There is nothing wrong with using a standardised test to identify the achievement level, not the ability as John suggests, of an individual child. Teachers who examine each child's answers in the test will quickly see in what areas of the curriculum the child is succeeding or failing. When they add this information to the diagnostic information they gather as part of their daily teaching, they should be able to tailor programs to help the child make progress. Several of the examining authorities in the Australian States now provide online tests and diagnostic tools to help teachers do just this.

John's mistake is to confuse the provision of information with the quality of teaching. Good teachers use all the information they can to help children learn. Poor teachers hide behind the myth of ability. Parents are entitled to know as much as possible about the performance levels of their children's schools and to hold both school and teachers accountable for that performance.

As a final point, the PEP program was a massive waste of taxpayers money. It led to more bureaucrats, ridiculous fads in teaching and curriculum and no demonstrable improvement in standards.

I agree with the last person. The PEP programme was a vast waste of money. I worked alongside some of the people who administered the it. It was all about fads and process.

There is actually nothing wrong with providing information to parents and although no educator seems to like league tables, I have always found that a fair analysis of the information provided usually helps every school to strive to improve.

Perhaps the writer of this article ought to read a bit more about why CO2 is not bad for the environment and spend less time pontificating about education.

John, you destroy youe own argument when you show that of 3 teachers, only you were able to see the problem with your sign challenged student.

Due to the war, & my fathers employment as a trouble shooter, I went to 16 schools before I turned 14. As the kid who was only there for a few months, I would have had little chance with today's systems. If you suggest otherwise you are kidding.

Unlike today, teachers did a bit more work, back then. They wrote an exam, cut a stencil, hand printed the test papers, marked the results, & SENT THE BOTH HOME to the parents, with a percentage result, & place in class marked.

My parents educated in the early 1900s, only went to intermediate, but were well educated. With the exam papers, & my results, they could do the teachers work, of finding the weeknesses of this here today gone tomorrow kid. Approaching test time, we would work through the old test papers, in class, or for homework, to find what, as George W said, "we didn't know, we didn't know". This was the format in every one of those 16 schools, & a good one.

Imagine my surprise when I found the kids of today are not allowed to bring their test papers home. I was amazed to find that the same tests were used for years, to save a little work, & their contents closely guarded.

As a fairly prickly fellow, & president/secretary/treasurer, at various times, of the P&C, I was given privileged access to these heirlooms, & sworn to secrecy.

This is nor good enough. Every parent should have total access to all information which can help their kids.

To be continued.

John, we have people teaching subjects that they could not handle, as a student, at that level. One very good junior math, & senior biology teacher, at our kid's school, quit when he was told he was to teach senior physics next year.

As he said, how could he teach the bl@@dy stuff, when he couldn't even do it. He was told he only had to keep ahead of the kids, in the text book.

He would have been much better than what we got.

John, rather than less scrutiny we need a parent, a different one each year, paid, as a full time co-headmaster in each of our schools. Perhaps then, we may get the necessary oversight to ensure our schools, & teachers do the job we expect of them, & incidentally, pay for.

No window into our schools can ever be too big, or open too wide. Just a quick look at the results we are not getting make it obvious that we have been running on the trust system, far too long

Since one of the most important functions of any school is to imbue the children with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the curriculum to perform well in the HSC to gain entry to the profession of their desire, I would have thought that the league tables of their performance in the HSC was a clear indication of performance.

Sorry shadow minister - the research does not back up your assertion - such research as has been done (notably by Anthony Haden for the Vice Chancellors Committee) found no evidence that there was any correlation between HSC performance and success at tertiary level. Secondly HSC results are a less than reliable indicator of how well schools are doing. Given the importance parents attach to HSC results many schools do their own pre-sorting - students who they deem as having poor prospects are not allowed to sit. This creates a false impression about teacher performance. It means that if your child may struggle at HSC level they are either not allowed to even enter for the HSC or if they are allowed to enter they are not given sufficient back up to ensure that they do succeed. I have worked in schools where I achieved a 100% pass rate at HSC level but that success was achieved by the the school advising the parents of some of my students that as they were unlikely to pass they were advised not to sit for the exam. So if you just know the outcomes but are unaware of how they are achieved then again you do not have reliable information

On many occasions I have seen a student's report card with exactly the same comments written in exactly the same words about the same student FROM DIFFERENT TEACHERS.

Obviously the teachers were drawing their comments from a standard list, and the report card was simply a piece of paper without any meaning.

In the stagnant, non-innovative, socialist and feminist corrupted education system, the teachers couldn’t even think of anything original to write in the report card.

Without league table, we will simply have what we presently have, a stagnant, non-innovative, socialist and feminist corrupted education system, where teachers can’t even think of anything original to write in student's report cards.

Baygon,

Having spent some time reading documentation on the subject it would appear that nearly indicate a very strong correlation between HSC results and at least the first year results. I have included one link on the TER system, and having failed to find your reference, I would appreciate a link to a document that shows no correlation between HSC results and university performance.

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/pdf_doc/cooney.pdf

On top of that, the better schools get more students into university. Thus the better schools get better HSC results, with students better prepared for acedemic life.

The demands for school league tables persist despite the evidence. As Ken Robinson, creativity and education ‘expert’ and author of “The Element”, points out there are three aspects of school education, the curriculum, the teaching and the assessment: all the scrutiny is directed at the first and last. However, all the research on educational achievement points to dramatic results relating to teaching and virtually none to assessment of the standardised test kind. The late Kenneth Rowe, one of the keenest minds in the education research area in Australia in the last several decades, observed in 2000, “Australian politicians and senior bureaucrats currently advocating the publication of such performance information in the form of ‘league tables’ are naively, and in typical fashion, stomping around in an uninformed epistemopathological fog.” Variation within schools is too large to allow meaningful discrimination.

Most advocates of standardised tests want to oversight the performance of teachers. Excessive oversight produces evasion! The article’s author himself shows the importance of paying attention to the individual student. The appropriate testing is formative evaluation, frequent tests used to improve instruction and coursework, as demonstrated by researchers at Kings College in London some decades ago. As Professor John Hattie of Auckland University has shown, it is the interaction – or feedback - between the teacher and student which makes the difference. Where teachers cooperate and the community treats the teacher with respect, then good results are likely to be achieved. Arguments about democratic rights of parents to know are not relevant.

Studies in Chicago and in New York by education researchers at the University of Chicago (Stephen Raudenbush and many others) and the University of Pittsburgh (Lauren Resnick and others) demonstrate how teachers well qualified in teaching methods make significant differences even in classes of significantly disadvantaged students. The success of education in Finland and some other Scandinavian and European countries is most particularly related to the quality of the teaching. All of the attempted reforms in the US and in the UK have focussed on testing and punishing “poorly performing” schools and teachers but produced next to no improvement.