The Right to Give Permission [2]

The Treehorn Express

The Right To Give Permission [2]


 In an OLO article [08-01-14] I tried to suggest that more serious thought be given by serious-minded practitioners to the reasons why Australian states’ officialdoms deliberately forbid schools to inform parents that they have the right to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in regard to their children’s participation in NAPLAN testing. Why do they want to ‘cover-up’? It seemed clear at the time [2008] that ACARA did not want anything to impede its gathering of test scores… which unethical pretenders, political ignoramuses and ACARA itself prefer to use to make broad judgements about the quality of schooling.

I referred to the likelihood that, in the near future “…many parents will claim retribution for the stress and disturbance to family life and the mental injury to their children, caused by the use of Aussie-style quasi-mandatory, high-stakes, useless and cognitively damaging forms of testing in use since 2008. It is important that as many parents as possible seek to do so in the interests of social justice.”

A helpful commentator, ‘James E’, proffered the advice that “…NAPLAN tests are prescribed under the Schools Assistance Regulations 2009” and could be immune from “…legal proceedings for implementing them”. Thus, one can presume that only the perpetrator of the mischief [State Minister, Federal Minister or ACARA Chair ???] would be liable for prosecution. Compliant principals and teachers who dutifully follow instructions would be clear.

But then, are they ? Should they be…. if the ‘neighbour principle’, one of the basics of the tort of negligence, applies?

“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. (…) The answer seems to be – persons, who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question” [Click ‘snail case’ below.]

James E further suggested that negligence law had come a long way since the 1932 snail case . However, with deep respect and appreciation, I would suggest that each child at school is a neighbour, i.e. not an impersonal object that can be treated with casual disregard as the young Treehorns of this world are treated; nor by politically sponsored fiat as illustrated by cop-out regulations. Further, legal decisions relating to basic Christian principles do not wear out over the years….because of age.

NAPLAN has the potential to cause serious harm on many fronts. That is indisputable. This was a ‘given’ from Day 1, easily seen in the procedures required in the administration of the tests. Since the first tests, ample academic and empirical research has revealed the extent of the mental damage and distress being caused by the fear-embedded operation. NIMSCO – Not In My School’s Classrooms Operations, of course. Despite the startling outcomes, no effort has been made to suspend NAPLAN because of its cruelty…..vomiting, sleeplessness, emotional upset, hatred of learning, serous distress. Neither has it done what it said it would do….increase test scores. It is a very nasty piece of work…yet it continues. ???? It exists only for the production of test scores with no regard whatsoever for the human element…. AND…. someone is responsible. And it just goes on and on and on, creating damage.

 We all know that serious test stress occurs….but no mother, no father, no teacher, and only one or two principals at any public school seems prepared to stand up for kids. Almost every Australian politician has to rely on test scores and comparison of results, for instance, when on an ‘education’ profundity kick. There’s only one or two untouchable commentators who really care about kids at school and who will speak out, it would seem. Organisational fear abounds. Fear of official sanctions. Fear of a promotional stale-mate or demotion. Fear of NAPLAN bullies with limited schooling experience. More FEAR, FEAR, FEAR.

 NAPLAN testing was introduced in 2008 with total disrespect for the rights of parents, the ethical standards of the teaching profession and the mental health of children at school. It was and remains a dumb-ass race for useless scores, disrespectful of children’s feelings and ignorant of how they learn. It is so obvious that caring about kids at school is not in the top twenty of Australia’s social concerns, thanks to ways that political power-brokers have manipulated the belief systems of the gullible. All Australian educators with school experience knew that Mr. Klein, Ms Gillard’s model of excellence, deliberately advocated fear and distress to achieve his own personal political ambitions in New York.

There exists a very real NAPLAN threat to each and every Australian child’s cognitive development. That’s the most serious threat of all; and it effects even those children who show no fear. No child who does the test can escape the consequences.

Why aren’t schools able to protect their clients, their neighbours, their pupils from the dire consequences of NAPLAN? Why? Why? Why?

Let’s talk about SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN. Let’s think. Think. Think. Think.

 More ‘Thunk’ soon. ‘Thunk’ is a term used by Tony Gurr at Check him out.


Phil Cullen 41 Cominan Avenue Banora Point 2486 07 5524 6443


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s