Ellyse Perry: Australian all-rounder

named women's cricketer of the year

Perry's unbeaten 213 against England in November is the highest Test score by an
Australian woman

Ellyse Perry has been named women's cricketer of the year by the International Cricket
Council.

she 27-year-old all-rounder won the ICC's inaugural Rachael Heyhoe Flint Award, renamed in
memory of the former England captain, who died in January.

Perry scored an unbeaten 213 during the women's Ashes Test in November as Australia
retained the trophy.

Australian wicketkeeper Beth Mooney picked up both the T20 player of the year and emerging
player of the year.

New Zealand's Amy Satterthwaite was named ODI player of the year after scoring 1,183 runs in
24 matches.

Anya Shrubsole was not included in the ODI Team of the Year, despite taking six wickets
as England beat India in the World Cup final in July.

But four England players were selected - Tammy Beaumont, Heather Knight (as captain), Sarah
Taylor and Alex Hartley.

Danni Wyatt is England's only representative in the T20 Team of the Year, after her decisive
century in the final Women's Ashes T20.

ODI team of the year:

Tammy Beaumont (England), Meg Lanning, (Australia), Mithali Raj (India), Amy Satterthwaite
(New Zealand), Ellyse Perry (Australia), Heather Knight (captain, England), Sarah Taylor (WK,
England), Dane Van Niekerk (South Africa), Marizanne Kapp (South Africa), Ekta Bisht (India),
Alex Hartley (England).

T20 team of the year:

Beth Mooney (WK, Australia), Danni Wyatt (England), Harmanpreet Kaur (India), Stafanie
Taylor (c, West Indies), Sophie Devine (New Zealand), Deandra Dottin (West Indies), Hayley
Matthews (West Indies), Megan Schutt (Australia), Amanda-Jade Wellington (Australia), Lea
Tahuhu (New Zealand), Ekta Bisht (India).
Global education rankings to measure
tolerance
International education rankings are going to test a very different type of skill next year.

The Pisa tests, which compare teenagers' ability in reading, maths and science, for the first time are also going
to test "global competence".

It's a significant departure to move from maths puzzles and literacy tests to asking questions about fake news,
global warming and racism.

The inaugural tests for global competence will take place in about 80 countries next year - and the results are
going to be pushed centre-stage in the following round of Pisa rankings.

The tests, run every three years by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have
become among the most widely used measures for global education standards.

And for each round of tests, one subject is chosen as the headline measure used to construct the international
league table.

That lead subject is going to be the new global competence tests, when the results of tests taken in 2018 are
published in 2019.

It could mean a very different set of countries at the top of the rankings, rather than the current cluster, which
includes Singapore, South Korea, Finland and Canada.

Tackling extremism

But how do you assess global competence? What does it actually mean?

This week the OECD set out its framework for the new test and the thinking behind its introduction.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionThe tests want to see whether young people can recognise
fake news on social media

It's intended to find out how well young people can understand other people's views and cultures, how they can
look beyond the partisan echo chamber of social media and distinguish reliable evidence from fake news.

It's a challenge to intolerance and extremism.

Andreas Schleicher, the OECD's director of education, says that international promises about the right to
"quality education for all" now have to mean more than the "foundation knowledge" of maths, reading and
science, it also needs to be about "learning to live together".

The economic think tank says there has been so much "indiscriminate violence" in the name of ethnic or
religious differences, that young people need to be taught about living alongside people of other cultures.
There are other driving factors, says the OECD, including the debate about immigration and refugees and the
polarising impact of social networking, where people can be disconnected from anyone not sharing their views.

"It will help the many teachers who work every day to combat ignorance, prejudice and hatred, which are at
the root of disengagement, discrimination and violence," says Mr Schleicher.

Climate change

The tests want to find out how well students can critically examine local and global contemporary issues and
how well they can understand "multiple cultural perspectives".

As an example, the OECD suggests a question about different interpretations of evidence for global warming,
in which the same information seems to have been used to produce charts supporting and opposing claims
about climate change.

Students are asked to analyse the evidence and to question how data might be used selectively or how the
findings of research can be influenced by whomever has funded it.

Another set of questions are based on a scenario in which a team loses when a player walks off the pitch after
getting racist abuse. Should the player have stuck it out rather than leaving the team a player down?

It's meant to raise questions about identity, responsibility, regulations on behaviour and the politics of the
crowd.

As well as questions, there will also be information gathered about students' attitudes towards people from
other cultures, interest in other countries and languages, global inequality and the environment.

But this is difficult territory - and a long way from the neater clarity of a maths answer.

Testing values

International rankings have tended to be based on subjects where comparisons in results are more
straightforward.

This latest set of tests talks about "valuing human dignity and diversity" and the "need to live harmoniously in
multicultural communities".

It's a much more culturally loaded proposition.

But Mr Schleicher says young people need to navigate a globalised economy and to communicate and
empathise with people from different countries and backgrounds.

There's also a more assertive underlying message of internationalism and cultural openness.

The OECD's origins lie in the reconstruction efforts in the "rubble of Europe after World War Two", part of a
drive to bolster international co-operation, market economies and democratic institutions.

It is now literally putting these values to the test.

Can property developers be taught to be
ethical?
Property developers have been blamed for a lot, from the financial crash to gentrification.

Whether deserved or not, there's a perception of them as being selfish and greedy.

But a master's course at Columbia University in New York is trying to change this image by teaching the next
generation of developers to be more community-minded.

The degree is taught at Columbia's Center for Urban Real Estate.

"Property developers have a terrible reputation," says course director Dr Patrice Derrington, who was one of
the developers responsible for rebuilding downtown New York after 9/11.

When Talar Sarkissian tells people that she is studying at Columbia for an MSc in real estate development, a
common response is: "Oh, you must be in it for the money".

"I often have to justify and explain what I'm doing to people and why, so they can understand it from my
perspective rather than basing their judgement on the stereotypes," she says.

This image became even more complicated when another controversial property developer entered the White
House as president.

Better value

Every year more than a hundred students take the course at Columbia, which has produced some of New
York's leading real-estate developers.

Students are taught to focus on the needs of the community that will live alongside a planned new
development, rather than pursue pure profit.

Dr Derrington says this is not just the ethical thing to do. It can be the best way for a developer to guarantee a
project is profitable.

"A developer today is only one of many agents that are part of the process of putting up a building, and they
are not the loudest voice," she says.

That most influential voice, she argues, belongs to the local community around the site of a proposed new
building.

Through social media, people are better informed about proposed developments and more willing to defend
their area from perceived threats.

"Across the world, developments have been rejected or seriously reduced because of objections from the local
community," says Dr Derrington.
"Today, a successful developer needs to be patient and listen to the community."

Students on the course are taught that although speculating on building luxury flats to sell to foreign investors
can give high returns, these properties often go unsold - particularly if there is a downturn in the market.

'More than the bottom line'

Instead, building flats that people will live in, or offices that provide space for local businesses, can a better
guarantee of commercial success.

Student Talar Sarkissian says the course has taught her about the impact a development can have on the area
around it. It's not just providing housing, but can be create jobs or facilities for the community.

"It is about more than just the bottom line," she says.

Recent graduate Jamie Horton is already putting what he learned into practice as a project manager at New
York-based Janus Property Company.

The company is developing a new commercial campus that will create much-needed local jobs.

"The vision for the project is to create a job centre in New York's Harlem, which currently has very little office
space," he says.

Early warnings

A master's degree is an unusual route into working in property development.

Dr Derrington hopes taking an academic approach to real estate will help the industry to anticipate events like
the sub-prime mortgage collapse of 2008.

"Real estate and finance were entirely to blame for the crash," she says.

"It's a cycle, so we know that it will happen again. We are trying to prepare our students so that they can spot
this early and help to alleviate it."

She says the industry is already making similar mistakes, and predicts another crash could happen within two
years.

"We are now at a point where it will take 17 years to fill the supply of luxury condominiums which are on sale
for more than $5m (£3.8m)," she says.

"We have an over-supply and you are already starting to see investors pull back."

"The signs are there and it is going to be very interesting over the next few years."
10 things about top 10 global school
rankings
1. England and Northern Ireland are in the top 10 of a global schools ranking - with Northern Ireland in
joint sixth place, in nudging distance of education superstars such as Finland.

It's an impressive performance, with England in joint eighth place, in the Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study - known as Pirls - taken in primary schools every five years.
2. Russia? The top of global rankings such as Pirls and Pisa usually have a limited cast list - Singapore,
Finland, South Korea and particularly clever parts of China usually dominate. But this year Russia is in the
gold medal position.

The academics running the tests say this shouldn't be a surprise. Russia has done well before in these tests and
has been changing its schools, with a big push on academic excellence and a more rigorous emphasis on
standards.
3. Who takes these tests? These global rankings are based on samples of pupils representing the different
range of regions, peoples and types of school, whether it's somewhere the size of Luxembourg or the United
States.

For the Pirls tests, England's result was based on a sample of about 5,000 students in 170 schools, while top-
rated Russia's result was based on about 4,600 pupils in 206 schools. The sample for the United States was
4,425, or the equivalent of less than 100 per state.
4. Comparing like with like? There is something mesmerising about a ranking, it's a hierarchy uncluttered by
any complicating factors. They are blazing headlights on the motorway rather than a torch in the study.

But that means not noticing details, such as pupils in the Pirls test being different ages. The flying Finns near
the top of the table were on average about a year older than the lower-ranked French or Italians. That's a big
difference in primary school.taken from Northern Ireland's success in the latest global league table?
5. Who should take the credit? It's an iron rule that current governments are responsible for all success,
previous governments for all failure. Also, it's a free buffet for drawing conclusions that suit your own views.

England's success could be an argument for a rigorous national curriculum testing system, phonics and league
tables. Northern Ireland's could be attributed to not having Sats, schools divided on religious lines and the
demands of selective secondary schools.
6. Pick your facts, choose your headline: The same rankings can generate entirely different narratives. The
Pirls results have rightly been seen as impressive performances from schools in England and Northern Ireland,
well above average by international standards.

But rankings can be used selectively. In absolute terms this year's results put England in 10th place, but
because there is no meaningful statistical difference with the two countries above, the Pirls's organisers have
said it is the equivalent of joint 8th.

In the past tests five years ago, England was ranked 11th. But the Pirls people say that if the same
approximation were applied retrospectively, England would have been joint 6th. So did the results improve or
dip? You could produce entirely different interpretations from the same evidence.
Image copyrightNTUImage captionSingapore has been a regular at the top of global school rankings
7. They make a big impact: Even if you don't believe in education league tables, they make things change
around them.
The Programme for International Student Assessment tests run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development have been seen as driving education policy and stirring education ministers to measure
themselves against international standards.

In Germany, this became known as "Pisa shock", when a country that thought it had the world's best education
system discovered it was some way behind many of its Asian competitors.

When the Pisa tests were still finding their feet, the US tried to squash their uncomfortable message about its
deeply divided schools - and the OECD's Andreas Schleicher has said that it was the intervention of Ted
Kennedy that stopped the US from trying to stop their publication.
8. You rank only what you can measure: It's no coincidence that global rankings focus on maths, science
and reading. They are much more straightforward to test and mark than more complicated, culturally defined
subjects such as history or literature.

But does that mean that less value is attached to subjects that won't see countries climbing up league tables?
9. Nothing is inevitable: It's no accident that countries such as Singapore, South Korea and Finland are at the
top of global rankings. They quite deliberately pursued long-term, multi-generational policies to create
excellent school systems, with the aim of rising up the economic food chain.

The OECD has rejected the idea that some countries have a "culture" of education. It uses the examples of
Singapore and South Korea to show a country can go from widespread illiteracy and poverty to having some of
the highest education standards in the world.
10. Are they fair? It might seem one-sided to compare a wealthy European school system with a developing
country, or a huge sprawling country with a compact city state. But the argument of league tables is that it
doesn't matter whether it's fair - it's the reality of a globalised world.

Young people in very different and unequal settings are in the same economic race - and their chances of
success will be heavily dependent on their access to education.

And if you don't get the right result in an education league table... there will be another one along soon.
Facebook ditches fake news warning
flag
Facebook no longer displays red warning icons next to fake news stories shared on the platform, as it
says the approach has not worked as hoped.

In December 2016, the site started showing a "disputed" warning next to articles that third-party fact checking
websites said were fake news.

However, it said research suggested the "red flag" approach actually "entrenched deeply held beliefs".

It will now display "related articles" next to disputed news stories.

, disputed articles showed a red icon
"Academic research on correcting misinformation has shown that putting a strong image, like a red flag, next
to an article may actually entrench deeply held beliefs - the opposite effect to what we intended,"
Facebook's Tessa Lyons wrote in a blog post.

Instead of displaying a warning icon in the news feed, it will instead "surface fact-checked articles" and
display them next to disputed stories.

Facebook said it had tested the approach and found that although the new approach did not reduce the number
of times disputed articles were clicked on, it did lead to them being shared fewer times.

People who do try and share a disputed article are showed a pop-up with links to fact-checked sources.
-checked articles will be given more prominence
"Using language that is unbiased and non-judgmental helps us to build products that speak to people with
diverse perspectives," Facebook's designers said.

"Just as before, as soon as we learn that an article has been disputed by fact-checkers, we immediately send a
notification to those people who previously shared it."

Critics say social networks should face regulation if they do not tackle the spread of misinformation and
propaganda.

"What Facebook is trying to do is respond to pressure that it should be treated as a publisher, rather than a
platform," said Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent.

"I think that argument is dead. They are a publisher, so it is not enough to offer people a menu of other related
stories.

"We have a generation of people that are so anti-establishment and sceptical of evidence-based news, we need
regulation of the type imposed on broadcasters since they first emerged."

Prof Luckhurst said he was "appalled" by Facebook's argument that it was different from traditional media.

"They usually raise the objection that they cannot be regulated because they're international. Well so is the
BBC, so is CNN."
Jerusalem: UN resolution rejects
Trump's declaration
The UN General Assembly has decisively backed a resolution effectively calling on the US to withdraw
its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The text says that any decisions regarding the status of the city are "null and void" and must be cancelled.

The non-binding resolution was approved by 128 states, with 35 abstaining and nine others voting against.

It came after US President Donald Trump threatened to cut financial aid to those who backed the resolution.

How did UN members vote?

 The nine who voted against the resolution were the US, Israel, Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo

 Among the 35 abstaining were Canada and Mexico

 Those voting in favour included the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council (China,
France, Russia and the UK) as well as key US allies in the Muslim world

 There were 21 countries who did not turn up for the vote.

What is so contentious about Jerusalem's status?

The status of Jerusalem goes to the heart of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians.

Israel occupied the east of the city in the 1967 Middle East war and regards the entire city as its indivisible
capital.

The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state and its final status is meant to be
discussed in the latter stages of peace talks.

Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has never been recognised internationally, and all countries currently
maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. However, President Trump has told the US state department to start
work on moving the US embassy.

What does the UN resolution say?

The 193-member UN General Assembly held the rare emergency special session at the request of Arab and
Muslim states, who condemned Mr Trump's decision to reverse decades of US policy earlier this month.

The Palestinians called for the meeting after the US vetoed a Security Council resolution that was similar to
the text approved on Thursday.
The text put forward by Turkey and Yemen does not mention the US, but expresses "deep regret at recent
decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem".

It also says "any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic
composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in
compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council".

What do Israel and the Palestinians say?

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had promised to reject the results of the vote, calling the UN a
"house of lies".

Afterwards he said in a statement: "Israel thanks President Trump for his unequivocal position in favour of
Jerusalem and thanks those countries that voted alongside Israel, alongside the truth."

A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the vote "a victory for Palestine".

How does the US see it?

In a speech before the vote, US permanent representative Nikki Haley stressed that the US decision did not
prejudge any final status issues, and did not preclude a two-state solution if the parties agreed to that.

"The United States will remember this day, on which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for
the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation," she said.

"America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do. And it is the
right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that."

Media captionTrump: "We're watching those votes"

On Wednesday, Mr Trump warned he might cut financial aid to states who voted in favour of the resolution.

"They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars and then they vote against us," he said.
"Well, we're watching those votes," he added. "Let them vote against us. We'll save a lot. We don't care."
Will Trump act in retaliation?
Analysis by Sebastian Usher, BBC Arab affairs analyst

The result of the UN General Assembly vote was inevitable: the US knew that the majority of states would
vote for the resolution. But there may have been slightly more abstentions and votes against than had been
expected - which will be some comfort to the Trump administration.

There's little surprise in the countries that voted against - the likes of Micronesia, Nauru and Togo had nothing
to gain from voting against the interests of the US, which helps support them.

Canada, Mexico and Poland were amongst those that abstained, in a move that will do nothing to harm their
relations with the US.

The votes for the resolution from powerful US allies, such as France, Germany and the UK, could be seen as a
slap in the face for President Trump - but all would argue that they simply voted in line with the existing status
quo at the UN. There was no pressing reason for them to switch from this stance.

But the real test of the vote will be whether the Trump administration acts on its threats to reconsider financial
aid to some of those who backed the resolution. Key, too, will be whether the resolution will give fresh
impetus to the protests against the US decision that have been going on ever since it was announced, but have
yet to really catch fire.