The impact of national standardized literacy and numeracy testing on children and teaching staff in remote Australian Indigenous communities

Abstract

All educational testing is intended to have consequences, which are assumed to be beneficial, but tests may also have unintended, negative consequences (Messick, 1989). The issue is particularly important in the case of large-scale standardised tests, such as Australia's National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the intended benefits of which are increased accountability and improved educational outcomes. The NAPLAN purpose is comparable to that of other state and national 'core skills' testing programs which evaluate cross-sections of populations in order to compare results between population sub-groupings. Such comparisons underpin 'accountability' in the era of population-level testing. This study investigates the impact of NAPLAN testing on one population grouping that is prominent in the NAPLAN results comparisons and public reporting: children in remote Indigenous communities. A series of interviews with principals and teachers documents informants' first-hand experiences of the use and effects of NAPLAN in schools. In the views of most participants, the language and content of the test instruments, the nature of the test engagement and the test washback have negative impacts on students and staff, with little benefit in terms of the usefulness of the test data. The primary issue is the fact that meaningful participation in the tests depends critically on proficiency in Standard Australian English (SAE) as a first language. This study contributes to the broader discussion of how reform-targeted standardised testing for national populations affects subgroups who are not treated equitably by the test instrument or reporting for accountability purposes. It highlights a conflict between consequential validity and the notion of accountability which drives reform-targeted testing.

Language endangerment: a multidimensional analysis of risk factors

“…The preferred language of the younger generations in this community, the mixed language Gurindji Kriol, is not commonly spoken outside the communities of Kalkaringi and Dagaragu, and so does not have a broader socioeconomic reach than Gurindji. Our findings are consistent with many remote Indigenous communities in Australia in which English is not the first language of most students (Macqueen et al 2018). In Australia, education in Indigenous communities is almost always conducted in English, even when English not commonly spoken in the day-to-day interactions in the community.…”

“…In Australia, education in Indigenous communities is almost always conducted in English, even when English not commonly spoken in the day-to-day interactions in the community. Furthermore, in common with many other Anglophone countries, high-stakes educational testing in literacy and numeracy has been introduced, partly justified as a means to reduce Indigenous disadvantage by ensuring competency in English (Allendorf 2017;Macqueen et al 2018;McCarty 2009;Ryan and Whitman 2013;Wyman et al 2010). In Australia, USA, and Canada, where rates of Indigenous language loss have been the most dramatic, the results of nationwide tests for educational attainment, conducted in English, have been used to reduce support for bilingual education (Combs and Nicholas 2012;Devlin 2011;Wyman et al 2010).…”

“…In Australia, USA, and Canada, where rates of Indigenous language loss have been the most dramatic, the results of nationwide tests for educational attainment, conducted in English, have been used to reduce support for bilingual education (Combs and Nicholas 2012;Devlin 2011;Wyman et al 2010). But development of these policies focused on English competency has seen less emphasis on the effect of formal education on competency in Indigenous languages, nor on appropriate ways to evaluate such an effect (Hinton 2011;Macqueen et al 2018;O'Grady 2018), leading to the 'squandering of the personal, community, and national linguistic and intellectual resources within the mainstream classroom' (Cummins 2005). Conversely, promoting Indigenous language development in a bilingual setting can have flow-on effects to improve educational performance (Cummins 2005;McCarty 2003;Usborne et al 2009).…”

A Social Justice Challenge for School Leadership in Australia

“…If school staff "desire to be ranked highly" (Thompson, 2013, p. 82), then NAPLAN and My School might contribute to increased commitment to the competitive "logic of neoliberalism" (Giroux, 2011, p. 8) and a potential corresponding erosion of commitment to social justice. Cumming et al (2016) and McQueen et al (2018) note that different groups of students are affected differently by NAPLAN. Drawing on data from interviews with school leaders and teachers, Cumming et al (2016, p. 128) note "principals' .…”

A Case Study on the Development of Adult Language, Literacy and Numeracy Skills

“…The study suggested to provide more resources to both the teachers and students to enhance the LLN skills in the early stage of education life. In another recent paper [5], the authors discussed impact of NAPLAN test in remote Australian indigenous communities.…”