Dr Ridd would do well to consider the following points.
Why does he regard the CST as the benchmark against which school results should be compared, rather than the other way around?
To what extent is success on a pencil and paper test measuring test taking ability rather than knowledge and understanding and the ability to apply them?
How can a pencil and paper test examine research skills, oral ability and even practical skills of science experiments which he seems to desire, as school assessments are designed to do?
Has he considered the evidence of prediction to success at university, where such indices as the OP, ATAR etc. are shown to be no better, and in most studies worse, predictors than school assessments, presumably because success at university is as much a function of organizational skills, persistence, research ability and other such abilities which tests are simply not designed to measure, but which clearly affect school results.

John, an excellent quantification of the problem that has been readily observable for years.

It plays itself out in the fact that over 40 percent of young women now have tertiary qualifications compared to less then 30 percent of their male peers.

The real problem for society that create is that it is less efficient, in terms of ROI to invest in female education than male, because women will, on average, work less across their lifetime than men will.

It's exacerbated by the fact that women tend to concentrate in just a few sectors, nearly all of which are reliant on government for funding, either directly or indirectly. That cannot be sustained.

The Queensland based OP system is a travesty, based on dubious education theory, passed off for almost 40 years now by the Queensland Studies Authority as a radical advance in improving teaching and assessment.
The people who promoted this farce in the first place were of the generation which wore flared trousers and paisley body shirts. The fad of QSA assessment is just as dated.
The notion that teachers can better use the letters A,B,C,D,E to score pupil responses than they can by giving the pupil's answers marks and percentages is such an obvious nonsense you would have thought someone would have noticed. The fact that no one has, is a harsh judgement on the intellectual capital of the state.
Dr Ridd clearly points out gender discrimination as one of the more odious injustices of the fraud which is QSA assessment methodology.
Although QSA has loudly proclaimed their approach to school based assessment as ‘world’s best practise’ for almost four decades the rest of the world has remained politely indifferent by ignoring it. Certainly those jurisdictions at the top of international student achievements will not have a bar of it.
Which, I suppose is why they are improving while Queensland academic performance continues its four decade long decline.
A committee of the Queensland has the QSA under the spotlight and one can only hope that the pupils in Queensland schools and their parents and teachers will soon be released from the nonsense QSA has inflicted upon them.
QSA and its dated assessment fads need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Well done John Ridd

Concerning CARFAX's comment that 'Queensland academic performance continues its four decade long decline', let's look at some facts.

In the 2009 PISA tests of 15 year olds in Mathematics, 12 countries scored significantly better than Australia (regarding Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau and Taipei as separate ‘countries’), 5 scored the same as Australia. Australia scored significantly better than the remaining 34 countries.

Within Australia, Queensland results were not significantly different from those in other States, except for Tasmania and Northern Territory, where Queensland students scored significantly better. In science, Australia did even better, and the pattern across States was the same.

In the 2011 TIMMS tests for year 8, Australia was significantly outscored by only 6 countries and was significantly better than 27 countries. Australia’s average Year 8 mathematics score was not significantly different to the achieved score in TIMSS 1995.

In year 4, three states scored significantly higher than Queensland, but in year 8, only the ACT did. It is clear from these figures that the key issue for Queensland is in the early years, presumably because of the later school starting age in that State, a matter addressed by the decisions of the Bligh government.

In short, there is no evidence of the decline being claimed here, and Queensland students have been doing quite well considering the fewer years of schooling and other features of the State’s population.

OK GODO
Where is your evidence for;

Has he considered the evidence of prediction to success at university, where such indices as the OP, ATAR etc. are shown to be no better, and in most studies worse, predictors than school assessments

And

Are you seriously offering your three cherry picked examples of PISA and TIMMS for scattered cohorts in Queensland between 2009 and 2011 as a comprehensive response to the issues raised and cited in John Ridd's essay?

Godo,

A kindly meant suggestion.
Near the start of the article the author refers the reader to another OLO aricle about the maths/science situation in Australia/Queensland. I suggest that you should read it with some care. That would avoid you making any more rather silly comments about standards.

Kind regards