- Shifting NAPLAN to be a sample assessment, rather than assessing entire student cohorts. This would enable monitoring of system trends over time, and was suggested by the federal review as a possible solution to address some of the negative consequences of NAPLAN.
- Valuing a rich repertoire of assessments with teachers’ professional judgements being the basis of reporting to parents and students. Sample assessments such as NAPLAN that monitor the education system can be included, but should be “used only by schools and teachers as one piece of evidence contributing to reports to parents/carers, students and local education authorities”. (2020 federal review of NAPLAN, p10).
- The removal of the My School website. Its detrimental impacts that allow league tables of schools to be assembled has perverted and distorted the fundamental purpose of our education systems.
- Fair funding. Among OECD nations, Australia has a highly inequitable system of public education funding. A fairer system of funding that provides the resources and support that all students need to maximise their potential would improve achievement and social outcomes for every community across the country.
- Trust teachers and school leaders. NAPLAN and the associated focus on narrow measures of achievement have resulted in reduced trust in the professionalism and quality of our educators. Believing in their abilities and trusting in their expertise to know their students would lift the learning of all students in the best ways for them, not just for their test scores.
- Listen to students. With disengagement and mental ill-health at concerning levels, we need to put more time and resources into understanding the experiences of students in our schools.
It is interesting to think about this alongside Peter DeWitt’s discussion of de-implementation. Although I assume DeWitt is talking about focusing at a local level, I wonder if the real challenge in regards to de-implementation is actually at a systems level?
