My problem with NAPLAN comparisons
When I started this blog, I decided I didn’t want to be political, I didn’t want to take sides, I didn’t want to reveal my political leanings.
I’m sure I’ve done that anyway. But I have decided enough is enough.
As a teacher, I feel the urge to express my views more strongly, perhaps because I’m stifled in doing so at work.
I mean, sure, we have the union. And the schools can speak to the media on our behalf, but they don’t necessarily represent my point of view.
And I have a very strong one with regard to comparing NAPLAN results.
I feel the need to say (though I don’t know why I should) that I am in full support of NAPLAN testing. Ensuring all students meet a basic benchmark of literacy and numeracy is SO important. If this is one way to get it done, then I’m all for it.
What I object to, however, is comparing results across states. Here in QLD we’re always “the worst apart from the NT” or whatever the outcome is.
To be perfectly honest, it’s no wonder. Take for example, grade 3. In Queensland, students (until this year) have been turning 8 while in grade three, giving a range of students mostly either 7 or 8. These students haven’t had the benefit of a “prep” year before grade one. Even this year, when stuents are on average 6 months older, and have had a prep year, that prep year is not academic. It’s play based. It’s not compulsory.
In NSW and Victoria students are not only, on average, a full year older, they have the benefit of an academic “pre-school” grade. That is, by the time they sit the NAPLAN test in grade 3, they are in their 4th year of academic schooling. Our kids in Queensland are in their 3rd.
I’m in full support of the Prep year in Queensland, but I wonder why we’re restricting students to learning how to tie shoelaces when students in NSW and Victoria are learning to read. Now, having experience with two students in Prep, I recognise the benefit of the play based curriculum presented in our school. Last year M&M did such great learning activities as reading grids to dig for dinosaur bones, and adding up by playing board games with two dice. I can see Kiki is now following suit.
But how then can we compare students a year yonger, having one fewer year of education with students not only older, but essentially a year ahead in school with each other? I hate to use cliche’s, but isn’t that comparing apples with oranges?
What perplex’s me even more, is that I don’t see the unions or media identifying this as an issue. Why not? Will it reduce the benefits of the test at all? I don’t think so. As a teacher with two grade 8 classes, I regularly consult NAPLAN results to identify students in need of extra support in certain areas. The usefulness of the tests themselves isn’t my issue.
The issue I have is comparing unequal students with each other. It would be like NSW comparing grade 3 students with grade 4 students doing the same test. Of course the grade 3 students are going to do worse!







