A-LEVEL CITIZENSHIP STUDIES CIST3 Power and Justice Report on the Examination 2100 June 2015 Version: 1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2015 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
General Once again it was good to see that the recent improvement in student preparations for this examination was maintained. There was a pleasing number able to give detailed responses which fully addressed the precise demands of the questions. Indeed the more even spread of students attempting the three different pairings in each section was reflective of centres preparing students across the entirety of the specification. There are still some small areas of general weakness, the issues associated with which are addressed by the commentary for the relevant questions. The use of a wide range of contemporary examples continued to be a feature of many responses. Indeed the ability of students to reference the very recent May general election and FIFA corruption scandal is to be applauded. There was also once again good appreciation of the issues surrounding the Coalition Government, in particular how this affected the respective powers and influence exercised by the Prime Minister and the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats policy reverse in regard to tuition fees continues to remain at the forefront of many students minds. However it could still be used more precisely to illustrate points made by students. There was good awareness of the result of the referendum on Scottish independence and of the forthcoming referendum on the UK s continued EU membership. The success of the SNP in the general election is an area which could warrant some further consideration by students. With regard to the question on pressure groups, inevitably Fathers 4 Justice continues to be many students favoured example. This is disappointing as the use of a broader range of pressure group examples would be both welcome and a way to produce more effective answers. Once again it would benefit students to investigate pressure groups such as the BMA, CAMRA, NUT, 38 Degrees and Amnesty International, to give five very accessible examples, which would all help to illustrate a range of important points regarding issues of pressure group tactics and success. Students also continue to refer effectively to a range of activities they completed as part of the Active Citizenship component of CIST2, linking their relevance carefully to the precise demands of the question. These included visits to Parliament, court visits and various talks and question and answer sessions given to student groups by MPs, peers, solicitors and magistrates. All these were duly credited. A decreasing number of students simply reference these activities without attempting to link their relevance to the precise demands of the question. As ever it continues to be recommended that schools and colleges ensure that students refer wherever appropriate to work completed in other units so as to cover the synoptic nature of the Power and Justice unit. Spelling was much less of an issue for this paper; in particular the tendency to misspell words that appear in the question was largely absent. A small minority of student s handwriting continued to cause problems. As with previous papers the examiners work was made much more difficult because student s handwriting was on occasions virtually impossible to decipher. Schools and colleges are once again urged to ensure that students handwriting is clearly legible. The students once again demonstrated an ability to manage their time efficiently with very little evidence that students were unable to finish the paper because of shortage of time, although, once more, a small minority of students do continue to write very brief and undeveloped responses which could not access higher level marks. There were once again very few cases of rubric 3 of 9
infringement and students do now clearly understand that they should answer two pairs of questions, with one pair from each section. However centres are urged to ensure that students appreciate that each question will contain specific instructions and that any key words written in bold need to be taken particular note of. Section A Question 01 This question, paired with question 02, was very popular. Generally the students demonstrated good awareness of the relationship between crime and morality, often appreciating how neither is fixed and will change over time or between different cultures. Several students also used the Hart-Devlin debate very effectively. The analysis and comment upon this dynamic relationship were often very good with many students discussing changes in the law in the UK regarding specific examples to great effect (e.g. homosexuality, from illegality to same sex marriage legislation). This allowed for high level marks to be awarded. It was slightly disappointing that a few students discussed the question in terms of the morality of the individual criminal rather than to discuss the influence morality has had in determining what acts may constitute criminal behaviour. This approach tended to be less effective. Question 02 This question was generally well answered, with very few rubric infringements, the vast majority of students selecting two of the options listed for discussion and not discussing all three. The appreciation of the relationship between social class and criminal behaviour was, in particular very good; indeed many responses demonstrated excellent understanding of sociological terminology and research to answer this part of the question. Many answers were very adept at interweaving their two chosen topics, effectively cross-referencing between social class and ethnicity or social class and age to great effect. This produced several responses which were fully integrated and sustained in their analysis. This fact is to be applauded. There was also excellent appreciation of how influences such as the media and the police approach to stop and search can create distorted perceptions and crime statistics with regard to the relationship between ethnicity and age with criminal behaviour. Some students also effectively used examples from other countries (in particular the troubled relationship between the police and African Americans in the United States as demonstrated by the riots in Ferguson). Such links were fully credited and are to be encouraged, providing of course that they are a complementary and relevant contribution to the debate the particular question intends to encourage. Only a minority of students failed to address the precise demands of this question, these were usually quite generalised and unstructured answers which tended to produce unsupported lists of the type of person who committed particular types of crime. 4 of 9
Question 03 This question, paired with question 04, was the least popular of the section A questions. In general students demonstrated good knowledge of examples of miscarriage of justice (in particular students know the precise nature of the miscarriage of justice with regard to the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six ). However considerably fewer students understood the process by which miscarriages of justice were addressed by the current legal system. This had an inevitable limiting effect on the ability of students to access higher marks for this question. This suggests that both the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the actual appeal process would warrant further consideration by centres when covering this part of the Citizenship Studies specification. Both are clearly referenced by the specification. Question 04 There were many good answers to this question demonstrating good understanding of the makeup of the UK s judiciary, statistical evidence to support this and, most pleasingly, an appreciation of how this could affect the ability of the judiciary to do its job whilst maintaining public trust in itself. The analysis given by some students could have been improved by appreciating the need to give a balanced assessment. In particular consideration may have been given to how changes to the selection process has attempted to address this issue of low social representativeness. Once again, despite its explicit presence in the specification, a considerable minority of students did not make any reference to the Constitutional Reform Act or the Judicial Appointments Commission, both of which would have strengthened the student s answer, and allowed for a more balanced and critically evaluative response. Question 05 This question, paired with question 06, was very popular. Answers tended to be either very good or very weak. In some cases excellent knowledge of the precise nature of how fines were used within the legal system was demonstrated, allied to a careful consideration of the advantages (proportionate, quick, time-saving, etc) and the disadvantages (effectiveness as a disincentive dependent upon ability to pay, e.g. footballers and speeding, therefore only truly effective if allied to a further sanction, such as points on licence or disqualification from driving for motoring offences). Some high level answers also made excellent use of examples of corporations and businesses being fined for malpractice rather than simply thinking solely in terms of fines punishing the individual. Weak answers tended to demonstrate little awareness of what type of offences were punishable by fines, often doing nothing but suggest what crimes fines would be ineffective for, e.g. murder. Such approaches limited the ability of the student to gain marks. Question 06 As with question 05 answers were either very good or very weak. Weaker students tended to list the purposes of sentencing without any attempt to link this to the precise demands of the question regarding the aim of sentencing young people. This was once again disappointing as the specification does specifically discuss the aims of sentencing young offenders. However many good answers did carefully consider the aims and purpose of sentencing firmly in the context of 5 of 9
young offenders, inevitably producing balanced responses which discussed both the need to rehabilitate and reform alongside the desire to punish the offender for their behaviour whilst striving to protect the public from the risk of repeat offending by the young offender in both the short and long term. Section B Question 07 This question, paired with question 08, was quite a popular choice. The vast majority of students followed the question rubric correctly and considered the advantages of only two of the listed electoral systems. A minority of students did however discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their chosen pair. There were a number of very good answers that demonstrated a strong understanding of the mechanics of the electoral systems in the question, an appreciation of when they are used and the advantages they bestow as a result of their use. However a significant minority of students were, whilst able to correctly describe the mechanics of an electoral system and the advantages it bestowed, unable to correctly ascribe the correct name to their chosen electoral system. This was disappointing. Furthermore such answers were often unable to correctly identify the circumstances under which the electoral systems were used or simply did not discuss this point. This had a limiting effect upon the marks which could be awarded as an appreciation of where the systems are used (AMS for Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections, STV for Northern Irish Assembly elections, Party List for European Parliament elections and SV for London mayoral elections) allows for effective use examples of their respective positive impacts. Question 08 This question was generally well answered. The knowledge of the circumstances under which referendums have been held in this country and their consequential results and effect was of a consistently high standard. Where strong answers differed from weaker ones was in the ability to precisely address the issue of why referendums have become more widely used (e.g. the disproportionality of general election results undermining a Government s mandate and resulting in the need for Government to find alternative methods to ensure citizen consent for certain actions). Whereas weaker answers tended to produce generic lists of the advantages of referendums and thus failed to fully engage with the precise demands of the question. Nonetheless knowledge of contemporary examples of referendums, in particular those concerning AV and Scottish independence, was very good and it is to be hoped that similar attention will be paid to the forthcoming EU referendum. 6 of 9
Question 09 This question, paired with question 10, was the most popular question in section B. Many student answers were excellent, demonstrating both a very strong grasp of the range of ways in which the House of Commons seeks to scrutinise both legislation and the government (e.g. PMQTs and parliamentary committees, in particular select committees) and how the effectiveness of these can be questioned (PMQTs being stage managed and government dominance of the membership of parliamentary committees). Areas which centres could consider introducing their students to might be the work of both the Public Accounts Committee and Commons Liaison Committee, both key to the exercise of effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government. Unfortunately a small minority of students were either unable to demonstrate a precise understanding of what scrutiny actually is or demonstrated an inability to distinguish between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It would be reasonable to expect all students to be able to at least understand this key concept and distinguish between these two chambers. Question 10 Most of the students who answered this question appreciated the contextual nature of Prime Ministerial power and how it waxes and wanes depending upon circumstance. Many students confidently discussed historical examples of powerful prime ministers and how they lost power (Thatcher and Blair) and in some cases, very impressively, examples of weak prime ministers and how they still managed to cling onto power (Major and Brown). Key concepts such as fusion of power, parliamentary majority, patronage and whips were all well understood by the majority of students. The one contemporary example of restraint upon the power of the Prime Minister most students were aware of was being in a Coalition government. This was often discussed in highly effective terms, although the abandonment of the LibDems opposition to tuition fees was on occasion wrongly attributed to a weakened David Cameron rather than an example of the continued strength of the Prime Minister. The QUAD was rarely mentioned as a constraint upon the Prime Minister, even by those students who were able to discuss the nature of different types of models which describe Prime Ministerial power very effectively. This was slightly disappointing. Also the importance of the House of Lords being a hung chamber and the effect of this upon the House of Lords ability to restrain the government and Prime Minister was very rarely mentioned. This is again slightly disappointing given this chamber s increased influence since the turn of the century. A few excellent answers were able to use the May general election result to demonstrate both the renewed empowerment of David Cameron as Prime Minister (Conservative majority government replacing the coalition government) and the potential restraint it places upon it (12 seat majority which empowers would be Conservative MP rebels). Such answers were fully rewarded. Question 11 This question, paired with question 12, was the least popular in section B. Answers tended to be either very good or very weak. All students understood the demands of the question and were at least aware of what the EU was. Weaker answers however tended to struggle to identify effectively 7 of 9
a major international issue, often discussing the question in the context of the UK s continued relationship to the EU and the forthcoming referendum. Stronger answers were able to discuss very effectively the role played by the EU in certain major international issues, in particular responding to international crisis such as in the Balkans or the Ukraine, and analysing the limitations the EU faced in being effective in solving the crisis (e.g. internal EU divisions, limited availability to the EU of effective sanctions, especially military ones, and the intractable nature of the crisis itself). Some students, having successful discussed EU involvement in major international issues, tended to be reluctant to pass comment, at any length, upon the effectiveness this involvement. For example questions such as which international issues is it appropriate for the EU to be involved in? or does the EU have the necessary unity of purpose to be effective in dealing with certain international issues?, could have been addressed which would have allowed the student to be fully rewarded at higher levels. Question 12 This question was reasonably well answered. The vast majority of students demonstrated very sound knowledge of different pressure groups and the causes they sought to further alongside a very good appreciation of the factors that led to pressure group success and thus effective influence for the membership of the pressure group. Where the stronger and weaker answers diverged was the ability to link these general points precisely to the specific demands of the question. Weaker answers tended to produce generic answers regarding why pressure groups succeed or fail with no, or tokenistic, reference to international issues. Inevitably these types of answers discussed the merits or otherwise of Fathers 4 Justice. Centres are urged to direct students to ensure they address the precise demands of the question rather than rely upon pre-packaged answers, which may still gain reward, but ultimately limit the ability of the student to gain high level marks. Stronger answers were able to discuss both appropriate pressure groups, with regard to international issues, such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Stop the War Coalition and Occupy and carefully link their success and failure to how they may, or may not, enable the citizen to influence international issues. Many answers made effective use of the recent examples, such as that of the Saudi Blogger Raif Badawi and Amnesty International s involvement in his case. Such answers were fully rewarded and, as ever, the use of recent and contemporary examples should always be encouraged for the purpose of illustrating student s answers. This applies to all questions in general. 8 of 9
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 9 of 9