Let’ s Abandon NAPLAN – We can do Better!( continued)
ARTICLES
Let’ s Abandon NAPLAN – We can do Better!( continued)
and Reporting Authority( ACARA), who designed and administer the tests. The tests are in May and according to the official NAPLAN site, are released to schools and parents somewhere between mid-August and mid-September;
3. it assumes teachers are not using appropriate, in-time formative and diagnostic approaches as part of their repertoire of teaching;
4. it often results in a change in school and classroom culture, with an emphasis on teaching to the test instead of more appropriate teaching methods; 5. it reinforces a culture of sameness and lockstep achievement; 6. it has led to gaming, where participation in the test is influenced in order to achieve certain outcomes. For example, students whose teachers expect them to struggle with the tests can withdraw them from the test, effectively removing them from the school’ s performance profile for that year;
7. it has created a generation of learners who have had the opportunity to fine tune a range of negative responses to the high stakes regime, including anxiety and physical illness.
There are other problems, not least the cost and time allocated to preparation, administration, analysis and reporting. But in summary, it fails in its goal.
But has it led to better student outcomes?
Well, not really. Any response to identified deficits will be quite delayed if teachers wait for the results before working to improve student capabilities. The results are not shared with students in a way to help them understand and direct their own efforts as learners. That is, the charts and graphs that map their achievement are not really designed for student consumption.
Change in NAPLAN performance over time shows there has been negligible benefit, even when we just consider the narrow set of capabilities under the microscope.
Percentage of students performing at or above the National Minimum Standard in year nine
100 %
95 %
90 %
85 %
2011. The 2017 year 9s have been the first cohort through to have experienced the entire set of NAPLAN tests from when they were in year three in 2011. Yet, clearly writing has plunged, the first dip when the test changed from requiring a narrative to a persuasive text in 2012. Maybe numeracy has improved. Overall, there’ s not a lot of support in the data for an argument of wholesale positive impact on student capability from this process.
Is it just us?
We’ re not the first to question the efficacy of NAPLAN. The 2013 report into maximising our investment in Australian schools cited several witnesses to their inquiry who gave damaging accounts of NAPLAN. These were summarised in this report: " A number of witnesses raised specific concerns about NAPLAN testing, arguing that the testing is expensive and encourages teachers to ' teach to the test '".
But maybe the kids like it?
Sadly not. There have been numerous reports of students suffering from NAPLAN anxiety. Not all, of course, but why should we subject any children to needless anxiety?
Why do we persist?
Trying to view student achievement and to understand the quality of teacher performance through NAPLAN, at best doesn’ t help the students. At worst, it feeds a sense of public distrust for the teaching profession’ s capabilities to diagnose, respond to and develop learners.
Gonski 2.0 helps us here, pointing to Australian schooling as being designed around a 20th century, industrial education model that is uniform throughout the 13-year program, including in assessment. NAPLAN is part of this culture.
Our teachers have the professional skills to understand and address the needs of the students in their classes. We need to kill the distractions and allow teachers to do what they do best.
Nan Bahr is Pro Vice Chancellor( Students)/ Dean of Education, Southern Cross University;
Donna Pendergast is Dean, School of Educational and Professional Studies, Griffith University.
80 %
75 %
70 %
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: ACARA • Get the data
It’ s reasonable to expect the year nines in 2017 would be doing a lot better than the year nines in the first run of the suite of tests in
This article was first published in‘ The Conversation’ on 16th May, 2018. SEN and the Science Teachers’ Association of NSW are most grateful to‘ The Conversation’ for its generous policy of encouraging the republishing of its many fine articles. We also thank the authors, Nan Bahr and Donna Pendergast, for supplying this article, thereby agreeing to this policy.
34 SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 67 NO 2