So true LEGO.

My wife & I started & ran the P&C textbook hire scheme, at our local high school, which added about $175,000 to the school budget, while saving the parents money.

We saw the worst of it, along with some good. We had well paid heads of department, who had to be damn near whipped into action, to get a list of their text books, required for the next year, in time to have them available when needed.

At least it meant that our "requests" for our kids to be spared the worst of the teachers, had enough weight to be effective. It also meant that the P&C had enough clout that when we, [the P&C] suggested to the head, that some silly little girl teacher, fresh from the city, should not be telling farmers kids that, "anyone who cuts down a tree is a criminal, & should be punished", should be pulled into line, it happened.

With all too many teachers, the only effective teaching they do, is for the core skills test. I wonder if this could be because it reflects more on the teacher than the pupil, when the kids do badly, & the results can't be hidden by in class assessment?

Filip
I did explain why I felt unqualified to assess Phil Cullen's arguments before NOT proceeding to comment on them. Perhaps you didn't notice. And I'm not sure whether you intended "sententious references" as an insult but I will plead guilty to assigning one of Phil's comments, and two substitutes for evidence favoured by 1970s colleagues infected by Brian Cambourne's curriculum of the warm inner glow — "If it ain't broke… " and "Paths are made by walking" — to the category of overly moralising. Is that what you meant?
But I can assure you that in those days I had to lead the fight against the State Education Department that wanted to have accepted as Australia wide assessment policy a statement that said that under no circumstances could any test ever be regarded as acceptable unless it taught the students while they were being tested.
By the way, I suppose you do understand that whenever a selection from a pool of candidates has to be made, it is logically impossible to avoid reducing every candidate to a single overall score. You do it every time you decide who shall be allowed into a university, which personal assistant you will employ, whom you will marry and even which holiday destination you will choose. The instant you can write down the names of the contenders in your order of preference, you have scaled all of their component attributes down to a single, global index. You might not be able to make any coherent comments about how you did this — about the scaling assumptions and component weightings you relied upon — but scale them you did.
Of course Campbell's Law is a timely caution and of course administrators (especially politically driven ones) often ignore it — or, more likely, contrive to remain ignorant of it. But if the problem is that teachers only teach what the tests test, surely the smart thing to do is to ensure that the tests only test what we want the kids to learn. And that's not impossible. It's just very hard

Hello Glen C. This is Filip aka Phil Cullen. I thought it was obvious. Heaven forbid that I intended an insult. I used the word 'sententious' in the sense that you judged a short statement by using a series of known short statements, none of which applied to the issue of absurdity. I presumed that you had used a jugmental stance just for the purpose of being critical.I was cerainly off-put that you distracted attention from the purpose of the article.
Yes. Testing is part of the issue. Granted. The differences between testing, assessment, appraisal and evaluation as well as their relationship would take a fair bit of discussion. Apropos, I should have said "Blanket tests themselves don't teach".
I am amazed that an Educ'n Department would suggest that no test was acceptable 'unless it taught the students while they were being tested." I just can't see a group of kids lined up in a big hall, quiet as mice, heads down, filling in bubbles in a pressure built atmosphere, learning too much. Yes, shared evaluation is part of the learning process. Cold testing only damages it. Okay?
You are correct that, in the selection of candidates for a position, a scaling mechanism is handy. That's another kettle of fish [non-herring]. However, managerial guru Halpin tells the story of the executive who went thorugh all the correct procedures prior to interview for a secretary; and picked the one with the prettiest legs.

Dodo. You have hit the nail on the head. Plumbers are running the garage. From a political point of view, it was necessary. Brendan, then Kevin, then Julia wanted to suck up to the big end of town and wanted to huff and puff about what they would to schools to fix the appalling standards. This happens every now and then. It's just so repetitive, so sterile.
NAPLAN blanket testing in Australia was so unnecessary.
For those who take notice of tests and compare them with other countries, Australia was up there in the 2009 PISA elite group in Math, Science and Reading, while the USA was way down below. What did Julia do? She copied a school district in the USA just to ride her stern command to death. She started the Klein system of schooling which relies heavily of fear-based testing. She appointed Barry McGaw of ACER, nice bloke, great measurer, but very short on school experience. When my car needs repair, I don't take it to a plumber.
Poor Barry is stuck with the Frankenstein effect. A monster is loose.

I agree with testing; given, its lack allowed a whole generation to grow up and leave school still illiterate! No ifs, buts or maybes! There are some in our schools today, who fear performance based testing; as it will show up and expose those, who are patently incompetent and ought to seek another career.
Schooling is supposed to set our kids up and allow them to realise their full potential or realise their fondest dreams!
When the system fails them in either regard; the system, and the protected incompetents, wherever we find them, must be changed or expunged!
Examinations are merely a useful tool in measuring the success or otherwise of various students; or, belief based teaching methods, which all too unfortunately have let too many kids down; and indeed, impacted very negatively on their whole of life prospects and future opportunities!
Testing should be done much more frequently and routinely; to firstly eliminate the seemingly teacher generated; unreasonable fear factor; and secondly, to allow it to be merely used as useful tool or teacher aid; in measuring any particular student's personal progress; and indeed, where they may well need special tutorship; or additional help; and nothing more.
School has to be about kids, not those few incompetents who, it would seem; tend to hide behind complexity; or, tried and found wanting experimental teaching methods! Rhrosty.

Any half way decent teacher knows that testing a class of children regularly on the syllabus is extremely useful in exposing gaps in the child's knowledge and understanding of a subject, and if acted upon can greatly improve the outcomes for that child. In maths where understanding is built in layers this is even more important, where gaps will handicap a child from learning further.

If any teacher only teaches to the Naplan test then they are idiots that should not be allowed to teach.

Independent schools generally test children at least once a term and many provide support to help with the gaps that have been identified. It is no wonder they produce far better results.