Susy Macqueen|Ute Knoch|Gillian Wigglesworth|Rachel Nordlinger|Ruth Singer|Tim McNamara|Rhianna Brickle
The impact of national standardized literacy and numeracy testing on children and teaching staff in remote Australian Indigenous communities
Australian National University|University of Melbourne|University of Melbourne|University of Melbourne|University of Melbourne|University of Melbourne|University of Melbourne
educational testing intended consequences assumed beneficial tests may also unintended negative consequences messick 1989 issue particularly important case largescale standardized tests australias national assessment program literacy numeracy naplan intended benefits increased accountability improved educational outcomes naplan purpose comparable state national core skills testing programs evaluate crosssections populations order compare results population subgroupings comparisons underpin accountability era populationlevel testing study investigates impact naplan testing one population grouping prominent naplan results comparisons public reporting children remote indigenous communities series interviews principals teachers documents informants firsthand experiences use effects naplan schools views participants language content test instruments nature test engagement test washback negative impacts students staff little benefit terms usefulness test data primary issue fact meaningful participation tests depends critically proficiency standard australian english sae first language study contributes broader discussion reformtargeted standardized testing national populations affects subgroups treated equitably test instrument reporting accountability purposes highlights conflict consequential validity notion accountability drives reformtargeted testing