Standardised+testing+and+it's+effects+on+Personalised+Learning

“Saving the best question for last, eh?” was the immediate response from Bungendore Public School teacher, Mr. Dawson, after we asked about Australia’s national standardised test known as NAPLAN. After hearing a bit about the controversy surrounding NAPLAN we decided to look further in to it during our visit to Bungendore Public School, a primary school about a half an hour drive outside of Canberra. NAPLAN, which stands for National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy, is a annual national test taken by all Australian students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. Although Australian schools have seen a yearly standardised test for quite some time now, it was only in January 2010 that the results of this test could be accessed online. The website //My School// allows teachers, parents and students to see how different schools compare in their NAPLAN results. One will most likely immediately see the issues surrounding a comparison of schools depending on how each did in just the one test. Although there are some positives with standardised testing across schools, there is a significant amount of negatives. These include a socioeconomic bias, more stress on teachers and students, a stronger focus on literacy and numeracy with less attention going towards the arts, and teaching strategies being influenced by the test. These in combination could be detrimental to the implementation of personalised learning in primary schools. As mentioned in this quote, standardised testing enables schools to see which areas within the school need more attention. Furthermore, educators and policy makers can see which schools are doing well, and then look further into the successful methods these schools are using. In addition to this, results can reveal which students need more support, and therefore appropriate measures can be put in place for these children.
 * NAPLAN: Standardised testing and it’s effects on Personalised Learning **
 * Positives**
 * Negatives**

The funding of schools is dependent on test outcomes, as well as decisions about staffing. Therefore, more pressure may be put on teachers to ensure their students perform well. This in turn can change teaching strategies, so that teaching and learning is more tailored towards the test, rather than individual student development.

In addition to this, Saha and Dworkin (2009) argue that with the introduction of NAPLAN, we are likely to see bureaucratic accountability rather than professional accountability. Bureaucratic accountability focuses on test scores, and teachers will make recommendations for students on the basis of results on single standardised tests. This is predicted to result in greater likelihood of teacher burnout and turnover, as well as teacher cynicism. Professional accountability, on the other hand, focuses on learning and teaching styles, and results in professional development. Furthermore, NAPLAN testing and the introduction of //MySchool// is argued to dehumanise teachers. The //MySchool// website provides information for teachers on how to improve their professional practice, therefore meaning teacher education is informed by NAPLAN results (Hardy & Boyle, 2011). Hardy and Boyle (2011) argue that improved test scores in the NAPLAN are of importance for teachers and schools, and this is reinforced through the introduction of websites that allow students to practice for the tests. In turn, teachers are able to see which questions students are getting wrong, and therefore can give the students certain activities that will help them improve in that specific skill. NAPLAN is also a form of myopic policy borrowing, in which the idea was borrowed off a similar type of high-stakes testing previously used in USA. In USA, it was found that teachers spent a lot of time practising for the tests, and neglected other important areas such as the arts (Parker, 2011). The test also only examines literacy and numeracy abilities, therefore ignoring other areas in which a student may be good at. During our time in Australia, although we didn’t have a significant number of formal interviews that included questions concerning NAPLAN and //My School//, the hostility surrounding the standardised test and the publication of its results was surely noted. Just one example was during our presentation, where one mention of the word ‘NAPLAN’ was followed by a “SSSSS” sound, stirs and some laughter from the audience. NAPLAN can be detrimental to Personalised Learning in the following ways: The curriculum becomes more focused on literacy and numeracy. One head teacher we interviewed said that teachers can even unconsciously teach towards standardised testing: “I know that when you do assessment tasks with your class, sometimes you subconsciously lead them in the right direction just by the way in which you word things or you say things” – Head Teacher As mentioned previously by Mr. Dawson, standardised testing is being weaved into the curriculum, with teachers even giving homework that will help for the test, and therefore assessment becomes for learning and not of learning.
 * Impact on Personalised Learning**
 * **Curriculum entitlement and choice:**
 * **Assessment for learning:**
 * [[image:learningschool13/Slide7.jpg]] ||  ||

Although Australian primary schools are very much in favour of personalised learning, and don’t differ too greatly from those primary schools we visited in Scotland and USA, where personalised learning was incredibly notable and practiced, Australia is currently facing an issue that could significantly defer the implementation of personalised learning. However, a remarkable amount of research is being done on high-stakes testing in Australia, with many academics publicly announcing their disproval of NAPLAN and //My School//. Many citizens are optimistic that //My School// will not be around for too much longer.
 * Conclusions**



Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2010) Hardy, I. & Boyle, C. (2011), ‘My School? Critiquing the abstraction and quantification of education’, //Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39,// pp. 211-222. Parker, M. (2011), //My School//, Random House Australia: Sydney. Saha, L. J., & Zubrzycki, J. (1997), ‘Classical sociological theories of education’, in //The International Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Education//, edited by L. J. Saha. Pergamon Press: Oxford, pp. 11-21. Sydney Morning Herald (2012), ‘Debate rages as students sit NAPLAN’, //Sydney Morning Herald,// 15 May 2012,
 * References**