NAPLAN Nightmares

24^th November, 2011.

To the Editor,

I am responding to your article titled ‘NAPLAN nightmares’ posted within the Education Review on the 11^th August 2011 (Appendix A).  I have two main concerns about the NAPLAN testing and reporting as I perceive this to affect students.  First, prevent the publication and use of NAPLAN data for general public misinterpretation or misuse.  Second, ensure the student environment remains the focal point whereby their level of awareness and preparation allows for individuals to perform at their best without excessive pressures.   

Foremost, I agree that the government has a duty to establish a set of key performance indicators (KPI’s) to analyse service levels offered across each of its educational facilities and provide management and other stakeholders with relevant information.  I do not believe on balance that the present NAPLAN measurement and My School publicised information is significantly increasing the improvement of student outcomes. Remuneration or funding should not be attached to NAPLAN results.  Any inconsistency or external influence out of one’s control will result in disheartenment and subsequent system failure.  A point we are currently approaching.  How this is best completed is another debate. 

There is no need for this amount or type of data to be made public via the ‘My School’ website allowing for misinterpretation or misuse. The free market should be encouraged to play its role in shaping public opinion of an individual schools performance in a way similar to other products or services in a free market economy.  The government should focus on packaging and marketing their educational services and resources at two levels:

1.    National level - refining resources and standards to support teachers, E.g.: The Australian Curriculum and strategies to meet future economic demands.

2.    Local level – support individual or collective groups of schools to engage directly with industries and communities.  Change local perceptions of so called underachieving schools through unique insights and opportunities. 

Presently, the government is attempting to educate the majority of the population about how to interpret complex NAPLAN data and to attempt to compare schools differing in geographic and demographic structure.  Each student requires teaching, learning, assessment and communication at a local level.  The Federal Government cannot administer programs at an individual level and should explore a framework to pass authority to each school to enable localised engagement and communication of all stakeholders. 

A leader of a group of individuals within any workplace, students or otherwise, aims at fostering an environment where individuals may perform at their best.  False positive and false negative results are currently being recorded as the extreme focus is creating unnecessary pressure upon students, teachers, schools and local communities.  When it comes to NAPLAN testing, a teacher should explain the full reasons for the test to students, including parents/carers, in terms of preparing them for their future; that is, to inform students it is likely they will be exposed to some form of KPI throughout their working life and this is a perfect example to be discussed.  They need to know who, what, where, when and how; but, the emphasis and preparation should not exceed any other examination normally undertaken and should be administered under usual school practice with a high degree of confidence in the teachers, as well as, bestowing a high degree of confidence in those being tested.   

The Wellington Point sub branch of the Queensland Teachers Union, highlighted seven key issues in its response, NAPLAN Senate inquiry submission (2010) (Appendix B).  The issues stated at points one and seven are similar to the concerns raised herewith.  I also note of the seven points listed, these are the only two directly related to student environment involving administration of the test and results; as opposed to, the structure and purpose of the NAPLAN.

Peter Spencer

4^th year Bachelor of Learning Management (Secondary & VET).

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

NAPLAN Senate enquiry submission document.