I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of item 49 of Yr7 2008. It's true we usually only use a comma to a separate a subordinate clause from the main clause when the subordinate clause comes first. However, it has long been acceptable to set off additional information in a sentence with either commas or brackets. Some grammarians call this a peripheral dependant or adjunct. I agree that the sentence is a little clumsy but I think the 'before it burst into flames' is parenthetical and may be omitted i.e. 'The man got out of the car and ran away'. Hence, the commas can be justified.

The clumsy sentence brings me to what I think is the point of your argument which is that the people who write the conventions of language section don't seem to have a good grasp on the conventions of language themselves. I think this reflects the long battles about grammar which have taken place in our education establishment over the past decades. We have gone from the traditional grammar of the 70s, to the 'teach no grammar' of the 80s, to the systemic functional grammar of the 90s (which nobody understood), to the 'after 20 years of tumult nobody really understands any grammar anymore' this past decade, and finally, to the 'return to tradtional grammar' of the National Curriculum 2010.

I wouldn't expect things to get better any time soon.

If the authors don’t like the NAPLAN tests, then they can always design their own and offer them as an alternative.

This could be productive.

The main characteristics of a teacher would include:
The ability to whinge.
The ability to continuously ask for more and more and more “government spending” (i.e taxpayer funding)
The ability to import as much as possible with government spending.

So its about time that teachers where more productive.

Public school teachers do a fantastic job in an under resourced and under funded system. Imagine the possibilities if schools were (note spelling) well resourced. It is such a shame that 70% of federal government funding goes to 30% of the population i.e. private schools. Public school teachers are producing brilliant results with very little. Private schools are well resourced and funded yet their students are statistically more likely to drop out of uni when the going gets tough. Public school students are used to dealing with adversity and making the most of what they have.
Vanna says teachers continuously ask for more and more and more “government spending” (i.e taxpayer funding). What does she suggest we do, have teachers resource schools? Every teacher I know already contributes a significant amount of their own money toward classroom resources and items for students in their class. How many other professions are expected to do this?
Naplan testing is not indicative of a school’s success/failure. It is simply a report of a test taken on a given day by a very small sample of the school population

Thanks for this article.
It seems that whoever wrote the questions does not have an educational background that included the study of English language at a level higher than Primary schooling.
Teachers must know exactly what it is the question is testing or they cannot possibly set a curriculum.
I still think teaching is far more important than testing so let's have curriculum first and testing second with the full knowledge that only some of the students will score at the very top of the scale. It has ever been so!