How to improve NAPLAN: Step one – don’t have it. Step two…
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 126 No 3, 9 April 2021, page no.9
Scrolling through social media the other night, I came across a question posted to a page about NAPLAN. A parent was asking about the value of NAPLAN and whether their child, now in year 3, should sit it. It was with interest that I scrolled through the replies from parents, community members, teachers and school leaders.
The responses were divided into two camps – one that said that NAPLAN was not mandatory and provided no real value and that parents could therefore choose for their student not to participate, while the other said there was no harm in sitting the test.
Those in the “no harm” camp claimed that NAPLAN was a positive experience that prepared students for sitting external assessments in the future; that they did not want to withdraw their child because they did not want them to feel excluded from something their classmates were doing; and that NAPLAN was a measure of how well teachers, school leaders and schools were performing.
Not one person said they loved NAPLAN.
The QTU recently conducted a survey of members about the QTU’s NAPLAN campaign.
- Members overwhelmingly responded that the test is broken and either needs to be removed or undergo a major overhaul. They believe that this will require a political solution.
- NAPLAN was identified as being a contributor to workload issues and has the potential to be used for performance management.
- While members generally loathe NAPLAN, a portion of the membership supports a benchmark measure of educational outcomes.
The message from members is clear – NAPLAN in its current form needs to go.
In the face of a federal government that is determined to keep some form of test in place, despite the profession’s view that standardised testing is ill-informed and has little educational value, it is the Union’s view that the high stakes nature of the program needs to change. This means that:
- the test should be a sample, not a census test – i.e. parents should opt their students into NAPLAN, and the withdrawal form should be more easily accessible (not hidden as has been the case this year)
- the writing task should be removed – the assessment of writing tasks is subjective and the skilling of students in persuasive and creative texts is artificial in the context of student learning and the implementation of the Australian Curriculum
- the aggregation of results should cease – if the data is to be used to inform practice, the individual results of students should be considered by classroom teachers and parents – there is no reason for this data to be aggregated to a year level or cohort
- the practice of using the data to create league tables should be abolished – there is no benefit for student outcomes from the publication of league tables
- NAPLAN data should not be used in recruitment and selection processes, and if included, should be disregarded – this removes the notion that NAPLAN will be used in some form of performance management
- NAPLAN outcomes should be removed from the headline indicators – if, as stated in the joint statement, the best indicator of student achievement against the Australian Curriculum is A-E reporting, relying on NAPLAN data in school reviews does little to reflect the efficacy of school-based programs
- NAPLAN results should not be used by any school as part of an enrolment process.
By taking these steps, the government will send a clear message that it understands that teachers, school leaders, schools and students are so much more than NAPLAN.
Legal activity
The QTU has launched an appeal in the High Court against the Industrial Court’s affirmation of the QIRC’s NAPLAN orders. While this is unlikely to result in members not being required to facilitate the NAPLAN test this year, QTU Executive decided that the Union should exhaust all legal avenues in relation to NAPLAN.
QTU checklist for standardised tests
Don’t have standardised tests
----------------------------------------------------------
Sample test only
No writing task
No aggregation of data
No league tables
Cease using data in recruitment and selection
Cease using data in school reviews.