Naplan Testing – an exploration of its shortcomings and how Sapphire can improve the assessment process
The 2019 Naplan results released in late August have again sent the Australian education system into a spin.
Since it’s conception and launch in 2008 by the Rudd Government, controversy has surrounded the standardised test, the 2019 results are no exception to this.
After just over a decade since its inception, the 2019 results show 97% of Year three students either met or exceeded the national minimum standard, with this figure dropping to 82.9% for students in Year nine. This shows that Less than 12% of students in this same cohort, tested in Year three, are achieving the same results by the time they get to Year 9.
Naplan was never designed to improve student performance, which raises the question; Does Naplan cause more problems than it solves?
Perhaps schools, the education system in general and the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) should invest in the Sapphire marking software to really hone into student assessment results as they are marked, thus, complimenting the Naplan system already in place.
The system developed by Sapphire Key Solutions provides teachers essential tools that enable them to actually improve their students’ performance by providing immediate and visible data for them to analyse and then assist students in gaining the best possible results. This would then negate the stress that Naplan can put some students under. Particularly Secondary students who report feeling more pressure to perform as the bar is raised.
Unlike other marking and assessment software, Sapphire is the only platform that can provide analysis on all subject assessments and provide accurate results through time.
The results of individual student learning outcomes can then be interpreted very easily via the use of one-click-graphs.
An additional benefit is teachers can analyse student learnings immediately, therefore, they’re able to pinpoint exactly what individual students have mastered and what areas require more attention, providing them a very clear picture of students’ strengths and weaknesses.
Further to this, students who face similar challenges in the same subjects can be placed in groups and strategies to support them to improve their performance can be implemented and facilitated by teachers.
Once schools are better equipped to monitor student performance and understand individual students’ strengths and weaknesses, they can set their teachings according to their findings. Perhaps then Naplan results will become more meaningful and transparent.
If you want to learn more about us, please visit: