Parent and teacher perceptions of NAPLAN in a sample of Independent schools in Western Australia

Concerns have been raised about the impact Australia’s national standardised testing, the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), has upon the well-being of students, parents, and teachers. To date, research evidence is unclear as to the level and extent of emotional distress experienced by stakeholders during testing. Despite an unclear evidence base, the prevailing view is that NAPLAN has a general negative impact upon stakeholder well-being. In a pilot study that surveyed all stakeholder groups across 11 independent schools in Western Australia, we found evidence of a minimal impact from the testing. We also found evidence for a small positive association between student and parent distress during testing, and a moderate positive association between parent and teacher distress during testing and their estimations regarding how NAPLAN impacts other people. Our results are not consistent with the prevailing view that NAPLAN has a broad negative impact on well-being, and highlights the need for further research to inform debates about the usefulness and impact of NAPLAN testing.


Introduction
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is the independent statutory authority responsible for development, implementation and analysis of Australia's school National Assessment Program -Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) which covers Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. NAPLAN provides comparative data between and within schools over years to allow tracking of student and school development (ACARA, 2015), and these comparative data can be of use for policy makers, school administrators, teachers, and parents. A focal point of the NAPLAN program is the publication of school results on the MySchool website (http://www.myschool.edu.au/). The purpose of the website is to provide school results in an accessible form to the Australian public to foster transparency and accountability of the Australian school system (ACARA, 2015).
Since inception in 2008, NAPLAN and MySchool have received ongoing criticism from Australian scholars (For reviews see: Harris et al., 2013;Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012;Polesel, Dulfer, & Turnbull, 2012). Criticisms mirror those that have been raised by scholars investigating standardised testing regimes in other countries (Au, 2011;Brockmeier, Green, Pate, Tsemunhu, & Bockenko, 2014;Herman & Golan, 1993;Segool, Carlson, Goforth, Von Der Embse, & Barterian, 2013). Specifically, NAPLAN has been suggested to foster an unhelpful competitive culture between schools that results in narrowing of the curriculum (Hardy, 2015;Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012;Polesel, Rice, & Dulfer, 2014;Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013), and having a negative impact upon teacher, parent, and student well-being (Dulfer, Polesel, & Rice, 2012;Wyn, Turnbull, & Grimshaw, 2014). We have been unable to find any studies that have specifically measured the level and extent of potential distress associated with NAPLAN, and the study reported in this paper was therefore designed to examine self-reported distress in a volunteer sample of teachers, parents, and students associated with the independent schools sector in response to NAPLAN testing in Years 3 and 5.

NAPLAN and teacher well-being
The stakeholders that have received the most research attention regarding experiences of NAPLAN are teachers. A number of surveys and qualitative investigations have investigated teacher and principal perspectives regarding the impact of NAPLAN on pedagogy and any potential negative impact on their students (APPA, 2013;Dulfer et al., 2012;IEUA, 2010;Polesel et al., 2014;Thompson, 2013;Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013;Ward, 2012;Wyn et al., 2014). In a survey of over 8000 Australian teachers (primary, secondary, and principals), the majority of respondents reported an impact on teaching practices similar to those reported overseas Polesel et al., 2014). NAPLAN has influenced curriculum to become more NAPLAN-oriented (i.e., literacy and numeracy focused) at the expense of other subject areas (e.g., Society and Environment, The Arts, and Physical Education). Additionally, NAPLAN has influenced how literacy and numeracy are taught (APPA, 2013;Ward, 2012). That is, in order to maximise NAPLAN performance, literacy and numeracy is taught in a structured way that closely aligns with the test, that has been referred to as "teaching to the test" (Polesel et al., 2014, p. 643;Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013, p. 303). It has been argued that constraining the creativity and flexibility of teachers in this way may have a negative impact on their job satisfaction (Berliner, 2011;Thompson & Cook, 2014).
Additionally, increased pressure on teachers to produce strong NAPLAN results may negatively impact their own well-being. The increased pressure has been argued to largely stem from the publication of school results on the MySchool website Harris et al., 2013;Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012;Polesel et al., 2014;Ragusa & Bousfield, 2015;Thompson, 2013). In their large scale survey, Dulfer et al. (2012) reported that around 90% of educators believed weaker than expected NAPLAN results would have a negative impact upon the school's reputation, parental perception of the school, ability to attract and retain students, and staff morale. From a survey of over 800 educators from Western and South Australia, Thompson (2013) reported that in response to an open-ended question asking about the perceived negative impacts of NAPLAN, 44% of the educators mentioned increased stress and pressure across teachers, parents, and students as an issue. Similarly, a survey of over 1000 primary school principals found that many respondents indicated that NAPLAN can raise teacher stress levels in the lead up to the tests (APPA, 2013). Prior research has therefore identified that NAPLAN testing has the potential to be a demoralising and stressful experience for teachers. However, no studies have studied the level and extent of distress experienced by teachers during NAPLAN testing compared with non-testing periods. An unanswered question is: Does the stress experienced by teachers during NAPLAN surpass the usual stressors associated with being a teacher? The present research aims to address this gap in the literature by examining teacher self-reported emotional distress during and after NAPLAN testing.

NAPLAN and parent well-being
The stakeholders that have received the least attention are parents. Existing research investigating parent perceptions consists of Australian Senate enquiries inviting submissions in 2010 and 2013 (Bousfield & Ragusa, 2014), a survey by Australian market research company Newspoll commissioned by the Whitlam Institute (Newspoll, 2013), and interviews with 26 parents by the Whitlam institute (Wyn et al., 2014). This research has been primarily focused upon parent perceptions regarding the usefulness of NAPLAN and perceived impact upon student well-being. Overall, this research suggests that two out of three have a relatively positive attitude towards the testing, and half of the parents report perceiving their child experiencing some level of stress associated with the testing. No research has directly investigated the level and extent of the impact testing might have upon parent well-being. From transcript quotes provided by Wyn et al. (2014), there is evidence to suggest that some parents may experience elevated stress due to concern about their child's performance and/or how their child will react to the testing. The present research aims to address this gap in the literature by examining parent self-reported emotional distress during and after NAPLAN testing.

NAPLAN and student well-being
As reviewed earlier, a few studies have asked teachers their impressions of the impact NAPLAN has on students (APPA, 2013;Dulfer et al., 2012;Thompson, 2013). From these studies the precise extent of the impact of NAPLAN upon students is very unclear. For example, the Dulfer et al. (2012) survey found that 90% of teachers reported at least some students feeling stressed, but also that 40% reported some students looking forward to the testing. As another example, the primary principal survey found that two-thirds of respondents reported a belief that NAPLAN has a slightly negative impact upon students (APPA, 2013).
To date, there are three studies that have examined actual student perceptions of NAPLAN (Belcastro & Boon, 2012;Howell, 2012;Wyn et al., 2014). Belcastro and Boon's (2012) study focused on student motivation rather than well-being, so will not be discussed in any detail here. Howell (2012) asked 100 students across Years 3, 5, and 7 in two schools to draw a picture about their NAPLAN experience, and then qualitatively evaluated the themes present in the drawings. The authors reported that drawings were "overwhelmingly negative" (Howell, 2012, p. 9). However a closer inspection of Howell's (2012, p. 10) results indicates that this pattern was only evident for one of the two schools, with the second school containing more balanced experiences. Wyn et al. (2014) conducted interviews with 70 students evenly split across Years 5, 7 and 9, that were sampled across 16 schools. Most of the student interviews were carried out in groups. The section of the Wyn et al. (2014) report dedicated to student perceptions of well-being consisted entirely of negative student anecdotes, but then stated in the final paragraph of the section that "The majority of students reported that they did not like NAPLAN, but advised that they generally got through it without too many issues…" (Wyn et al., 2014, p. 27).
In their executive summary, a conclusion made was that "…NAPLAN is a significant pedagogical intervention which has some positive uses, but is plagued by negative impacts on learning and on student well-being" (Wyn et al., 2014, p. 6). Therefore both Howell (2012) and Wyn et al. (2014) appear to make strong negative conclusions based on mixed negative, neutral and positive findings.
In the Australian literature to date, the prevailing view appears to be that NAPLAN has a negative impact upon student well-being despite little evidence regarding the precise level and extent of distress experienced by students during testing (For example: Harris et al., 2013;Howell, 2012;O'Keefe, 2011;Polesel et al., 2012;Thompson, 2013;Wyn et al., 2014). A further aim of the present study is to examine self-reported emotional distress of students during and after testing in order to contribute to the research literature.

The present study
As mentioned above, there is reason to believe that NAPLAN testing may have a negative impact across multiple stakeholders (i.e., educators, parents, and students). However no prior studies have quantified any impact. The primary aim of the present research is to explore this by examining teacher, parent, and student self-reported emotional distress, in Years 3 and 5, across eleven independent schools in Western Australia.
Based on prior research, we expected some negative impact to be experienced by all stakeholders; however the size of effect was uncertain. NAPLAN is a test of performance (e.g. Australian Senate Committee Report, 2013), and like any test of performance (e.g., other school tests, ballet recital, job interview, first date etc.) a slight increase in stress is an expected and a functional response. A long-standing psychological principle is the Yerkes-Dodson law that describes the inverted U shaped relationship between stress and performance (Cassady & Johnson, 2002;Lowe et al., 2008;Salehi, Cordero, & Sandi, 2010;Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). That is, a slight elevation in stress is deemed adaptive in contexts of evaluation as a slight increase in arousal can facilitate concentration for the task at hand. However after a certain optimal point, that is determined by both dispositional and situational factors, further stress can impair concentration and therefore diminish performance.
Stress that is maintained at a high level for a prolonged period can exhaust physical and mental energy resulting in diminished well-being of the individual. We therefore approach interpretation of our results with this in mind.
In our study we use the same measure of distress across all stakeholders in order to enable direct comparisons among the groups. We therefore are able to directly investigate the previously unexplored questions: Who is the most affected by the NAPLAN testing -students, parents, or teachers? And, what is the level and extent of distress associated with NAPLAN testing for each group? Respondents of the primary principals survey generally believed that Year 3 students were more negatively affected by testing compared with Year 5 students (APPA, 2013). However, Howell (2012) found that Year 7 students produced a higher proportion of negative drawings compared to Year 3 and 5 students. Therefore we were also interested in comparing across Years 3 and 5, in addition to the overall comparison across students, parents, and teachers.
Surveys of teachers have revealed an existing belief that students may become more stressed as they are affected by their parents stress level, if the parent places a great deal of importance in performance and communicates (either verbally or non-verbally) their anxiety to their child (Thompson, 2013;Wyn et al., 2014).
Due to the way distress was measured in our study we are able to explore if any positive association exists between parent distress and that of their child. We are also able to explore whether there is any positive association between teacher distress during testing and the overall distress experienced in their class of students.
Additionally, we also asked parents and teachers to provide estimates of the level of impact NAPLAN testing has upon the well-being of all stakeholder groups of interest for this study (i.e., students, parents and teachers). It has previously been found that parents with a more negative attitude towards NAPLAN typically reported perceiving their child as experiencing higher levels of stress during testing (Newspoll, 2013). Therefore we expected to find a positive relationship between self-reported self-distress and perceived distress in others.

Participants
Eighteen member schools of the Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia were contacted by the research team to request participation in our study approximately two months prior to NAPLAN testing. Eleven school principals agreed to participate. Most of the schools declining participation were from rural areas. We acknowledge that our results are limited by a potential self-selection bias of schools that all hold student wellbeing as a high priority, and are likely not to be representative of schools generally, nor for all independent schools. As may be expected, all participating schools were above the median level (1000)  3f/ 1m *All-girls school **All-boys school

Procedure
There are a number of established measures that have been designed to assess student test anxiety (See: Lowe, Grumbein, & Raad, 2011;Lowe et al., 2008;Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, & Waite, 1958;Wren & Benson, 2004). However, these measures could not be used to directly compare responses across different stakeholders, or were sufficiently brief enough to minimise inconvenience upon participating schools. We therefore devised a new simple brief measure of emotional distress in order to achieve our purposes. This measure assessed emotional distress by asking the participant to rate their experience of six adjectives listed in the following order: Happy, worried, calm, sad, confident, and afraid; on a 4-point scale (not at all, a little bit, quite a bit, a lot). The response scale for students had accompanying basic cartoon faces to increase engagement and clarity. For a copy of the survey instrument please contact the first author.
Prior to commencement of the study, a lengthy pre-testing process was conducted trialling different versions of the measure with university students, parents, children, and teachers in order to finalise the specific adjectives and response scale used. We examined the validity of this final measure by administering our brief measure to 126 first year university students from Edith Cowan University, (33% 18-25 years, 16% 26-30 years, 51% over 30 years old; 84% female) in addition to a well-established measure -The 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-21 is a commonly used measure of psychological distress with adults containing three 7-item subscales (depression, anxiety, and stress) that is often summed to provide an overall distress score. When providing responses for both measures the students reflected on their life during the month prior to the start of the university semester. The reliability and validity of the DASS-21 has been well established (Crawford, Cayley, Lovibond, Wilson, & Hartley, 2011;Crawford & Henry, 2003). We therefore wished to compare our new brief scale of emotional distress with the well-established DASS-21. Inter-correlations and scale reliability coefficients are presented in Table 2. Our brief emotional distress scale achieved good internal consistency (α = .84), and good convergent validity with the overall DASS-21 (r = .78, p < .01). We acknowledge, however, that this validation of the final measure is limited, in that it was not performed on primary school-aged children.  Table 3 we provide the Cronbach's alpha statistics for the measure as it was used in our study to provide evidence to support adequate reliability of the measure in the school context. Additionally, adult participants were asked "Do you believe that the pressure to do well on NAPLAN tests has a negative impact upon the well-being of: (students, parents, and teachers)." Participants rated their belief for each judgement on a 6-point scale (not at all, slightly, somewhat, moderately, very much, extremely). 1 The overall statistic for students is a combination of all 12 items for maths and reading. All other values are calculated from the 6 item emotional distress scale.

Self-reported student, parent, and teacher emotional distress during and after NAPLAN
Students reported more distress during NAPLAN maths (M = 1.87, SD = .62), compared to NAPLAN reading (M = 1.77, SD = .67), however this effect was very small, t(464) = 3.91, p < .01, r 2 = .03, and therefore for further analysis student reading and maths distress was averaged to produce a single measure. Furthermore, a moderate positive correlation was found between maths and reading distress (r = .63, p < .01).
Of primary interest was the difference between emotional distress during and after NAPLAN across different stakeholders, see Table 4. First, we checked if there was any large variation amongst schools for selfreported distress during NAPLAN by conducting a series of one-way ANOVAs that revealed no significant effect of school for year 3 students, year 5 students, parents, or teachers (all Fs ≤ 1.27, ps > .05). Considering the fairly homogenous nature of our sample (i.e., relatively wealthy independent schools all willing to take part in a study focused on NAPLAN testing) the consistency across schools was not surprising. To examine emotional distress during and after NAPLAN across different stakeholders a 4x2 mixed design factorial ANOVA was conducted treating group (year 3 students, year 5 students, parents, and teachers) as a betweenparticipants factor and time (during, and after) as a within-participants factor. Both the main effect of group (F(3, 847) = 5.54, p < .05, ηp 2 = .02) and time (F(1, 847) = 164.13, p < .05, ηp 2 = .02) were found to be statistically significant, in addition to the interaction between group and time (F(3, 847) = 11.80, p < . 05, ηp 2 = .04). To further understand the overall interaction effect, we conducted follow-up Bonferroni adjusted t-tests selectively based on questions of most interest. Following Field's (2009) instructions we applied the Bonferroni adjustment to the accepted p-value for statistical significance by dividing by the number of comparisons carried out (.05/10 = .005). This post-hoc procedure is a conservative approach that reduces family-wise error.
As expected, compared to non-testing time, distress was found to be significantly higher during and teachers (t(234) = 3.14, p < .005, r 2 = .04), with the other comparisons failing to reach significance. Note that although there are significant differences between groups, effect sizes are very small indicating that despite some slight differences, emotional distress during NAPLAN was fairly similar across the stakeholder groups.
An important finding was that despite increased distress during NAPLAN testing, no mean value for any of the stakeholder groups was higher than "a little bit" on our brief emotional distress scale. Furthermore, the percentage of participants across all stakeholder groups that scored in the "quite a bit" to "a lot" range was small, both during and after NAPLAN, see Table 4. When compensating for typical distress levels as indicated by 'after NAPLAN' responses, results suggest NAPLAN produced a severe negative reaction in approximately 3% of students, parents, and teachers in our sample. Although this remains concerning for those 3%, the results show that in the present sample, 97% did not report a severe negative reaction to NAPLAN. The results therefore confirmed that NAPLAN elevates distress. The level of distress reported during NAPLAN by the present sample, however, did not appear to be severe for many of the respondents. In fact, levels of distress appeared less than what one might reasonably expect to be associated with a high stakes testing experience.
In addition to quantifying distress levels, we were interested in exploring if parent and teacher distress were associated with distress reported by students. A significant correlation was found between parent and student self-reported emotional distress during NAPLAN, although the association was small (r = .18, p < .01, n

Student open-ended responses
As part of our survey, students were asked to write or Year 5 student responses were fairly evenly distributed across positive, neutral, and negative categories.
Consistent with our emotional distress findings, student responses to the open-ended question did not reveal any prevailing negativity towards NAPLAN testing. This consistency affords greater confidence in our findings obtained with the brief emotional distress measure reported earlier.

Parent and teacher estimates of the impact of NAPLAN upon the well-being of other stakeholders
The extent that parents and teachers believe the pressure to do well in NAPLAN affects others is presented in Table 5. For both parents and teachers, the average response fell between "somewhat" to "moderately", with the exception that parents believed NAPLAN impacted parents "slightly" to "somewhat".
Overall these results are consistent with the emotional distress results. In our study, the experience of NAPLAN was not overly stressful for most parents and teachers, and additionally was not believed to have a severe impact on others. However, there was a fairly consistent response rate across estimations that ~25% of respondents reported the negative impact of NAPLAN in the "very much" to "extremely" range. Therefore, while most respondents did not perceive a large impact, there was still a substantial proportion holding such a belief. We expected that the self-experience of NAPLAN, as measured by our brief emotional distress scale, would be positively associated with estimations of how others experience NAPLAN. Results supported this hypothesis. Parent self-reported emotional distress during NAPLAN was found to positively correlate with estimations of the impact of NAPLAN upon the well-being of students (r = .43), parents (r = .40), and teachers (r = .30), all ps ≤ .01. Likewise, teacher self-reported emotional distress during NAPLAN was also positively correlated with their estimations of the impact of NAPLAN upon the well-being of students (r = .50), parents (r = .34), and teachers (r = .53), all ps ≤ .01. Therefore results suggest that a teacher or parent experiencing higher levels of distress during NAPLAN typically assumes NAPLAN causes more distress in others.

Discussion
The present research examined student, parent, and teacher self-reported emotional distress during and after NAPLAN in a sample of 11 independent schools in Western Australia. Across students, parents, and teachers, we found an increase in distress levels during NAPLAN compared with after the testing, however the average level of distress during testing did not exceed "a little bit" for all groups on our self-report distress measure. It is also important to recognise that our data suggests NAPLAN produces a severe negative reaction (i.e., "quite a bit" to "a lot" of distress) in approximately 3% of the sampled students, parents, and teachers, after accounting for some individuals having pre-existing levels of high distress. We caution that the sample of schools were atypical of the general sector, and furthermore may be atypical of the independent schools sector due to potential response bias effects (the survey may have been completed by participants who were not affected negatively by the NAPLAN testing experience). These limitations suggest that the percentage of students, parents and teachers reporting distress may be higher, and it is important that further studies be undertaken to estimate the prevalence in the Australian population. It is important that the percentage of those who report high distress be managed, and that schools enact strategies to minimise any severe reaction to the testing. There is an opportunity for schools to monitor reactions of students during NAPLAN for early identification and intervention with test anxiety problems.
Overwhelming negativity in student drawings or statements was not observed in open-ended responses from students. Year 3 students provided a higher proportion of positive responses, and Year 5 students were evenly split across negative, neutral, and positive responses. Year 5 students also reported more distress during the testing compared to Year 3 students. This finding is inconsistent with beliefs reported in a survey of primary school principals that Year 3 students are more impacted by the testing than older children (APPA, 2013), and this inconsistency in our own findings may be an artefact of negative publicity in West Australia surrounding NAPLAN and MySchool when the Year 5 children were younger. We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for this suggestion, as this may be evidence for an earlier negative public attitude toward NAPLAN, especially in West Australia. It is beyond the scope of our present study to determine the precise reasons behind why the year 5s reported a more negative experience of NAPLAN compared to the year 3s. Perhaps it is simply a result of being in the school system for longer and developing a more nuanced appreciation of what testing means for the student. This is however only speculation and understanding the longitudinal relationship between a child and repeated testing like NAPLAN is an avenue for future research.
In our review of the literature we noted that a lack of research studies investigating the effect of NAPLAN on stakeholders currently limits arguments about NAPLAN's impact. Prior studies consist of educator impressions regarding the impact upon students (APPA, 2013;Dulfer et al., 2012;Thompson, 2013), and two qualitative investigations of actual student experiences (Howell, 2012;Wyn et al., 2014).
Our findings add to the existing literature by providing a more direct assessment of the level and extent of emotional distress during testing compared with what has previously been examined, across all stakeholders.
Interpretation of our findings are, however, limited to the context of our sample which comprised of independent schools with above average socio-educational advantage (ICSEA) scores. Principals of these schools all reported that enrichment of socio-emotional well-being was a school priority, and citation of specific well-being programs to achieve this aim was common. NAPLAN was largely considered just another test within a battery of school assessments that does not hold any special consequences for the students, teachers, or school as a whole. It may be that this 'principal' effect which prioritises student social-emotional well-being is something that is important for the whole sector, and / or it may be that the data reported here are limited in terms of socio-economic status. There is some evidence to support the latter interpretation, because a survey of West and South Australian teachers (Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013) suggested that the (negative) impact of NAPLAN upon pedagogy may be more prevalent in state schools and schools situated in lower socio-economic status (SES) areas. More research is required to ascertain whether our findings can be replicated in government schools, and whether the 'principal' effect generalises to that sector. It may also be the case that greater importance is placed upon NAPLAN achievement by principals, and this may produce a different school climate during testing, and therefore different impact of the testing upon students.
On the other hand, research has reported that Australian children from higher SES backgrounds may have greater expectations placed upon them for academic success by their parents (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002).
Therefore it could be reasoned that more pressure to perform in higher SES contexts may place some students at greater risk for experiencing distress during testing. Despite these potential directions for the literature, the present study is the first time as far as we are aware that the level and extent of distress associated with NAPLAN has actually been measured, and the disparity between our results and those found in the extant literature is quite marked.
A methodological limitation of our research was how participants were asked to retrospectively think back upon their NAPLAN experience some time after the testing (it varied from 1-3 weeks after testing). We concede that relying upon the memory of the experience instead of asking at the time of testing introduces a level of inaccuracy into our data. Furthermore, by asking participants to reflect upon their memory of their emotional experience during testing, and then subsequently asking about their emotional experience since the testing, may have led participants to contrast the two situations that could act to potentially amplify differences.
For example, a participant may believe that they should have been feeling more distressed during NAPLAN compared to afterwards, and answered in a way consistent with that belief. For the present research, we took a cautious approach, as we were concerned about surveying students during the testing time as we did not want to risk elevating their distress levels. Additionally, we did not wish to impose upon the schools during a time (i.e., during NAPLAN) they were already experiencing a disruption to their usual routines. All of these issues need to be taken under consideration for future studies that aim to measure distress associated with testing.
A further limitation is the convergent validation of the scale using university students and a measure of anxiety. It will be important to further validate the scale with a child-oriented measure of anxiety and distress in the future. We argue, however, that the results reported in this present paper attest to the discriminant validity of the scale.
In our sample, no relationship was found between teacher distress during NAPLAN, and the distress of children from their class. A small significant relationship (r = .18) was found between parent distress and child distress during NAPLAN. It is beyond the scope of our study to determine if this relationship is more indicative of students responding to parent distress, or parents responding to distress of their child. The overall low levels of distress observed in our study may be masking a stronger association, and future research is required to investigate the interplay between parent and child emotional response during periods of evaluation for the child.
We found stronger positive (moderate) relationships between parent and teacher emotional distress during testing with their perceptions regarding how much NAPLAN was negatively impacting the well-being of others.
Our findings indicate that parents and teachers reporting more distress during testing tended to also perceive more distress in others. This is consistent with a long-standing psychological principle known as the false consensus effect that refers to a tendency to over-estimate the extent that others share our attitudes, beliefs, and emotional experiences (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977;Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003). A similar finding to our own is that parents with a more negative attitude towards NAPLAN have been reported to report more distress experienced by their child (Newspoll, 2013).
NAPLAN testing as a high stakes national testing program has had many harsh critics. One major criticism has been to question the impact NAPLAN has upon stakeholder well-being. Our research provides evidence to demonstrate that NAPLAN does not have any major impact upon well-being for the majority of stakeholders in certain contexts. More evidence is required to fully understand the experience of NAPLAN across states and territories, urban and rural, and low/high SES contexts.