Early years teachers’ perspectives on the effects of NAPLAN on stakeholder wellbeing and the impact on early years pedagogy and curriculum

Abstract

National Assessment Program for Numeracy and Literacy (NAPLAN) is the national assessment programme for literacy and numeracy in Australia administered to children in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 each year. The testing process was introduced in 2008 and is described by the developers as low stakes, however, research has highlighted that this is not the case. This paper examines the perceptions of teachers in the early years of school on the impact NAPLAN has on wellbeing of stakeholders, and the pedagogy and curriculum in early years teachers’ classrooms. Through focus group interviews, the early childhood teachers in 10 independent Western Australian school sites were asked about their experiences of NAPLAN in terms of their wellbeing and that of the children and families with whom they interact. Findings highlight that early years teachers describe that the impact of NAPLAN is felt in the lower years of school by all stakeholders-parents, children and teachers. This study highlights the need for additional research in this area, particularly in diverse settings, to gain evidence of impact that could inform the practice of the NAPLAN testing programme.

The role of early childhood pedagogical leaders in schools: Leading change for ongoing improvement

“…In Australia, the pushed down curriculum and expectations for academic achievement has led to a decrease in play based pedagogies (Barblett et al, 2016; Hesterman & Targowska, 2020), with teachers also reporting limiting children’s contributions to the curriculum (Leggett & Ford, 2013). High-stakes testing such as NAPLAN also imposes on pedagogy with reports that teachers spend more time on subjects that are assessed (Roberts et al, 2019). This trend known as ‘schoolification’ has been documented internationally and led to significant changes in early childhood pedagogy, due to conceptions of quality practice being cast as only those that can be measured and evaluated (Palaiologou & Male, 2019).…”

Digital Disruption In Teaching And Testing

“…Since its inception, there has been widespread criticism of NAPLAN as high stakes tests can have a negative impact on pedagogy, curriculum, and the stress levels of students and teachers (Cumming et al, 2016;Roberts et al, 2019). Researchers have argued that "teaching to the test" has become a part of teachers' practice within the classroom and the focus of the curriculum has narrowed to the specific outcomes that are expected to be tested (see .…”

“…Although some have argued that the change to accountability structures has been beneficial, and perhaps even necessary for the teaching profession, others have suggested that test-based accountability only serves to "narrow" the curriculum and bring the commencement of formal schoolwork to earlier years of schooling (Gable & Lingard, 2015;Roberts et al, 2019). This can result in students having to "grow up fast" as they are forced to cope with more rigid and formal learning.…”

Child-Centred Teaching: Helping Each Child to Reach Their Full Potential

“…Biesta [3] argues that contemporary measures of quality education focus on academic achievement across a controversially small and selective number of domains and subject areas, often privileging literacy and numeracy over children's social and emotional wellbeing. Within the domain of literacy, the focus on academic achievement has also led to problematic repercussions for children's early reading development, narrowly defining 'reading' as the ability to achieve the expected outcomes that are assessed via standardized tests [4], for younger and younger age groups [5]. Framed within this problematic discourse, our study sought to investigate how a teacher may circumvent such narrow and limiting expectations-expectations that would fail to address the diverse needs and potential of every child and ensure equity and access for all children.…”

“…There is no question that assessments are useful tools for teachers when planning for teaching and learning [6]. However, in light of research that has found that some teachers teach to the test [4,5], with some early childhood educators targeting specific readingrelated outcomes in isolation [7], there is concern that pressure to ensure that children (and schools) will perform well in national literacy tests may devolve the teaching and learning of reading into a narrow objective to meet particular reading outcomes, 'readying' children from a younger and younger age to meet expected outcomes in their future schooling. We argue that such an objective is one that adopts a narrow, grade-age-centric approach to teaching that fails to account for and address the diverse needs and potential of every child, which may also lead to an increase in the achievement and equity gaps that are present in current K-12 education.…”