·         Reflects whether students are meeting educational outcomes.

·         Helps to identify students with slow progress.

·         Provides information that enables teachers to develop more individualised approaches to teaching

·         Allows for trends in improvements and/or declines to be monitored and actioned if needed.

·         It gives parents a general idea how their child and their school is fairing in comparison to other children and local schools.

 

·         Can have a negative impact on student wellbeing causing stress and anxiety.

·         The test my disadvantage students of diversity, such as CALD, with an unequal opportunity to understanding questions.

·         Puts undue stress and anxiety on teachers into feeling their teaching methods are also being tested.

·         Puts pressure on teachers to teach towards NAPLAN testing so that their students do well.

·         Parents may begin searching for high performing schools without understanding fully why some schools will do well and others won't.

·         Disregards influences such as rural, disadvantaged, culturally diverse and low-income areas.

·         It may inadvertently 'blame and shame' particular schools/teachers or students.

·         Can be used by the government and by the Education Department to hold teachers and schools accountable rather than as an indication of where additional help and funding may be required.

·         NAPLAN Funding may be better spent on educational resources and assistance in underprivileged schools.

 

·         Can aid in education policy development.

·         Can aid in curriculum planning and the re-evaluation of current methods and content.

·         Allows state and national government to analyse where funding and resources are required.

 

·         Teachers begin to teach defensively to a NAPLAN standard. Focus diverts to NAPLAN preparation at the expense of more necessary education, in effect narrowing the curriculum.

·         Low performing schools are at risk of inaccurate blame being laid as to why their students are underperforming without taking location, resources, social, cultural and economic factors into account.

·         Poor results may lead to teacher disillusionment and self-blame and the possibility of losing teachers.

·         Identifies strengths and weaknesses that need attention

·         Areas of funding and resourcing can be determined 

·         States can monitor the progress of their education system compared to other states

·         Places accountability on the education system to perform to an international standard

Weaknesses

·         Only done once a year with limited coverage of skills 

·         Expensive to run

·         High pressure placed on students to perform well in comparison to their peers 

·         High pressure placed on schools with NAPLAN results posted on the MySchool website

Opportunities 

·         Gain insight to areas and schools where students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy concepts to assist the disadvantage

·         Schools can get an idea of what teaching areas they need to focus on improving the most; based on the results

·         Parents can gain reassurance on how their child is coping with their schooling from the national comparison of results 

Threats

·         Students lose valuable time to learn curriculum-based content if teachers revise NAPLAN content during lesson periods and, the time taken to sit the NAPLAN tests

·         Students that are advised not to sit NAPLAN tests by schools can lose any confidence and be less likely to enjoy their education experience

·         Tests in some schools may be completed by cheating, which may affect the analysis of the results of those schools and the national averages

·         Schools with low NAPLAN test scores can be heavily stigmatised by members of the public viewing the results on the MySchool website

Weaknesses

Opportunities 

Threats

 

Weaknesses

 

Opportunities

 

Threats

Strengths 

Opportunities 
 - Governments can focus funding on schools that are underperforming 

 
 Threats

Provides feedback for parents and teachers

Drives improvement in students outcomes not only for a particular student but also for all students at that school. -strengths and weaknesses of students identified as well allowing a school to compare results and to discover areas that need improving within the system

Drives accountability for teaching staff and government, ensuring all students across the nation are receiving valuable education that is in line with the Australian Curriculum.

 

Weaknesses:

Measures outcomes, not students progress

Narrow focus on the needs of educations

Results are released in September when it is too late for teachers to help students improve their results.

Creates stress for students.

Creates pressure for teachers to teach the test and not the curriculum. 

 

Opportunities:

Helps schools and government improve education system and close the gaps in certain areas of education. 

Allows government to assess the Australian Curriculum and whether it meets requirements.

 

 

Threats:

Teachers focus on the assessment and defensively teach, and or only teach the test

Students are measured purely from one standardised test, not many tests.

Negative results lead to teacher resignations, self-blame and disillusionment

·         Provides parents and teachers with understanding of individual students progress in literacy and numeracy

·         Shows development as the same test is taken across every year level

·         There are other ways parents and teachers can, and already do, gauge a student’s progress

·         Only looks at literacy and numeracy capabilities

·         Only shows outcomes based on students’ performance under pressure

·         Provides national statistics at various levels to inform decisions about curriculum development

·         Can create stress and isolation in educationally disadvantaged students

·         NAPLAN results may spark concerns of “teacher effectiveness” 

·         Teachers focus may change to the aim of producing good test outcomes

·         Can serve as a distraction from the rest of the curriculum as they are additional to school’s assessment and reporting process.

 

Weaknesses: Added stress to students. Forces teachers to teach defensively or to only teach the technical aspects of the curriculum rather than complex parts of skills. Feelings of inadequacy for both students and teachers depending on results. Disparages against students based on class and race.

 

Opportunities: Can facilitate changes to the curriculum

 

Threats: Feelings of inadequacy for both students and teachers depending on results. Force the teacher to focus on the tests rather than teaching other essential topics.

·     Measures students’ essential skills and abilities in four areas (‘domains’)

o  Reading

o  Writing

o  Language conventions (spelling, grammar and punctuation)

o  Numeracy

·     Test skills in relation to the curriculum – as a ‘snap shot’

·     Can provide useful data on students and can provide a reference point

·     Identification of students who are not meeting minimum standards for targeted intervention.

·     Ability to map student progress over years.

 

·     Taken at a point in time in one day – impacted by student engagement and general mood/capacity on the day

·     Individual student impact (anxiety, self-esteem, engagement, etc)

·     Limited scope to capture talents and abilities.

·     Standardised thus does not meet the diverse learning needs/styles of students

·     Pitched to the ‘average’ and not always accessible to students with special educational needs and disabilities or disadvantage.

·     Cultural and linguistic appropriateness and accessibility of testing.

·     No opportunity to show ‘working out’ and qualitative data of student thinking/rational.

 

·     Targeted interventions of students identified from results to improve learning outcomes

·     Used in conjunction with and complimentary to other evidentiary data

·     The exploration of adaptive testing – to ensure access to CALD, SEND, Indigenous etc.

·     Earlier point of testing – commences in Grade 3 – perhaps considering Year 1 to identify capacities for earlier intervention.

 

·     Narrowing of the curriculum – teaching to test

·     Funding – is it cost effective? Do you get bang for your buck in terms of the quality of data collected and it’s use?

·     Turnaround of test and results renders data useless as an informative teaching tool.

·     The emphasis/perception of ‘high stakes; testing.  Needs to be put into perspective.

 

- Harney McKinnon

- Provides schools/teachers an understanding of how individual students are performing at the time of test, regarding Literacy & Numeracy

- Provides schools with information about how well their current educational programs are working, and what may need improving

- Comparisons of student outcomes between schools can be made (if a school observes that they are not performing as well as other local schools, it can motivate them to implement new strategies/programs/policies

- Greater emphasis on school’s student outcomes, and outputs, rather than inputs and processes

- A focus on achieving greater NAPLAN scores may only lead to “enhanced capacity to take tests, rather than enhanced & authentic learning across a broad and defensible range of schooling purposes” (Lingard, 2010, p. 135)

- Teachers may be forced to implement ‘defensive pedagogies’ that will ensure good NAPLAN scores, rather than allowing them to use their own pedagogies and assessment practices that will foster student educational and personal development

- Added student anxiety and stress

- Depending on the student, it may provide them with the motivation to ‘work harder’ in those area of learning

- Opportunity for schools to review how well their own teaching and learning programs are working for students

- Due to the ‘high-stakes’ of NAPLAN Testing, where the focus is on performing well, teachers are forced to use defensive pedagogies which, whilst ensuring students perform well on the test, prevents critical thinking within students

- Students and teachers feeling inadequate if student results show that they are not up to year level standard

- Overtime can cause a lack of trust towards a teacher’s ability to foster positive outcomes within students. Teachers not being able to implement their own teaching strategies within their classroom.

- Narrowing of School Curriculum

Naplan focuses on and measures the important skills that are necessary for every child to progress through school and life such as: reading writing, spelling, grammar and numeracy.

 

Allows governments, education authorities, schools, teachers and parents to determine whether or not young Australians have the literacy and numeracy skills that provide the basis for further learning in other areas.

 

Provides information for parents and schools with information of how their students are performing and what level they are working at, at the time of the test.

 

 

Causes undue stress for students and teachers.

 

Only considers specific skills and results produced in the standardized testing environment

 

Schooling is heavily focused on preparing students for these tests that they may resort to ‘defensive pedagogies’ to ensure good examination results, due to teacher effectiveness being measured by student achievements.

 

Narrowed education, that inhibits student’s development of tools for participating thoughtfully and to not question the status quo.

 

This type of education only suits dominant social groups.

 

 

Gives schools and the teachers’ information about what level their students are working at, providing comparison between other schools in the state and in other states, providing information of how the current education program is working and which areas need improvement or further focus. 

 

 

Can be seen to only suit dominant social groups.

 

Doesn’t support critical thinking.

 

Teacher and students feeling inadequate if results are not up to year level standard.

Strengths:

·         Provides information on the literacy and numeracy capability of students 

·         Compares students to other schools and levels and can theoretically be beneficial to ensure equity in education 

Weaknesses:

·         Not the full scope of students knowledge and intelligence or capabilities 

·         Promotes teaching in a way that encourages correct test answers but fails to really educate students 

Opportunities:

·         Allows changes to curriculum and funding based on data 

Threats:

·         Traditional mentality of education may impede student learning and may show the next generation to be well-educated when they are just good at tests. This can impact on the work-force skills and abilities of graduates. 

-       Students are tested on their reading, spelling, grammar, punctuation and numeracy

-       Results can provide teachers with an understanding to areas that need to be focused on
-        Families are informed on the results of their children and which areas they may need extra help in as well as notifying them where they succeed

 

Cons:

-       Students are compared to one another based on an aggregated score

-       Students who may not perform as well as others or those who excel in certain areas are all compared to one another


Opportunities:
-    Can show areas of weakness for individual students
-    Can demonstrate where individual students strengths and weaknesses are in regards to their understanding of content

Threats:
-   Beneficial to students with English as their first language, however students with an ESL background or who struggle with their English will be put at a disadvantage

-  No critical thinking necessarily required

- Students will feel inadequate if their results are not where they initially thought they were