Teaching to the test is making schools worse

No matter what schools say, many schools do teach to NAPLAN. And when they do, educational outcomes suffer, writes Don Carter

• NAPLAN high school results reveal which performed best
• Targeted plans secret to western Sydney’s NAPLAN success
• Revealed: NAPLAN’s 10-year report card

It’s that time of year again when the annual educational behemoth — NAPLAN — hits the headlines. At this time of year, more than a million school students will complete literacy and numeracy tests during a teaching week in May.

But let’s be clear that the administration of this test is a huge disruption to schools with room changes, the reordering of seating into exam-style rows and ensuring that all students are catered for, particularly those with disabilities.

And it’s this time of year that we hear of schools preparing students for the test. Perhaps it’s not surprising that schools try to give their students every chance in this high-stakes environment by preparing them to not only perform well but also to be able to endure exam-like conditions.

Students are preparing for NAPLAN tests, rather than learning. Picture: Claudia Baxter

This is especially important for younger students in Years 3 and 5 whose experience of examinations is non-existent and potentially frightening.

But do teachers teach to the test?

Recent joint research between the UTS, Sydney and Macquarie universities asked NSW teachers if NAPLAN influences how and what they taught in the classroom.

A majority of teachers answered “yes” with one commenting that “every year we are told not to teach to the tests, yet each year we are forced to do blatantly obvious teaching tasks that are ascribed to NAPLAN”.

Another commented: “We have to teach to the test to some extent because of the pressure and expectations from above.” This is not surprising given the pressure teachers and schools are under to perform well.

And when teachers were asked if NAPLAN provided important information about the skills of their students, the majority were scathing.

Schools have found themselves ‘teaching to the test’.

One responded by stating “I can diagnose student literacy levels with far greater precision”, while another dismissed the tests by saying “NAPLAN has lost its way and is no longer used as originally intended”.

But at this time of the year, warm, fuzzy, feel-good statements are released by senior education bureaucrats to reassure students and parents that NAPLAN should be kept in perspective.

And right on cue the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority — the organisation responsible for developing NAPLAN — is currently promoting the idea that NAPLAN serves as an instrument of “social justice”.

What nonsense.

How can subjecting students all around the country to the same test, regardless of geographical location, socio-economic status, linguistic background and level of individual school resourcing be somehow presented as providing fair and equitable educational opportunities?

While it is potentially interesting for a teacher in Wagga Wagga to know that the test results of her students are comparable with that of a suburban Brisbane school, this information is of little value unless appropriate and targeted resources are subsequently directed to underperforming schools.

We need to remember that when the results of high-stakes testing are published, both national and international research has shown that there are three main negative consequences.

The first is that there is a narrowing of the curriculum, where teachers “teach to the test”.

Second, parents may well select a school for their child based on test results only, ignoring other important factors.

And third, the job security of principals and teachers may be at risk due to poor test results.

In addition, there is also the danger that the reputation of underperforming schools might suffer.

UTS professor Dr Don Carter

In fact, this happened in the United States, when in 2003 then-governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, rated schools from A to F based on their test results.

Using this indicator, schools were consequently “labelled” in what was essentially a crude approach, ignoring various complex contextual features such as attendance rates, student work samples, the volume and types of courses offered and extra-curricular activities.

We need to resist this kind of educational-demonisation of our schools.

We should also be mindful that in 2013, the Australian Senate Standing Committee cautioned that NAPLAN involved “adverse impacts on students, (the) narrowing of the curriculum, the creation of a NAPLAN preparation industry and the development of NAPLAN into a high stakes test”.

So let’s do a couple of things.

Now that NAPLAN is in its tenth year, it’s time for a review of the testing system.

This is a good time to do this, given that there is already currently a review of the NSW curriculum underway.

Both these reviews should be considered in tandem to ensure coherence and alignment between curriculum knowledge and skills and test content.

The second thing is to let teachers do what they were trained and are paid to do: teach the curriculum, assess and report on student learning.

And let’s free them from the role of being on-the-cheap school-based test invigilators once and for all.

Dr Don Carter is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Technology Sydney and a former Inspector of English at the NSW Education Standards Authority