14,000 local authority maintained schools, the vast majority of which are good and outstanding. Although to categorise these as LA-run, in the classic sense, is a misnomer, given the amount of autonomy these schools enjoy. And local authorities play a different role in the system to that which they played even a decade ago. It is in part as a recognition of that level of autonomy that we have stopped inspecting local authority school improvement services.Of course MATs themselves come in many shapes, sizes and range of geographical spread. There is quite a spectrum, from back-office models all the way through to fully-integrated models. Ofsted does not have a preferred model, but there is, I believe, a debate for us to have about scrutinising the range of models and how they are contributing to the delivery of high standards of education. But for the purpose of today’s discussion it is the more integrated models that I wish to focus on. These are the MATs where many education-related decisions are being taken at the centre about the curriculum, teaching and assessment, and about policies and actions, planning and governance.I think it is now generally understood that for MATs, it is the trust itself that is the legal entity. The trust has ultimate responsibility for all the decisions that lead to its pupils receiving a high quality education. Increasingly, trusts tell us that they want to have a joined-up conversation with us about the many cross-MAT decisions they make, rather than repeating essentially the same conversation with a different lead inspector on every inspection of a school in a MAT. We have been doing our best on this within the limitations of our remit. But we do know this falls short of the ideal.For that reason, I was delighted when the Secretary of State signalled his intention to look at the accountability arrangements for MATs in his speech to the NGA [National Governance Association] last month. And I look forward to our continuing engagement with the department on what a new assessment regime might look like. But it is important for everyone to remember that the line of accountability for MATs flows to the Department for Education (in practice through regional schools commissioners or RSCs) not through Ofsted. They are the managers for academy funding agreements. We bring objectivity and sector expertise in our inspections and reports, and also in our monitoring and risk assessment. This makes us one player in a multipartite system involving RSCs, ESFA and Ofsted.I am also acutely aware that these conversations will take time. It is appropriate, therefore, that we don’t stand still while we wait for them to come to fruition. That’s why we are revising our existing methodology and approach to the inspection of MATs, so as to make sure, within the limits of the powers we do have, that we are getting as much insight as we can in the most efficient way.Trialling a new approachDuring this summer term we are visiting a small number of MATs to trial aspects of a new approach which we hope will improve the inspection experience for MAT leaders, for their academies and for inspectors. In line with our corporate strategy of more intelligent inspection, our key objectives are: We also want to ensure that in individual inspections of MAT schools, the role of the MAT is properly considered.My inspectors frequently encounter 2 significant misconceptions, sometimes when they are conducting focused reviews of MATs but more commonly when they are inspecting individual schools that are part of a MAT but that do not fully understand their own status within a trust.First, schools often continue to see themselves as separate from the leadership of the MAT. The trust is something ‘out there’ that acts on them in a school improvement capacity, in the same manner as local authorities once did. But this is a profound misunderstanding of the MAT model.Secondly, there are deep confusions about governance. Often local governing bodies are presented to inspectors as responsible for governance, when we know that in reality it is trustees and members who are the governors of the trust. The local bodies may have some delegated responsibilities or may be purely advisory: often their members are themselves unclear, and don’t know to whom, if anyone, they report. The position is sometimes no clearer at trust level. Published schemes of delegation can be confused, with the same names appearing at member, trustee and executive level, so that the oversight and executive functions are entangled. I want all my inspectors to be clear – MAT leadership and management comes from the MAT executive team; governance comes from trustees and (only in the last resort) members.It is a complicated picture, full of confusions. And our own inspection still sometimes fails to address those misconceptions. It is still too often the case that our individual inspections of these schools, when they aren’t part of a focused inspection, make limited reference to the MAT role, something that clearly fails to recognise the significance of that relationship and the responsibilities the trust has for leadership and management. We must do better, and that is why we are beginning a programme of training for Ofsted’s school inspectors in the autumn term, to make sure that we are ourselves consistent.We are also looking at ways of improving the quality of information we hold about MATs. We want inspectors to have a more accurate understanding of the way MATs are set up and operate before they embark on an inspection. We have been engaging with MATs on this and will continue to do so. After all, we can’t do a good job of inspection if we don’t fully understand the status of the school we are inspecting.Much of this may come across as a tidying up exercise. But by making these small step changes; and with the changes that may emerge from the departmental review we may arrive at a different model of inspection.The MAT performance picture – why this mattersSome may ask, indeed some do ask, why we are so concerned about inspecting MATs. After all as long as Ofsted is looking at the constituent schools, isn’t that sufficient? But this is to misunderstand the nature of modern school inspection. Because inspection is now done mainly through discussions with leaders about the decisions they take about education, about safeguarding, about how they implement them and how they know they are working in practice. To the extent that those decisions are taken in the MAT, which many of them often now are, for example about curriculum, about teaching or assessment or staff training, the inspection conversation necessarily reaches into MAT. This isn’t an expression of an Ofsted preference. It is a statement of fact.Similarly governance is the function of a MAT board, so we cannot come to a view about the effectiveness of governance without looking at how the MAT board exercises its functions.Ofsted began focused inspection of MATs back in 2013, and has visited 21 different MATs since then, 6 of them in the last 12 months. It is fair to say we initially focused our resources on the MATs that we felt were performing less well. After all Ofsted exists to be a force for improvement and we aim to direct our efforts in to those areas where we can see most cause for concern.As our last Annual Report laid out, there are a number of common themes, or more bluntly problems, that we find in poorer performing MATs. Generally leaders of these trusts are unable to secure sustainable trust-wide improvement. This is down to a number of weaknesses, including: inconsistent quality of teaching, poor quality middle leadership, inconsistent professional development and training; leadership that did not know the schools they ran well enough and lack of clarity in governance arrangements.But as Jon Andrews has just shown us, there are also many many high performing MATs that are helping to transform the life chances of pupils across the country.As previous Ofsted analysis has shown, these MATs also share some common characteristics, such as: Education quality and data – the John Patten principleOne of the characteristics highlighted above was the importance of a broad and balanced curriculum. I would hope it hasn’t escaped anyone in this room’s attention that this theme of curriculum has been a core component of my first year and a half as Chief Inspector: making sure that we direct much of our attention to education of substance and how it is achieved, not just reported outcomes.And last year I received an interesting letter from John Patten, who was the Secretary of State responsible for steering Ofsted’s creation through parliament. He reminded me that Ofsted had been created: This is a powerful template. to better understand the way MATs are organised, operate, and the role they play in their own right and ensure that our inspection reflects this to improve our reporting on the impact that MATs are having, whether this is as part of a MAT focused review or a standalone inspection of an academy or free school that is part of a MAT to make focused reviews of MATs more intelligent, through better coordination and through sharing of evidence between inspection teams an ability to recruit and retain strong executive leaders a well-planned, broad and balanced curriculum a commitment to providing a high-quality education for all pupils investment in the professional development of teachers and the sharing of knowledge and expertise across a strong network of constituent schools a high priority given to initial teacher training and leadership development to secure the pipeline of talent clear frameworks of governance, accountability and delegation effective use of assessment information to identify, escalate and tackle problems quickly In other words Ofsted, from its very inception, was designed to complement, rather than reinforce, performance data.To be clear, I am not suggesting that there should be no correlation between what we find about the quality of education on inspection and what the data says about a school’s performance. They are, one hopes, clearly related. But inspection asks a different question. We want to know how schools are achieving a good education, not just what the results are.As I said to the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament last week, while I believe the current performance measures are as good as they ever been, I very much want to make sure that at Ofsted we focus on the ‘how’, on what performance tables cannot capture, so we can get the clearest view of whether schools, and where relevant the MATs to which they belong, are doing the right things.Of course we already do this to a considerable extent. If you take the analysis done for my first annual report, where we compared our inspection judgements with Progress 8 outcomes, the charge that ‘data is all’ is clearly disproved.More recently, my data team published research that shows that ‘good’ schools with a low percentage of white working class children who are eligible for free school meals, so advantaged schools, have a median Progress 8 score of +0.2. Whereas, if you look at the schools at the other end of the disadvantage spectrum, ‘good’ schools with a high percentage of this group have a median Progress 8 score, is quite a lot lower. It is -0.1. That is a big difference.The same pattern of difference applies to all our judgements.Rather than suggesting a bias against deprived schools, if anything, our data shows that inspectors are demonstrating, through their judgements, an awareness that Progress 8 isn’t a perfect measure of progress and that it doesn’t paint the whole picture of educational quality in a secondary school.In the new framework, we’re thinking about how we can take the inspection conversation even further on education itself and less on data. This is the human element that Ofsted brings to the accountability process. You can’t create a precise, codified rule for what good looks like. Data should always be just the start of the conversation that our inspectors have with schools. After all no performance table can tell you what schools aren’t doing; they can’t reveal what’s not happening or who isn’t being educated.It is that interest in ‘why and what’ that has been driving our work on the curriculum. It has been extremely gratifying that since announcing our new focus on the curriculum there has been virtually no disagreement with my thesis that it is an area that has been given too little attention for too long.I do appreciate though that any change of emphasis from Ofsted does excite nervousness in the sector. We have an absolute obligation, which we take very seriously indeed, to make sure that we don’t inadvertently create workload or generate misconceptions about Ofsted preferences. We also have to make sure we put plenty of time and resource into developing any changes.So I want to be reassuring about our new framework. We are not rushing into this. It will be 2 years into my tenure as Chief Inspector before we get to the formal consultation our proposed changes, which won’t come into effect until September next year. We are taking our time.This has allowed us to carry out a thorough, research-based, curriculum review, before going anywhere near inspection practice. We have researched primary and secondary curriculum, undertaken workshops with schools to help develop this further and will be testing ideas in the summer. Alongside our research work, we’ve already built more about the curriculum into our inspector training, with very positive feedback.CurriculumI know that there have been concerns raised in some quarters that a move by Ofsted to define what a good approach to curriculum looks like, will lead, by accident perhaps rather than design, to the creation of an Ofsted-approved curriculum. I can reassure you this will not be the case. We will be interested in why schools make the decisions they make, whether that’s about shortening Key Stage 3 or the range of qualifications on offer.I am in fact firmly of the view that a focus on curriculum will help to tackle excessive workload for teachers and school leaders. Such a focus moves inspection more towards being a conversation about what actually happens in schools. As opposed to school leaders feeling that they must justify their actions with endless progress and performance metrics. Those who are bold and ambitious for their pupils will be rewarded as a result and hopefully the shift will act as a disincentive for some of the more dubious gaming activities we hear too much about.And as the recent interest in our research into off-rolling shows, there is a great appetite in the system to expose inequity and where schools are losing sight of the purpose of education. And we all know that if Ofsted is clearly focusing on these practices, those tempted to succumb will reconsider.At the end of the day our job is to look at what decisions are made, how they are translating into practice, and how schools know they are having the intended effect. I cannot stress enough, what we want is a dialogue to help make sure that every child gets a full, deep, rich education.ConclusionAnd where better to end than on that aspiration. This is the basis on which our new school landscape will surely be judged.Thank you.
Edinburgh’s Cuckoo’s Bakery is to open its second shop, in nearby Bruntsfield in the second week of April. The bakery, which won ‘Best Cake in Scotland’ in the Scottish Baker of the Year Awards 2014, has an existing shop in Dundas Street, Edinburgh.It also supplies customers including Harvey Nichols in Edinburgh.Joint owner Graham Savage, who founded the company with Vidya Sarjoo in 2011, said the new shop will have around 10 seats, as well as selling takeaway cakes.Both shops will be supplied from the company’s bakery, based on an industrial estate.Savage commented: “We are also seeing our online business growing. We relaunched our website in January and we have doubled orders. We will be taking on three or four new staff for the new shop and another baker, so we will now have 15 staff.”The wholesale side of the business accounts for around 10% of sales, he added.
On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court published its landmark 4-3 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which declared that the state constitution did not legally exclude gays and lesbians from marrying. The ruling made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Much has changed since then. Just 10 years later, 15 states now permit same-sex couples to marry, with Illinois recently passing legislation that could soon legalize it as well. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was unconstitutional. The court also declined to hear a challenge to a federal court ruling in California that had overturned Proposition 8, a voter referendum, effectively paving the way for same-sex marriage in the most populous state.Margaret H. Marshall, Ed.M. ’69, the now-retired chief justice who authored the majority opinion in Goodridge, is a senior research fellow and lecturer on law at Harvard Law School. Marshall spoke with the Gazette about the precedent-setting ruling and the rapid cultural and legal shifts that have taken place in its wake.GAZETTE: Take me through that day: What happened in those first few hours?MARSHALL: I frankly did not anticipate the national and international reaction to the decision. Of course, I knew that the litigants and public were waiting for the decision to be released. The Goodridge decision, as all Supreme Judicial Court decisions, was released at 10 in the morning. It was only later that afternoon when I was driving back from a judicial conference and happened to turn on National Public Radio that I realized that Goodridge would be different. I did not expect NPR to cover the story, but it was all over the news. That was the first inkling I had that Goodridge would receive such wide press coverage. In retrospect, people have suggested that I was naïve not to anticipate the media explosion. But a justice of a state court is very different from a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. There have been many court decisions in Massachusetts that receive press coverage here. Very seldom do those rulings make national news. The media response to Goodridge really did catch me unawares. Representatives of media do not telephone justices for comment. We had an excellent public information officer, Joan Kenney: Her phone was ringing off the hook. But mine was not. Even legal friends and colleagues are inhibited, appropriately, about telephoning a justice to discuss a particular decision. So I went about my daily life. I went back to my office and started working on the next case or dealing with a budget issue, or whatever it was I was doing on that day.GAZETTE: Were you worried the decision might be overturned on appeal or that the Legislature would amend the state constitution to render the decision null?MARSHALL: No. We are fortunate in the United States that people — in government and out of government — obey court orders. In Goodridge, we included a provision delaying the implementation of access to same-gender marriage [for six months]. The court wanted the appropriate authorities to have an opportunity to prepare the appropriate forms and so on. That is not unusual. It allows the appropriate city and town officials to read the decision, absorb the decision, and act accordingly. You didn’t want to have people running into the clerk’s office and saying “Please give me a license” when the clerks hadn’t even been informed of the decision.GAZETTE: How were you treated in the days and weeks after the decision was out? Did you receive any letters or threats?MARSHALL: Yes. I don’t speak about the negative reaction. It was not an easy time. The court received hundreds of letters. The public doesn’t necessarily know that they couldn’t write to ask me to change the decision. It was a challenging time, it was a challenging time. The New York Times reported Goodridge on its front page. The following day the front page of The New York Times had a picture of the chief justice of California swearing in Arnold Schwarzenegger as the governor. From my point of view, my opinion was a one-day story. It was same-sex marriage one day and the swearing in of Gov. Schwarzenegger the next day. Well, that turned out to be not quite accurate. And the hostility to me personally continued for a long, long time.GAZETTE: What kinds of debate went on behind the scenes?MARSHALL: You know I can’t talk about that. I think there is an important reason why the discussions among justices are confidential. To the extent that anything is ever written about Goodridge, I hope it will be after the last justice who ruled on the case is deceased. I have left all of my papers to the Radcliffe Institute, and the Goodridge papers will not be opened until after the last justice is deceased. One thing I can say is that the Supreme Judicial Court it is a remarkably collaborative and collegial court. The justices always worked hard to make sure that people who read the opinions understood the legal dispute. In the majority opinions and the dissenting opinions in Goodridge, there are no ad hominem attacks by one justice on another. All of the opinions are devoid of any suggestion that a justice reaching a different conclusion is advancing arguments another justice did not respect. Same-sex marriage was an issue that divided our court, and divided every state Supreme Court until the issue reached Iowa, which issued a unanimous decision affirming same-sex marriage. New York and New Jersey, I think, were the next two cases. Both courts issued split opinions. And of course, in the U.S. Supreme Court in [United States v. Windsor] and a related California case, the Perry case, the court was divided. I feel most proud because the differing opinions in Goodridge are devoid of any suggestion that an opposing justice has misread the constitution or has done anything other than express a legal view about a difficult legal issue.GAZETTE: Unlike these other state and federal decisions?MARSHALL: I hesitate to point fingers, but I think if you look at the decisions from other states and even the Supreme Court on this issue, the justices seem to be far more critical, accusatory even, about each other. The role of a justice is to decide a case, and to educate the people who will read the opinion — first and foremost, the litigants and their counsel, and then trial and other judges who have to follow the ruling, and then the public. It is not helpful if justices are shooting arrows at each other. The SJC [Supreme Judicial Court] justices tried very hard to make sure that in our opinions there was a minimum of legal “junk language” and to explain a ruling in straightforward English so that the public could read and understand it.GAZETTE: How did your experience living in South Africa during apartheid inform your thinking on the issue of inequality?MARSHALL: It did not inform my thinking on the Goodridge case directly. Certainly I was not aware of any influence. Looking back, I have come to understand this: As a child, apartheid taught me that black people were inferior, that they did not deserve to be educated, that they did not deserve the right to vote, that they did not deserve the right to be elected officials. Black people were always “the other,” different, inferior, lower, not entitled to the same rights as whites. When you discover, as I did, that those views were palpably untrue, it makes one hesitate before reaching conclusory views about “the other,” whoever “the other” is, whether it’s a different religious group or a different racial group, or people of a different national origin. I tend to be far more skeptical of claims that “the others” don’t deserve the same degrees of respect, the same privileges and responsibilities that we have. I was not thinking of that when I wrote Goodridge. When you are a judge, you get the case, you look at the arguments, you look at the claims, and you decide as best you can how to resolve those claims. Of course each judge brings her own life experience — not particular views — to the work of judging. I had no view, none whatsoever, on same-sex marriage before the case was brought in the Supreme Judicial Court, and I did not, before the case was argued, have any idea what my colleagues on the court thought about the issue.GAZETTE: Did you ever envision how swiftly the public would embrace the merits of the decision?MARSHALL: You think the public has embraced same-sex marriage “swiftly.” But that depends on where you’re sitting. The first claims for a state to recognize same-sex marriage were brought some 40 years ago. If you are in a same-sex relationship, one might say it took 50 years before there was any momentum toward embracing same-sex marriage. That’s a long time to wait. That is one perspective. The second is this: For several years after Goodridge, there was no forward movement or there appeared to be no forward movement to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. The first cases, I think, were New Jersey and New York, both courts that I respect a great deal, but they went the other way. There was nothing to indicate within the first six years after Goodridge that any state court would follow Massachusetts. It is not unusual for a state court to be ahead of the rest of the country. The United States has seen many instances when a state court was ahead of a national consensus. The closest analogous case may be the decision of the Supreme Court of California in 1948 ruling that a statute prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Around that time, according to Professor Randall L. Kennedy in his wonderful book “Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption,” fewer than 2 percent of the American population were in favor of interracial marriage. That was 1948. And laws prohibiting interracial marriage finally were invalidated for all states by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 in a case called Loving v. Virginia. That was almost 20 years later. The decision, of course, put an end to all state statutes prohibiting interracial marriage. So, from that perspective, [for] same-sex couples, it’s moving a little more slowly. In [the] Windsor and Perry [cases], the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that all DOMA statutes are unconstitutional.GAZETTE: Why do you think marriage equality has been accepted so readily, as compared to Loving v. Virginia?MARSHALL: Judging by public polls, there is certainly a big tilt in favor of same-sex marriage, especially in younger generations. If you talk to my grandchildren who are in their late teens and early 20s, for them, same-sex marriage is not even an issue. And that, I think, in part is because of the courage that same-sex couples have shown in pressing for their right to marriage. It’s not easy to bring a case like this. When the seven couples in Goodridge started their case, no state had recognized their right to marry. It takes a great deal of courage to explain to your parents and your children and your friends that you are going to challenge a long-established reality. The Supreme Judicial Court could have ruled against them, as happened in New York and New Jersey, and that must be a profoundly painful experience.The lawyering for both the commonwealth and for the plaintiffs in Goodridge was of an exceptionally high quality. They really were. The briefs were excellent, and the way the case was presented to the Supreme Judicial Court made very clear what the issues were. But that did not guarantee any particular outcome. I’ve always felt that on this case we had the benefit of superb lawyers, and that makes an enormous difference to the justices. In the U.S. Supreme Court, because there is a very sophisticated bar that argues many cases in that court, the court typically has the benefit of excellent lawyering. In a state court, especially on the civil side, it is very expensive to litigate, and parties can’t always retain the very best lawyers because of the cost involved. But what a real difference excellent lawyering makes to judges.GAZETTE: In a 2005 edition of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Mary L. Bonauto, said of the decision, “It was not so much a sharp, abrupt break with the past as it was the logical, if brave, next step.” Was it brave?MARSHALL: I don’t feel that it was brave. If the bravery was anywhere, it was on the part of the litigants. I hope my opinion was well-reasoned. It’s a little nerve-wracking when scholars and others from all over the world read just one opinion of mine. I don’t mind the scrutiny of my opinions, but I wish scholars looked at a full range of my cases. Of course, every opinion of a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is examined. Some are good; some not so good. Over time, a balanced view about the jurisprudential skills of a particular justice is formed. When only one opinion is being held up to the light, as usually happens for me with Goodridge, the light feels a little more harsh.GAZETTE: Is this the decision you should be remembered for, or are there others that will become equally important over time?MARSHALL: I don’t know the answer to that question. As a judge, you never think that any one opinion is more important than any other. I can think of cases where the court reversed a murder conviction or affirmed a murder conviction. And believe me, to the litigants and families of the litigants in those cases, that opinion is just as important as Goodridge. Paying attention to every case, treating every case as the most important, is how respect for the courts is developed over time. It does not matter how important the public thinks a case is. It does not matter how important politicians think a case is. Every case is important to the parties of that particular case. Every single litigant must know that the case will receive the same treatment as a well-publicized case or case represented by very successful lawyers. When I said that excellent lawyering helps the judges, it does. But where the lawyering is not particularly good, judges pay particular attention to the case because you want to make sure that justice is done [and] that the lawyering, good or bad, does not determine the outcome of the case. You cannot do this work, you should not be a judge if you are following the headlines in the newspapers. You should not look at the headlines before you decide a case, and you should not look at the headlines after you decide a case. Headlines should play no part in reaching a decision.This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Read Full Story The rapidly evolving field of digital phenotyping involves uncovering specific health-related information in the moment-to-moment data created when people use their smartphones. A recent $517,000 gift from Mindstrong Health is supporting the research of Jukka-Pekka “JP” Onnela, an associate professor of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who is developing new statistical and computational methods for analyzing this smartphone-generated data.Human behavior is context-specific, notes Onnela, which is why characterizing life in everyday surroundings, outside of research labs, is critical. Digital phenotyping can gather 1 billion data points per subject per month — passively, objectively, and continuously. Paul Dagum, founder and chief executive officer of Mindstrong Health, believes that progress in improving outcomes for people with neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders depends on having better data through rigorous, real-world measurement.“Digital phenotyping can measure detailed information about a person’s mood, cognition, and behavior,” Dagum says. “We can capture a lot of data that, as humans, we’re not really equipped to process.” Indeed, digital phenotyping has the potential to help patients with mental or brain disorders such as schizophrenia, perinatal depression, post-traumatic stress, and dementia detect changes in their conditions days before clinical symptoms emerge.“We’re very excited to be funding JP’s work,” said Dagum. “His research is helping the field grow — and we need people like JP to fully develop and understand the potential of digital phenotyping. Our vision is to make this successful at a global scale.”Dagum notes that 3 billion people in the world have smartphones — a number that will grow to 6 billion by 2020. “The information from smartphones can be used at the individual level to help people manage chronic conditions, even beyond mental health,” he says. “And it can be used at an aggregate level for public health. Imagine having a heat map of the planet that can show hot spots of, say, emotional volatility or cognitive decline from stress, contagion, or toxins. The potential’s big.”Most of Onnela’s research so far has been supported by the unrestricted funding of his 2013 NIH Director’s New Innovator Award. “That award gave us the flexibility to do something that many people thought was not possible,” he says. “Initially, our goal was to conduct just one study and develop a couple of methods. Now, we’re involved in some 20 different studies.” The Mindstrong gift also provides flexible funding, which is especially important in an innovative area of study.“We’re extremely grateful for this gift,” says Onnela. “It boosts our ability to develop methods to make sense of massive amounts of data. This gift enables us to be nimble and tackle problems as they arise. That’s very important for us being able to make efficient progress on our research, and it will mean that we can have greater translational impact with our work. If we can measure social and behavioral markers in people’s environments, I think it’s going to be huge, especially for psychiatric and neurological conditions. I’m biased, but I really think that it will transform the field.”
Saint Mary’s College’s Students Supporting Autism club hosted its fourth-annual Light It Up Blue Walk last Saturday in honor of Autism Awareness Month. The event raised $2,700 for the Dan Ryan Children’s Fund at the LOGAN Center, a group that assists families with the costs of services for those with autism or other disabilities, Gabrielle Moody, president of Saint Mary’s Students Supporting Autism club, said in an email.“The walk first started my freshman year and has grown every year,” she said. “The amount we raised has doubled every year and so did participants. It was extremely successful this year and everyone raves about how enjoyable it is for their families.”Nancy Turner, chair of the education department and the faculty advisor for Students Supporting Autism, said she believes the growth of the walk as well as the club’s presence on campus is helping increase autism awareness at the College and the surrounding community. All those from the community were welcome to attend the event.“There were people from the community, as well as students,” Turner said. “I would say overall it’s both. Some of the people associated with LOGAN Center came. In addition, the radio station 97.7 Rock was instrumental in promoting the walk, so some people representative of the radio station came as well.”First year student Alex Guevara Stevens said in an email that the range and number of people who attended the walk was one of her favorite aspects of the event. She also said the walk was special to her because her brothers are both on the autism spectrum.“I loved seeing my friends, classmates and different people from all over the community come together to support the walk,” she said. “It was a great outcome. It is a cause that is very dear to my heart because in the past my family has been dependent from resources that are similar to those the Logan House provides.”Guevara Stevens also said she hopes more people take the time to learn about autism and finding happiness in what can be seen as a difficult situation.“Autism has affected my life because growing up with my brothers has taught me about finding joy in different places, about compassion, but most importantly I have learned that our differences are what make us beautiful,” she said. “Being different is not a bad thing, rather it’s something that makes each and every human being special and unique, and something that we should be proud of.”Furthermore, Moody said the walk allows her to celebrate the people she has met with autism throughout her life.“I hope the tradition of the walk continues after I graduate,” Moody said. “My favorite part about it is celebrating all the individuals with autism that have touched my life in some way. Autism has played a huge role in forming me into the woman/teacher/person I am today, and I am extremely thankful to SMC for giving me the opportunity to spread awareness on our campus.”Turner also hopes that the walk continues to grow and that Students Supporting Autism can continue to bring awareness through the activities they sponsor throughout the year.“I would just say I hope that the walk continues to occur. It’s only one of many activities that Students Supporting Autism plans over the year,” she said. “I’ve had many wonderful students over these years who have really dedicated so much time to not only the walk, but as I said, many events including working directly with children with autism. That’s one of the things this particular group has done. Raising awareness, as I said, just raising money. I’m confident that as these students graduate, which they are and I’m sad to see them go, but I’m sure that we’ll have other students that will step in and take their place. Hopefully the walk and the group will continue to do good things.”Tags: Autism, logan center, saint mary’s, Students Supporting Autism