Raising standards, improving lives?

It has at last been discovered. It is the time to speak openly and to come out. Coco has been found to be inadequate. There is no other one-word judgement that can be applied. So, it is now time to publish a parable that Coco heard many years ago, but first of all a brief explanation.

Those of you with whom Coco worked will fully understand why this judgement has been applied (many others will have a partial understanding, and some will know that it is unquestionably just). The behaviour of Coco was so audacious as to risk the bringing of the whole group into disrepute. It was well-known that Coco (and not only he, but the others Coco shall not name here) rode roughshod over systems, policies, regulations, even at times of standards in order to achieve for the client what the client needed at that time. This failure to adhere to proper controls (preparing a change document, designing functionality tests and user tests, which would provide measurable results; building a safe programming environment in which testing could take place; proper separation of duties and therefore accountability for the several parts of the process of implementation of the change; as well as the modification of design and help documents and systems, which followed their own separate processes for change) often resulted in a few short words of correction being spoken, and ignored but ensured that the client was happy and the client’s timetable was not disrupted by an internally imposed process when all we had done was incorrectly spell Xiannopulou’s name in the formally approved release two months earlier. It was for this reason that someone was always allocated to Coco who understood the need for these things – in other words a compliance officer (please don’t take that as an insult, Coco says it in jest, you were always admirable in your work, correcting Coco where needed, and without your help Coco would not have remembered or done anything that was required and it provided you with an opportunity to manage a recalcitrant and incorrigible colleague). Every attempt to change that behaviour simply provided a new and interesting opportunity to design new ways to beat the system.

The parable was along these lines:

It was Monday morning, the weekend had been longer and more tedious than usual, and Norbert was preparing to leave for the office, when there was a knock at the door. Norbert was surprised to find Jeremy the local bobby outside.

N: Good morning, Jerry. What brings you here today?
J: I am very sorry, sir, but I must take you away to a place of confinement where you will remain for an indefinite period.
N: I don’t understand, are you saying that you are taking me to gaol?
J: Yes, sir, that is what I must do. You were condemned by the Court yesterday, and I have been instructed to escort you to The Lawful Place Of Confinement.
N: I know you must do your work, Jerry, but perhaps you would enlighten me. For what have I been condemned?
J: I have not been told, sir. I am aware that your statement was presented to the court, one witness was called and then came the judgement, but I was not permitted to enter into the courtroom.
N: May I have a few moments to pack a bag? Please come in and take a seat. I shall not be long.

As he packed, Norbert reflected upon the situation. He had been called into the station several weeks ago to give an account of his movements on a particular day in December. He thought carefully about what he had said in that document. He had been out of town all of that week on business, and could think of nothing in it that could give rise to what was now taking place. He mused thoughtfully, as the absurdity of the situation pressed home upon him. Here he was about to be committed to a place of confinement on the judgement of a court at a hearing of which he had no knowledge. He supposed that had he troubled himself to go to the court every day, he would have seen his name on the list of cases to be heard: Person or persons unknown v Norbert Smith Defendant 1230 Room B, he imagined to himself. What had been said about him? Why had he not received a call to attend the hearing and reply to his accusers?

He resigned himself to his fate. He remembered that the wise man said: the first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17)

Coco added his own comments to this, which at the time seemed to be appropriate:
Coco wonders how many of us feel a little bit like Norbert. There are flaws in many processes which would not be permitted in the legal process in a liberal state. And if you wonder why Coco wrote this, it is quite simple, there are two reasons. Firstly, the [assessment] document appears to be empty. Nothing has been said, so there is nothing to which a reply can be given. And secondly, there has been no process meeting with the preparer of the assessment, but merely an informal chat with the one who has been interposed. It is of course nothing less than is expected to happen or not happen however you may wish to look at it.

There was however an opportunity to respond to the electronic document, so Coco entered this parable, only to discover that having made the entry it was not possible to remove it or even edit it. It was once only effort – make a mistake in it and the mistake is forever written in stone or at least electronic bits.

It now appears, in the light of the reports of certain Government bodies that such things do happen in a liberal state, as, although the documents promulgated by that body are not empty, the evidences to support the assessments are not disclosed so no answer can be given.

I understand that to break the law in one part is to break the law as a whole, for the law is one; but you do not label a pupil as inadequate if they fail in English but excel in all of the others.