Thanks for the link, Ian. I found the paper very interesting. After taking a while to think about it, I came to two conclusions:

1) Those of us who are interested in educational standards on a national (or any other collective) level are unlikely to see much benefit in league tables. They simply point out which schools are doing well and which schools aren't doing as well at any given point of time. They can also lead to rash decisions - parents (and policymakers) armed with a little bit of information they don't fully understand may make uninformed decisions as a result of their findings. Rich and urban parents will send their kids to high-achieving schools, while poor rural parents do not have the luxury of choice and must keep sending their kids to the underachieving schools. These schools continue to underachieve but are frequently whipped by the policymakers for their poor performance. Their teachers, sick of the stigma and low morale attached to their workplace, transfer to 'better' schools and staff turnover becomes a bigger issue than it already is. Meanwhile, educational standards don't improve but at least we know how low they are (which, apparently, isn't all that low).

2) Parents have a right to be selfish in their selection of schools. Their sole interest is the educational wellbeing of their own kids, so they should have access to as much information as possible to make a good decision. League tables indicate where their kids are most likely to achieve success, so parents are right to demand access to the information.

In conclusion, I have no real conclusion - there are two sides to this argument, both of which transcend the 'teachers are stupid, ignorant and lazy and deserve to be exposed and punished' argument.

The suggestion that league tables are too simplistic and don't convey the full complexity, is one of the most pathetic arguments I have ever heard. It assumes that the general public in looking at the schools to send their children only look at the league tables and are too dim to consider anything else.

When I go to vote, I consider all the issues, and am aware that all parties stand for things I dislike, and have to vote on the balance of the issues. Should we ban elections because the result is too simplistic to reflect the complex issues?

The league tables may not be perfect, but they are the only independently verifiable measure we have. All the other factors they want to throw in are wildly subjective.

The only reason to stop the league is the union's fear of exposure.

Parents have a right to know. Why does Labor and the unions want a cover up?

As the article states there is a big difference between 'underperforming' and 'disadvantaged'. To assess a school merely on results without acknowledging other factors, that many astute people have raised above, is to merely whitewash the problems.

Even golfers get a handicap when it comes to scoring and level playing fields.

League tables in no way increases choice for parents, unless money is no object, and none at all, in the public system, as one is restricted by zoning.

The responsiblity for underperforming teachers lies with the principal and the education department.

If we look at education from a holistic perspective the outcomes for a child in the system is influenced by parents, schools, teachers, politicians and departments (through curriculum design).

The introduction of transparency in school achievement should be supported by the introduction of a comprehensive voucher system.

Putting the knowledge (this school sucks/is brilliant) into the hands of parents will, on its own, change nothing. Except perhaps increase a feeling of dissatisfaction and frustration in those parents.

Giving them at the same time the ability to "vote with their voucher", and encourage the perception of competitive excellence instead of comparative failure, just might bring about an improvement.

And it could silence once and for all the issue of government support to private education, by making it, too, totally transparent.

With the choice firmly in the hands of the consumer, assisted by some credible performance indicators to assess the options available, there would be some pretty strong positive incentives to improve.

A reasonable hope from a teacher engaged in trying to make things work.

In Qld, nothing short of hosing-out the Ed Qld senior managers and principals would assist our schools.

There is no requirement for any PD, no financial benefit for any higher degrees. We have principals who have only the BA or B.Ed. they left college with 30 years ago, HODs with their Dip T still plugging away on the same boring projects year after year.

I know of a teacher undertaking a PhD in the subject who is going to be denied a return to the workplace as a result of being 'too qualified', although that is not the official response, and the teacher untrained in this area will continue in it.

Such is the 'thinking' within EQ senior managers to using new resources, such as better qualifed staff.

I know a primary principal in a southern UK town in a depressed area under Thatcher and Blair. Both did their utmost to cut costs and punish schools like his. Poor maths results led to less money not more... and so with all other subjects as the school disgraced itself in the league tables.

If teachers have a hard time today with 'disruptive students' maybe it is time to look to see how to reorganise the running of schools, away from the 19th century factory model we still have, while accepting that we, as adults, have changed the world we live in and set the pace for students of today?

And, certainly from an EQ perspective, it would be good if we stopped allowing total rubbish, like Intelligent Design, to be passed off as legitimate teachings in Science classes.

Gillard refuses to deal with any undermining of the tight grip 'fundies' have on our state schools.

Her league tables will solve nothing at all because many parents think they need them, which is why they take the soft option of trying to buy 'advantage' for their children in private schools. And few educators in the game, at least in Qld, really have any idea how to run a school.

There does seem to be a lot of "parent bashing" being carried out by teachers.

If the student does not do well, then blame the parents. If the student does well, then the teachers pat themselves on the back, (but odd how the teachers do not attribute the student doing well to their parents).

I have been involved in a number of teacher’s groups (although I am not a teacher) and I never once heard a teacher make any positive comment about parents.

Another factor is that teachers taught the parents, and if teachers do not like the way parents are, then the teachers only have themselves to blame.

The main attributes of a modern teacher: -

- Spend every cent of taxpayer funding on imports and pretend this is innovation
- Encourage students to think of anything made in Australia as being inferior,
- Release as little informaion as possible and hide as much information as possible,
- Have a ready made list of excuses to cover any eventuality,
- Seek no accountability for anything
- Ask for more wages.
- Blame parents for any shortcoming of the education system