Jim Tognolini: What do the results really mean

Every year when results for large scale tests such as NAPLAN are released, there is a need to remind parents – and people in general – about the need to reflect judiciously on  what they really mean. 

It is also very important to address the misconceptions that are promulgated by journalists who start off with a preconceived notion of what they want the results to say (for one reason or another) and then proceed to misinterpret and draw unsubstantiated conclusions that they argue support their notions.

This year’s NAPLAN is just another case in point.

Overall, the results are best summarised by the CEO of ACARA, Stephen Gniel when he says, “The data shows that while there were small increases and decreases across domains and year levels, overall the results were broadly stable.”

There are some good reasons for drawing this conclusion. The results, apart from some minor perturbations up-and-down in different domains, are indeed relatively stable. 

JT: Only so much “growth”

To be honest, this should be expected because there is only so much “growth” that can occur across one or two years of learning and the only other data we can compare to is the NAPLAN 2023 data because the scale that is being used for comparison was only calibrated in 2023. 

A trend requires more than two points to be able to be reliably interpreted. It is a relatively naïve view that would expect strategies that have been introduced to address issues identified in the 2023 results would generate significant changes across a system in one year.

It is also important when reflecting on these results to stress several points. Firstly, there is some emotive language used to summarise performance which should not be allowed to go unchallenged. 

Students who have performed in the bottom two proficiency levels have been summarised as having “failed”.  However, when interpreting results like NAPLAN it is important to go beyond the “label” and look at what skills these students have displayed. The proficiency levels describe what students in these levels know and can do and an analysis of these skill sets suggests that they have a wide range of skills that will serve them well in later studies. 

JT: A sound springboard

The students in the bottom two levels have not “failed”. Knowledge and skills that students have displayed in the developing proficiency level are a sound springboard for learning within disciplines and through life.

 Let’s focus on what it is that students know and can do rather than jumping to labels that detract from the real meaning of the results.

While the NAPLAN is a battery of psychometrically sound tests, they are only tests of literacy and numeracy (there is a lot more to schooling than a test result on literacy and numeracy only). 

In addition, the results represent the outcomes on a particular day and a particular time. The key point here is that these results are only indicative. It is the trend data that are important at a system level. At an individual student level it is the cumulation of a range of data which provides the best evidence as to the overall performance of the student. The NAPLAN test scores must be interpreted by teachers using a wide range of data collected under different circumstances in the classroom. 

Parents who are concerned because the results are not consistent with what they expect from their child/children should seek clarification from the teachers.

Jennifer Gore: We know what to do. Let’s do it

These NAPLAN results are not new and not surprising. They reflect the results we saw last year with the new NAPLAN testing and reporting process and results we’ve seen for years. The fact that a third of students are not meeting proficiency standards is of great concern and the fact they disproportionately come from disadvantaged and other equity backgrounds reflects our nation’s failure to reduce educational inequality.

Education Minister Jason Clare is correct that we need reforms. The important thing is we get the reforms right.

First, we need to fully fund our public schools and end the political football over funding. Second, we need to support teachers to deliver excellent teaching. The current push for explicit teaching and synthetic phonics can only be part of the solution. Students are more than their brains. They learn in social and emotional conditions that also need to be addressed. For example, after a decade of explicit teaching and synthetic phonics, students in England are at an all-time low for enjoyment of reading, languishing toward the bottom of all OCED countries on this measure.

JG: You too can be like Cessnock

A decade of research at the University of Newcastle, including five randomised controlled trials, offers an alternative approach to school reform. Results from Cessnock High School, one of the most disadvantaged schools in NSW, shows how our evidence-based approach to improving teaching quality, regardless of the instructional strategies used, can change lives. Cessnock High achieved the most improved NAPLAN growth from Year 7 to 9 in the Hunter region and 11th overall in the state by engaging in whole school Quality Teaching Rounds. Simultaneously, teachers reported greater morale and improved school culture, which are critical factors in addressing the current teacher shortage crisis.

Thanks to funding from the Australian Government, thousands of teachers from across the country can now access this evidence-backed professional development for free.

From left to right: Jim Tognolini is Professor and Director of the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) at the University of Sydney. Jennifer Gore is the Laureate Professor and director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. She developed the Quality Teaching Rounds.