The number of occasions that the "author" of this "article" places words in quotation marks might lead us to believe that there is more than a touch of "defensiveness" in his "position".

He clearly has no use for “best practices”, consigning them to the ignominy of mere quotes at every opportunity.

"Quite apart from the question of why the “best practice” discovery process needs to be pursued on a government-supported website instead of through collaborative and peer-reviewed professional processes..."

The obvious answer from the layman might be "because you are too lazy/scared/idle/incompetent to do it yourselves".

Nobody - not even St. Gillard of Perfect Wisdom - can ever have the complete answer to the problem of education. As a parent, I have seen for myself on multiple occasions that it is first and foremost the quality of the teacher, followed closely by the quality of the Head teacher, that determines the quality of education each of my children has received.

This holds true, incidentally, for both the public and private education sectors.

Nevertheless, some form of external assessment of outcomes, however flawed, can only be of assistance to those wishing to improve the overall performance.

In the UK, OFSTED reports in detail on the performance of schools. The results are used to trouble-shoot areas of visible weakness, recognizing that at any point in time, 50% of schools will by definition be below average performers.

Key is, of course, visibility. Without it, nothing will change.

Let's hope that these precious flowers soon overcome their shyness, and start to work constructively to improve the process, instead of sitting in a corner with their fingers in their ears saying "I won't, I won't and you can't make me" like a bunch of spoiled kids.

Oh Pericles,

The UK is a mess. Parents camping out at schools to enrol, rabidly changing addresses and pressuring 4 year olds for tests to get the places in the 'Good Schools'. Schools using all sorts of ways to skew the tests. It's a circus.

It's all a joke. I'm a parent too, and a website with outdated information on tests the kids are doing 'for the school' that have no impact on their personally assessable work, that give a tiny indication of what a school can do for an individual is no use to me.

What of the kids' friends from previous school and their social happiness and it's effect on their motivation and morale. The particular good teachers in the 'bad schools' and the bad teachers or simple personality clashes in the 'good schools'. The distance travelled to the school, the co-educational or single sex needs.

The whole exercise is a political exercise for Gillard to distance herself from her socialist past.

All the information has been known to the government to allocate funds for ages. The parents have no need for such information.

Year 7 results after 4 weeks at high school bare no reflection on the High School and every reflection on the previous Primary school for a start.

I'll tell you a better suggestion than a fuel watch for schools. Have a web site that tells what government money is paid towards the schools against average results, and have the parents badger the government rather than the teachers.

In a world where nobody accepts their kids are 'below average', all you're doing is making some parents who were happy with their kids school and paying $30k for that feeling realise they're being naive, or making parents who had no choice in schools carry a stigma of 'If you really cared you'd work harder and get them into school X'

And all for a socialist to wash herself clean. Out damned spot!

It is fun sticking it to the Teachers union I grant you, but this exercise has about as much value as fuel watch.

This is such a complex issue - but I have to admit to checking out every school I know on 'Myschool' today as soon as it was up and running properly. I suspect that only interested parents will be bothering with it, but I'm sure many who are bothered that their school is below average, or in the lower fifty percent, will not question the actual scores, or level of literacy or numeracy, that it relates to. At our local primary school, where I work occasionally, they take pride in the fact that they ONLY look at the Naplan tests as soon as they arrive, but do not teach the children the actual questions and answers, although revisiting the topics in the test is seen as quite OK. Until the tests are delivered (electronically perhaps) on the day of the test, this will continue to happen. I hope over time the Myschool will show year-on-year level of improvement, which is harder to manipulate. On the question of resources, our school was pleased to receive all the extra funding it applied for to help lagging students (note that it has to be applied for and is a competitive process, which may put low performing schools at a further disadvantage if the Principal is part of the problem), but no-one has addressed the ongoing reduction of funding for low ability students by the NSW Education Department, which is a disgrace. Children who would, with support, develop basic employment skills, are being condemned to a lifetime on welfare.

Tests, tests, tests, exams, exams, exams. What sort of tests or exam has the Hon. Gillard undergone to assure us that she’ll make a competent minister?

We, in Victoria, have just seen a minister leaving, but not before she had thrown one thousand three hundred and fifty millions of ours on a rail bus train ticketing system that when it will be ready will inconvenience all commuters, especially the old and handicapped.

No, she is not gone for good, she will come back to get her pension as ex minister for the rest of her life

Another article from the teacher's union who is scared that their member's poor performance might be shown up.

God forbid that some members might actually be accountable for their shoddy teaching. It is much easier to blame it on the kids.

Pericles:"it is first and foremost the quality of the teacher, followed closely by the quality of the Head teacher, that determines the quality of education each of my children has received."

Absolutely spot-on. I'm not sure how the Gillard plan helps one to identify those qualities, however.

Houellebecq:"The parents have no need for such information."

I agree, to a point. It does provide more data, which can be a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it may lead to better outcomes for relatively disadvantaged school populations, but on the other it may provide an excuse for draconian "interventions" and for more easily excused pork-barrelling.

It will almost certainly cause much misdirected parental concern and lead to an increase in the already intense competition that exists for State selective or "Centre of Excellence" schools.

Mind you, the article itself wasn't much of a factor in coming to my view. A turgid, self-justifying mishmash.