Despite being a fixture of school education for 17 years, NAPLAN’s purpose remains under the microscope, with many experts questioning whether it is too narrow a measure of student progress.
A growing body of research shows NAPLAN heightens student stress, narrows the curriculum and pushes high-stakes testing over learning. It has also failed to lift academic achievement, leading to calls for the assessment to be replaced with a fairer, more supportive assessment system focused on genuine learning and student wellbeing.
Professor Jim Tognolini is Director of the Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment at the Sydney School of Education and Social Work, where he researches testing, assessment, educational measurement, standard setting, psychometrics, and teacher performance assessment.
He says NAPLAN’s design isn’t the problem—it’s what has been done with it that’s distorting classrooms and trust.
“As teachers and parents, we all want fair and useful assessments that support – not overshadow – children’s learning,” Professor Tognolini told The Educator. “NAPLAN was designed as a helpful check-in – not a high-stakes judgement.”
Professor Tognolini says while there is a lot of evidence that suggests the assessment is an effective measure, its misuse as a measure of school or teacher quality—and for student selection—creates pressure, narrows learning, and undermines trust, reducing the test’s fairness and intended value.
“What has gone wrong is that they have been used as a proxy measure of overall school or teacher quality, and in some cases, used to influence student selection into programs – far beyond the intended scope of the tests,” he said.
“It is these misuses that create pressure on schools, narrow classroom focus, and detract from the effectiveness – and fairness – of NAPLAN.”
Professor Tognolini said a fair test isn’t just about good design – it’s about how the results are used.
“If results are interpreted in ways that weren’t intended, they lose their value and can even harm trust in the system. There are some exciting ideas worth exploring, such as testing a sample of students instead of everyone, including broader skills like critical thinking and communication,” he said.
“However, unless we can agree on the purposes of the tests, and stick to using and interpreting the results in a way that is consistent with the purpose, no change will benefit our children or our school system.”
What teachers and principals think about NAPLAN
Many principals and teachers across Australia have pointed out that socioeconomic disadvantage – not educators and leaders – is the greatest barrier to student achievement and until this addressed, persistent achievement gaps are likely to remain.
In a statement following the release of the NAPLAN national results, the Australian Secondary Principals’ Association said it “strongly rejected” any interpretation of the results that places yet more responsibility on educators.
ASPA president, Andy Mison, said teachers are not failing students – students and families are “being failed by systems that treat equity as optional.”
“For too long, NAPLAN’s annual release has been framed as a ‘crisis’ that demoralises educators and distracts from systemic solutions,” Mison said.
“Teachers hear ‘code red’ rhetoric, not ‘we trust you to teach.’ Rather than blaming teachers, we must support rural and remote schools to retain educators and reduce unsustainable workloads.”
Pointing to the data from the 2025 results that show just 22.8% of students from very remote schools achieved “Strong” or “Exceeding” levels in reading compared to 71.9% of students from major city schools, Mison said this gap “reflects systemic disadvantages no individual teacher can overcome.”
Professor Tognolini said while most of the views that emerge from research tend to be critical and focus on the negative impact of NAPLAN on teaching, curriculum and wellbeing, none of the criticisms relate to the NAPLAN tests themselves.
“They are related to the misuse and misunderstanding associated with the test results,” he said.
“In my opinion, teachers and principals have the most confidence in the information that comes from the daily interactions [assessments] teachers have with students and informs their day-to-day professional judgement about what to do next for each individual student.”
Professor Tognolini said that, ultimately, NAPLAN is viewed as a limited snapshot: one additional data point in a much richer, more nuanced mosaic of student progress.
“It cannot – and should not – supplant the depth of information derived from daily classroom engagement,” he said.
“How can a single test administered once every two years replace the myriad of interactions that teachers have with their students on a daily basis?”