Critiquing Current Educational Issues - NAPLAN - Essay Example

NAPLAN: A Critical Perspective Name Institution NAPLAN: A Critical Perspective NAPLAN is a sequence of tests that are directed to students in the Australian education system. According to the principle of this test system, students who are in their third, fifth seventh and ninth year are the ones subjected to this test and it is a test that is conducted every year. In the Australian education system, this sequence of test has been part of the daily calendar since its inception in 2008(Chilcott, 2010). This system of test is fashioned to test the varieties of skills that are crucial for each child to advance through school as well as life. Among these skills include writing, reading, spelling and numeracy. This test program is administered by the Australian body responsible for curriculum development and assessment. Since the test largely replicates traits of mastery and numeracy familiar to curricula, the test layouts and questions are picked so that they are conversant to educators and students across the country. According to the authorities in charge, the tests are planned to be undertaken by relevant students on the same time across the country in a particular year (Chilcott, 2010). A number of contentions have been fronted both nationally and internationally involving the educational community regarding this test program. The contentions mainly relate to whether the tests are suitable, whether instructors are instructing as they typically would or instructing based on the test. Additionally, the contentions also center on what use the test results are put into (Glenda, 2009). However, despite these broader contentions, NAPLAN program still exerts considerable level of influence in the education system in the country as well as international when compared to other similar programs. This is because with a factual comprehension of this program’s tests, the instructors are able to acknowledge the significance of coaching well in accordance with the curriculum. In addition to accessing the curriculum documents for reference as a teaching guide, the instructors can also use the program as a means of evaluating the educational standards of their students in comparison to those of other students hailing from the same state as well as the country. With this, they are guided to focus and prioritize what they teach and improve on how they teach (Olivia and Bernard, 2013). In a logical sense, this description of the influence of NAPLAN indicates that the program is widely effective and the results not only affect the students but also the teachers. The program expects teachers not to teach students merely to pass the tests, but it expects them teach students based on what students lack. As such, they will be obliged to transform their way of teaching in order to suit the needs of the students. According to educational statistics in Australia, experts and educational stakeholders document that the way of teaching students have greatly improved since the inception of this tests and assessment programs (Ballantine and Spade, 2013). Additionally, they argue that more teachers have been trained in order to improve their ways of teachings to match the education curriculum of the country. In comparison to other countries on the international arena, similar programs have yielded more fruits than the drawbacks associated with them. In European nations for instance, standardized program tests like NAPLAN are designed to improve the basic learning aspects of children in certain grades. Additionally, statistics indicate that there have been a high percentage of students graduating with great skills from basic level of education to the next on a yearly basis (Ballantine and Spade, 2013). Furthermore, in the US, greater sense of responsibility and concern has also been reported on the side of teachers (Olivia and Bernard, 2013). This is a confirmation that such tests not only improve the abilities of students but also those of teachers. As discussed above, the program has resulted to numerous contentions with one group in support of the program while another in opposition to the program. Those in support of the program will dwell on the merits of the program as highlighted above among many other aspects. In light of this categorization, it can be inferred that there are a number of participants involved in the NAPLAN program tests debate. One such participant is the government. According to the educational authorities in the government, they are firmly behind the program as the government is able to exploit the results of this program test in coming up with education policies and resolutions (Connell, 2010). However, input in the program is characteristically minimal in relation to other pertinent stakeholders. The other category of participants in the debate is the schools. The schools who support this program test argue that the results of the test help them in recruiting the right teachers. The other important category of participants is the parents and students. According to (Chilcott, 2010), parents who are in support of the program argue that they use the test results to discuss the progress of their children with the teachers. This discussion will focus on issues such as recognizing students who need bigger challenges or extra support and recognizing teaching program strengths and flaws. Evaluation of NAPLAN Frederic and Larry (2009) give an expert assertion that the legitimacy of an instrument of test or measurement is replicated in the degree to which the test evaluates the behavior which it is intended to evaluate thereby permitting teachers to come up with suitable judgments. Dependability refers to uniformity of the instrument in evaluating whatever it evaluates (Frederic and Larry, 2009). This is the extent to which a test will display analogous results for the same individuals at varying times. Based on these expert assertions, ACARA another significant player in this debate postulates that procedures have been established to make certain that the program test is a legitimate and dependable evaluation of students' mastery and numeracy skill (Chilcott, 2010). To further affirm the validity aspect of the NAPLAN test program, ACARA state that the program test has several purposes (Chilcott, 2010). These include reporting nationwide and jurisdictional accomplishments in literateness and proficiency as well as offering precise and dependable measures of student and school performance (Chilcott, 2010). However, this scenario can result in an issue allied to the legitimacy of the tests as NAPLAN program is intended to monitor, support and advance the performance of students rather than just reporting on it. According to Welch (2010), this might institute a null and void test. However, Chilcott (2010) argues that the tests are applied for the correct intention in schools. On this same point, Ballantine and Spade (2012) postulates that the program’s data service recognize expanses of strength or weakness in a classroom. In contrast to the positive side of the NAPLAN test program, Olivia and Bernard (2013) highlight the down side of this program that instructors are prone to teach to the test instead of following the tradition of instructing to the curriculum. They cite Perkins finding that gave an example of Victoria where instructors were directed to teach unequivocally for the national tests. It is evident according to this conjecture that the NAPLAN could be rendered as an unsound test. This is mainly because it encourages teachers to show considerable deviation from the holistic curriculum to a given extent. In light of this, it is prudent for instructors to note that if they are instructing aptly to the curriculum then the students should have no any slightest trouble with the NAPLAN program tests. The other issues of evaluation concerns flexibility and fairness. As Chilcott (2010) opines in regard to the principle of flexibility, the program test appears to be considerably below par particularly in quality assessment. He states that when compared with other nations that have developed their education system, flexibility in quality assessment of NAPLAN is way below standard. The primary reason behind his opinion is that students work differently at the different pace and therefore the test conditions do not enable them to work well. As regards fairness, it is vital not to merely rate the equality of the test, but to also rate the process of offering the test. Glenda (2009) notes, many schools in Queensland have focused a considerable amount of time on NAPLAN. This is because the test is traditionally given to students halfway through the year when logically not much learning would have been accomplished. According to Glenda (2009), in Queensland there is an overemphasis on the significance of the NAPLAN tests yet the tests are merely a measure of literateness and numeracy levels of students. According to him even the Federal government has overrated the program. Michael (2005) who is an internationally recognized education theorist states that this renders the process of availing the tests as unfair. The reason is that that a significant amount of time is spent on test preparation which in the end leads to neglect of other vital curriculum areas. In as much as the test may appear to be fair in the sense that every student across the country undertake the test at the same time, it hardly takes into consideration the fact that there are some students who have special needs. In line with this thought, one of the codes in NAPLAN program states that the test exempts students who exhibit significant intelligent or practical incapacity or if they hail from non-English-speaking backgrounds. However, according to Kell (2004), a conclusion can be made here that the test is designed to test literacy and numeracy levels in students perceived to be normal. In conclusion, if the program tests were to be entirely nondiscriminatory to all students in the education system, then it should also accommodate students with special needs. Rather than formulating test that can be directed to special needs students they are merely left out of the equivalence. Refernces Welch, A. (2010). Making education policy. In R. Connell, C. Campbell, M. Campbell, M. Vickers, A. Welch, D. Foley, N. Bagnall & D. Hayes (Eds.), Education, change and society (2nd ed.) Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Glenda, McGregor. (2009). Educating for (whose) success? Schooling in an age ofneo liberalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 345-358. Michael, W. A. (2005). Doing things the ‘right’ way: Legitimating educational inequalities in conservative times . Educational Review. 57(3), 271-293. Connell, R. (2010). Growing up. In R. Connell, C. Campbell, M. Campbell, M. Vickers, A. Welch, D. Foley, N. Bagnall & D. Hayes (Eds.), Education, Change and Society (2nd ed.) Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Ballantine, J. H., & Spade, J. Z. (2012). Getting started: Understanding education through sociological theory. In J. H. Ballantine, & J. Z. Spade (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (3rd edition) (p. 13-29). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Kell, P. (2004). A teacher"s tool-kit: Sociology and social theory explaining the world. In J. Allen (Ed.), Sociology of education: Possibilities and Practices (p. 29-53). Katoomba: Social Science Press. Frederick, J. G., & Larry, B. W. (2009). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Olivia, N. S., & Bernard, S. (2013). Handbook of research on the education of young children. New York: Routledge. Chilcott, T. (2010). NAPLAN test focus slammed as students over-practise. Retrieved from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/naplan-test-focus-slammed-as-students-over practise/story-e6freon6-1225865218113 Read More