Primary school reports have evolved over past decades, from the crisp, one-page summary of the 1950s to the frank, opinionated musings of the 1980s and the anodyne standardisation of the 2000s. These days, strict rules govern what teachers can say. They cannot, for example, make subjective predictions ("he is not living up to his potential," for example) and should avoid emotional language (pleased, disappointed or surprised). Criticism must be constructive. Rather than label kids a nuisance, a word used regularly in the 1980s, the parents of disruptive of students are told there is a need to "improve interaction with teachers and peers". "You’re not allowed to say what you really want to," one teacher told the Herald. "We sugar coat, for sure," said another. Some schools will give their staff a word bank of approved comments that they cut and paste for their students, which leads to the occasional complaint from parents that another kid's name appears in their child's report.

Mistakes are rare, however, because the reports must be approved by so many people - often they'll be checked by the head teacher, year advisor, deputy and principal for errors or inappropriate comments. The structure of reports varies between schools. Some will list 20-odd syllabus outcomes ticked off by the child for each subject; "Jack acquired and communicated geographical information using geographical tools for inquiry," for example. A report card from the 1980s. Others will require a summary of 1000 words per subject about what the child did in class, finishing with a brief personalised comment at the end. "Jane enjoys investigating the history of Australia," reads one. But many parents say they find reports "sterile and technical," as one put it to the Herald. "They are next to useless as an indicator of your child's individual process or personality in the classroom," said another, who is also a teacher.

Some schools are good at simplifying their language for parents. Others are less successful, which can lead to reports that are jargon-heavy and baffling for parents, said education expert Anna Fletcher from Federation University. "Where it possibly goes a bit awry is that part of the teacher's guidelines is they need to report back to the curriculum," she said. One education insider said modern reports were, in many ways, an improvement. "Personal opinions of teachers are no longer there - you can't say surly, or stupid, or uncooperative, they are not constructive comments," he said. "There's also an argument that old reports didn't give any useful knowledge. At least modern reports are attempting to say what kids can and can't do. The problem is that they are saying that in such technical ways, no-one understands them.

"There's also a resistance to anything that would compare students' ability. For parents, it becomes technical and abstract, and a key piece of information - is my kid at the level that's expected? - is pretty hard to find or non-existent." Chris Presland from the Secondary Principals' Council said primary school reports were more difficult to write than high school ones, because they don't have examination and assessment marks to work with. A report card from the 1950s. "As a parent, I remember at primary school that you get reports back with 60 different things they were reporting on," he said. "It was almost like the schools try too hard to give parents too much information." In a survey this year, teachers told their union that school reports were becoming more about compliance than teaching. "Written student reports are becoming ridiculous and disconnected to who the child is," one wrote.

Teachers wanted to communicate with parents, said NSW Teachers Federation deputy president Joan Lemaire. "But they feel restrained by policy requirements that focus on compliance not learning. "The format for reports also constrain teachers by requiring that comments must be a certain number of words. Teachers want to to use their knowledge of each individual student and their learning to help parents support their children achieve their best." Loading For the best part of a decade, schools across sectors and the country have been required by the federal government to use an A to E grading to indicate each year 1 to 11 student's mastery of the syllabus. Most schools re-name those gradings; 'limited' instead of E, 'sound' rather than C and 'outstanding' in place of A. This is called the common grade scale. The same definitions are used across the country. Teachers are given examples of the kind of work that would suit each grade to try to ensure schools measure their students in a standardised way.

Unlike the old days, when letter grades were used to rank students, these grades don't compare students with their peers; they measure the student against the written syllabus requirement. Most get a C, which reflect "sound knowledge and understanding of the main areas of content". Jennifer Buckingham, an education policy analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies, said gradings had made reports clearer. "They are an improvement on previous years when it was a lot more vague," she said. "There's more external reference points than there used to be. "I think parents are starting to understand that Cs aren't such a bad thing according to the A-E standard - C is the expected level." Parents could also use interviews with teachers and NAPLAN to fill out the picture of how their children were performing. "NAPLAN gives you some sense of whether the school report card is an accurate assessment," she said.

However, Maurie Mulheron from the Teachers Federation said the grading system was a straitjacket. "Parents don't understand what it means," he said. [We shouldn't] reduce a child's performance to simplistic numbers or grades." Mr Mulheron, once a teacher and principal himself, said reports should be simple, short and let teachers give straightforward feedback on how the child is progressing in relation to syllabus outcomes. "A comment should be three things - what the child is achieving, areas that need to be strengthened, and how you go about that." A spokesman for the NSW Department of Education said the state used the A-E scale as required by the federal government, and individual schools could choose to provide extra feedback. Reports must be written in plain language. Reports also need to include teacher comments identifying student strengths and areas for development; information about attendance and achievement; and information about a student's social development and commitment to learning.