This paper reports preliminary survey findings of Western Australian and South Australian teacher perceptions of the impact of NAPLAN on curriculum and pedagogy in their classroom and school. The paper examines how teachers perceive the effects of NAPLAN on curriculum and pedagogy and whether these perceptions mediated by the teacher’s gender, the socioeconomics of the school, the State and the school system in which the teacher works. Teachers report that they are either choosing or being instructed to teach to the test, that this results in less time being spent on other curriculum areas and that these effects contribute in a negative way to the class environment and the engagement of students. This largely agrees with a body of international research that suggests that high-stakes literacy and numeracy tests often results in unintended consequences such as a narrow curriculum focus, a return to teacher-centred instruction and a decrease in motivation. Analysis suggests there is a relationship between participant responses to the effect of NAPLAN on curriculum based on the characteristics of which State the teacher taught in, the socioeconomic status of the school and the school system in which they were employed (State, Catholic, and Independent).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The data from NAPLAN began to be published online via the My School website in 2010.
It must be noted that the individual teacher perceptions outlined here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Government, Catholic or Independent school authorities in either SA or WA.
For the purpose of the exploratory factor analysis, four items (#s 2, 6, 7 & 9) were reversed coded to maintain a common valence among all survey items.
ACARA. (2011). NAPLAN. Retrieved January 31, 2012, from Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA): http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/naplan.html.
AERA. (2012, September). Position Statement on High-Stakes Testing. Retrieved September 26, 2012, from American Education Research Association (AERA): http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/AERARulesPolicies/AERAPolicyStatements/PositionStatementonHighStakesTesting/tabid/11083/Default.aspx.
Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1–74.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a meta-synthesis. Educational Researcher, 5, 258–267.
Au, W. (2008). Devising inequality: a Bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639–651.
Au, W. (2009). Unequal by design: high-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. New York: Routledge.
Baker, R. (2012). The effects of high-stakes testing policy on arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(1), 17–25.
Baker, E., Barton, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H., & Linn, R. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington: Economic Policy Institute.
Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384–397.
Barret, B. (2009). No child left behind and the assault on teachers’ professional practices and identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1018–1025.
Collins, S., Reiss, M., & Stobart, G. (2010). What happens when high-stakes testing stops? Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and its abolition in Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 17(3), 273–286.
Comber, B. (2012). Mandated literacy assessment and the reorganisation of teachers’ work: federal policy, local effects. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 119–136.
Gillard, J. (2008a, April). NAPLAN, OECD Report, teacher quality, age pension. Retrieved April 29, 2011, from Hon Julia Gillard MP: http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/Gillard/Releases/NAPLANOECDReportteacherqualityagepension.htm.
Gillard, J. (2008b, June). Education revolution: COAG agrees to school reform agenda. Retrieved June 17, 2010 from Media Centre: http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au.
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of funding for schooling—final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Harris, D. (2007). High-flying schools, student disadvantage, and the logic of NCLB. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 367–394.
Jones, B. (2008). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(2), 65–86.
Klenowski, V. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: Queensland, Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 78–83.
Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65–79.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Lange, T., & Meaney, T. (2011). Becoming disadvantaged: Public discourse around national testing. Poland: European Society for Research in Mathematic Education.
Lingard, R. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–145.
Lingard, B., Creagh, S., & Vass, G. (2012). Education policy as numbers: data categories and two Australian cases of misrecognition. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 315–333.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2003). Teachers and productive pedagogies: Contextualising, conceptualising, utilising. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 399–423.
Lobascher, S. (2011). What are the potential impacts of high-stakes testing on literacy education in Australia? Literacy Learning in the Middle Years, 19(2), 9–19.
McCarty, T. (2009). The impact of high-stakes accountability policies on Native American learners: evidence from research. Teaching Education, 20(1), 7–29.
McGaw, B. (2010). Driving education reform with curriculum reform and accountability. Banksia Lecture, Murdoch University, Perth.
Mockler, N. (2013). Reporting the ‘education revolution’: MySchool.edu.au in the print media. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(1), 1–16.
Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archive, 14(1), 1–173.
Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20), 1–35.
Perrault, G. (2000). The classroom impact of high-stress testing. Education, 120(4), 705–710.
Phelps, P. (2007). Standardized Testing. New York: Lang.
Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. (2012). The experience of education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families. Sydney: Whitlam Insititute.
Productivity Commission. (2012). Schools workforce: Productivity commission research report. Canberra: Australian Government.
Reid, A. (2009). Is this a revolution? A critical analysis of the Rudd government’s national education agenda. Curriculum Perspectives, 29(3), 1–13.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Rudd, K., & Gillard, J. (2008). Quality education: The case for an education revolution in our schools. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Ryan, R., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 224–233.
Smeed, J., Spiller, K., & Kimber, M. (2009). Issues for principals in high-stakes testing. Principal Matters, 81, 32–34.
Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 211–227.
Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2013). The logics of good teaching in an audit culture: A Deleuzian analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(3), 243–258.
West, C. (2012). Teaching Music in an era of high-stakes testing and budget reductions. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(2), 75–79.
Wigglesworth, G., Simpson, J., & Loakes, D. (2011). NAPLAN language assessments for indigenous students in remote communities: Issues and problems. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 320–343.
This research has been made possible by a grant from the ARC.
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, G., Harbaugh, A.G. A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. Aust. Educ. Res. 40, 299–314 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0093-0
- High-stakes testing
- Teacher perceptions
- Curriculum and pedagogy