In its submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Administration and Reporting of NAPLAN Testing, ACER says planned developments of this testing program will almost certainly enhance its value. ACER also argues that steps should be taken to minimise the misuse of NAPLAN results and to protect and promote the test’s diagnostic benefits and potential. The submission also makes suggestions regarding the My School website.

The introduction of the NAPLAN tests in 2008 followed considerable work over a number of years to replace the various State and Territory literacy and numeracy testing programs with a single, national assessment providing comparable national results. According to the ACER submission, NAPLAN testing now plays an important role in efforts to ensure that all Australian students master essential literacy and numeracy skills.

The ACER submission identifies a number of ways in which the NAPLAN tests could be enhanced in the future. Firstly, measures of average student growth can now be reported for schools, education systems and nationally, as Year 5, 7 and 9 students in 2010 were assessed in Years 3, 5 and 7 in 2008.

Secondly, the precision with which some students’ literacy and numeracy levels are measured could be improved. Currently all students in the same year level are administered the same test, so some students are taking tests that are too difficult or too easy for them. The achievement of these students could be measured with greater precision if they were administered a test better matched to their current levels of literacy and numeracy development.

It also may be possible to increase the diagnostic power of NAPLAN for teachers, through linked online assessments that ‘drill down’ to explore individuals’ skills and understandings in more depth.

The ACER submission identifies some challenges for NAPLAN, including raising awareness of the uncertainty surrounding individual NAPLAN scores, mean NAPLAN scores and measures of growth. Consumers of test results are generally unfamiliar with the measurement error of NAPLAN scores.

Another challenge is minimising inappropriate coaching for NAPLAN. Given the importance of literacy and numeracy to the curriculum and to life beyond school, and given the proportions of students failing to meet minimum standards, it may be desirable for some schools to spend more time ensuring that all students master these basics. However, there are limits to how much time schools should give to literacy and numeracy teaching and test preparation. These limits are a matter of professional judgement and the vast majority of teachers and principals are very capable of making these judgements. Nevertheless, it may be necessary to monitor how schools are responding to NAPLAN and to provide advice and guidelines of appropriate forms of test preparation.

A final challenge is ensuring that the benefits of the diagnostic information becoming available through NAPLAN are broadly understood and appreciated. Opponents of standardised testing often point to experiences overseas without acknowledging the very different testing programs and educational circumstances that operate in other countries.

The ACER submission also provided comment on the My School website, and argued that many of the current concerns are likely to be addressed by broadening the range of information provided and increasing levels of user choice. The My School website, in its early stage of development, currently provides a relatively narrow range of information about schools, with a focus on student performance measures.

The emphasis on NAPLAN is giving rise to concerns that schools may overemphasise literacy and numeracy in their teaching and that the original, diagnostic purposes of NAPLAN may be undermined through its use as an indicator of school performance. Part of the response to this concern may be to add, over time, other measures of student performance alongside NAPLAN measures.

My School currently evaluates school performances using school means. There are other ways of evaluating a school’s performance: for example, in terms of the amount of progress students make between Year 3 and Year 5 or between Year 7 and Year 9. Measures of growth provide a better basis for evaluating a school’s performance than school means which can reflect influences over which schools have little or no control.

In the opinion of ACER, improvements also are needed to the basis for defining schools with statistically similar student intakes. ACER has been invited by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) to provide input into the consideration of ways to make these ongoing improvements.

There may also be value in allowing users to choose the kinds of comparisons they wish to make. For example, each school’s results could be presented without comparison, accompanied by a menu of possible comparisons such as: comparison with all schools in same State/Territory; all schools in same sector; or schools with similar student intakes.

The Senate Inquiry is due to report in August 2010.

ACER has been involved in the NAPLAN tests through aspects of test development, marking and data analysis. ACER CEO Professor Geoff Masters is a member of the My School working party convened by ACARA to provide advice on the future development of this site.

ACER’s submission is available from the inqiury website at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/naplan/submissions.htm

« Back to eNews