Dr Ange Rogers, Lecturer in Numeracy and Mathematics
“Interestingly ACARA have ‘moved the goal posts’ this year, which means we can no longer compare previous NAPLAN results with the 2023 results.
“One change is that the tests are now completely online and adaptive.
“Instead of all Year 3 students being presented the same items, the items are adapted according to the answers students give. For example, if they answer some 'hard' items correctly in a 'testlet', they will be presented with more challenging questions to more accurately determine their level of understanding. In theory, this should increase the accuracy of NAPLAN results, particularly for students at the higher and lower end of the scale.
“While there is a psychometric perspective why this needs to happen, it raises a real issue for schools (more so than parents).
“For two years, schools won't be able to calculate the 'value added'. Value added is when we look at the gains our students have made over the two years since they last took NAPLAN. This is a much better measure than comparing year level cohorts. For example, the 2023 Year 3 cohort at a school may be completely different to the 2024 Year 3 cohort (particularly since COVID), so comparing them is not as useful as comparing 2023 Year 3s with the same students who will be in Year 5 in 2025.
"The new levels created by a panel of experts are an arbitrary benchmark to measure against; some may say it is too high, others too low.
“For me, the data most useful to parents and schools is where students fit in relation to the national average and the middle 60% of students in their year level (the light shaded rectangle on the student report).
“I don't usually bother showing my own children their NAPLAN results. In my experience the bigger deal you make of NAPLAN, the higher stakes it becomes in their minds (cue maths/test anxiety discussions).
“NAPLAN is just another tool that schools and governments use to gather data which can be used to inform and make decisions around areas of need. It’s not logistically possible, but I would love NAPLAN to be a pop quiz that occurs on a random day; there is too much pressure and hype around it.
“At its core, NAPLAN is a tool to gather data on how the Australian Education system is travelling.”
Dr Ange Rogers specialises in primary school numeracy education. She works closely with schools and systems across Australia to improve practice and student outcomes in numeracy.
Associate Professor Robyn Cox, Lecturer in Literary Education
“NAPLAN has given us longitudinal data that can help schools and school systems to make resourcing and pedagogical decisions.
“However, NAPLAN data should not drive all the work of schools and school leaders.
“It is a particular kind of data collected in a ‘single take’ manner and other school-based and classroom-based evidence needs to be held up as just as important.
“School leaders need to be confident to use NAPLAN data as only a single form of evidence and not feel pressured into counting NAPLAN above, for example, good practice in classroom and classroom-level evidence.
Similarly, when politicians and policy leaders try to ‘draw the long bow’ that NAPLAN results provide evidence of the effectiveness of a whole school system we also need to hesitate. However, when politicians pay close attention to where the gaps in achievement are occurring and then direct funding and focus into supporting these students.
This year, the 2023 reports students falling below in rural areas, low socio-economic groups and indigenous groups and Minister Clare is directing funds to one-on-one tutoring and support for those groups. This is the kind of ministerial and media attention we need to change the narrative from system failure to system support.
“In the meantime, analysis of the NAPLAN data and what it can tell us remains high on the agenda of researchers. How we can better use NAPLAN data is a focus of my research at RMIT University.”
Associate Professor Robyn Cox specialises in language and literacy education. She is regularly called upon to give expert advice on early reading for state and federal government bodies.
Jonathan Leo Ng, Lecturer in Health and Physical Education
“NAPLAN has some benefits as an indication of the educational landscape across Australia.
“It has the potential to highlight the progress and variability of scores across state and regions and the trends across years.
“There has been a 10-year trend that indicates an increasing gap between lower and higher performing students. It signals a call to consider how we can further support students, especially at the lower performing bands.
“Trends in NAPLAN results could, perhaps, be used to influence funding structures that support areas and schools performing at the lower quartiles.
“To increase the buy-in of students and parents/caregivers, attention must be given to how we communicate the purpose and intentions of NAPLAN and how it affects the learning focus in schools. Schools help by being transparent about how they act on NAPLAN results and use it to guide future directions in teaching and learning.
“Finally, we need more research into why NAPLAN scores are decreasing and gaps between low and high performers are widening.
“My current research touches on this question, focusing on the relationships between student NAPLAN performance, locations in Australia and health and wellbeing indicators.”
Dr Jonathan Leo Ng specialises in health and physical education and its influences on overall development in children and youth. He is experienced in curriculum and educational policy and continues to work with industry in educational and sports settings.
Media enquiries: RMIT Communications, 0439 704 077 or news@rmit.edu.au
