Ok, this is a little bit about education but it’s more about the reasons why we’re failing to move forward as quickly as we might. I mean, when Turnbull asks the Labor Party to meet him in “the sensible centre” one is tempted to ask how long he can get away for and whether he’ll be in trouble, once those he’s in a relationship with find out. You know, he’s made various commitments and when you do that you can’t just go around organising a rendezvous with somebody else.

I mean, it’s a fine idea. And while I don’t like praising Bill Shorten too much I must say that he seems to have stuck to his guns pretty well. He went to the election putting forward “positive policies” and even though he lost, he hasn’t used that as an excuse to say that now that the groan-ups are running things then all he needs to do is take a leaf out of Tony’s book and oppose everything. He’s still suggesting that there’s no reason that a discussion couldn’t include some of Labor’s ideas for reducing the deficit. On some level, he’s putting forward more ideas and sounding more like a PM than Muddling Malcolm.

Of course, Shorten’s been accused of politicking by both the Liberals and most media commentators because when the Liberals say “compromise” what they actually mean is agree to everything we say and we’ll praise you for admitting that we were right all along and that you had no idea.

But it’s education and the whole idea of testing that I’ve intended to write about for several weeks now.

I’d like to say that I’ve spent a large part of my life as a teacher. I don’t have a problem with tests. Tests are a valuable tool in the education process. However, tests are neither teaching nor learning. Tests are like a blackboard (or these days, a whiteboard, because there are very few schools where blackboards are still being even though that’s often the graphic that accompanies news stories on education); they’re quite helpful but they should only be a very small part of what you do.

First, let me remind you that the word “test” can mean a whole range of things. I can informally test kids by simply asking them about something I believe that I’ve taught them. I know, of course, that when most people hear the word “test”, they immediately think of students quietly completely a task without being able to access any other materials. While we all realise that teachers are not “teaching” during that test, the general public seem to like the idea of someone like me sitting out the front of a room while students complete such an activity.

Of course, there are medical tests and drug tests and driving tests and tests of strength, of courage, of intelligence… I could go on, but the point is that none of these have to take the form of an exam with no talking and, while formal exam-type tests may help to measure what learning has taken place, when you’re testing students in that way, generally speaking, they’re not learning anything new.

So recently there’s been a bit of concern about the NAPLAN results, which has led to the Liberals telling us that it just shows that there’s no point in spending money on education if it wasn’t going to lead to continuing improvement in this test. Now, I’m not going to get into some long discussion about how badly the data is being interpreted on that one. No, I’m just going to concentrate on the concern about the quality of those choosing teaching as a career.

The first concern is that the ATAR score for teachers is too low. All right, let’s just ignore the fact that having a high ATAR won’t necessarily make you a great teacher, any more than being a champion player will make you a great coach. Let’s accept the idea that the ATAR for teaching courses is too low. Rather than ask the obvious question of why is it low and getting the obvious answer that teaching is a less appealing career because of the HECS debt relative to salary, as well as teachers being constantly criticised for all society’s ills by politicians and shock jocks.

No, a low ATAR score obviously means that these people lack basic literacy and numeracy skills. So what’s the solution to this?

Simple: We’ll give them a test. And we’ll also give them a test on emotional intelligence. That should fix things.

But if it’s good enough for teachers, shouldn’t it also apply to politicians? I mean, shouldn’t they all have to pass a test on emotional intelligence. Actually, while we’re at it, shouldn’t we check if they can all answer the questions on Howard’s citizenship test. And surely the Treasurer should have to demonstrate, at least some understanding of economics. Otherwise we could have a Treasurer who has no idea and who suggests that cutting spending will reduce the possibility of a recession because all these people who lose their jobs will stimulate the economy. Mm, now that I remember Scott Morrison’s recent suggestions…

Ok, it may fly in the face of democracy and if the chronically stupid want somebody in Parliament to represent them then I guess they should be allowed to. But couldn’t we at least call it something appropriate like the “Dunning-Kruger Party” or “The Andrew Bolt Party” or…

Mm, I just realised the “Palmer United Party” went a long way down that path. Particularly after they all left and it became the “Palmer Disunited Party”.