How teachers in Edmund Rice schools enact the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN)

The purpose of this study is to explore how teachers in Catholic Schools in the Edmund Rice Tradition (EREA schools) enact the National Assessment Plan – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). These schools have approximately 36 000 students across Australia and were previously administered by the Congregation of Christian Brothers.

The following specific research questions were generated from the Literature Review to focus the study:

1. How do teachers in EREA Schools understand NAPLAN?
2. How do teachers’ beliefs about education influence their perspectives on NAPLAN?
3. How are teachers’ educational practices influenced by NAPLAN?

Teachers’ responses to NAPLAN were explored through the theoretical perspective of interpretivism. Understanding research through this lens critiques how people act in relation to their beliefs. In addition, this interpretive study was specifically informed by the perspective of symbolic interactionism (SI), which engages with focused understandings of how humans understand and negotiate their reality. SI asserts that people make sense of their world by interacting with others. Consequently, problems were explored through the experiences of research participants and necessarily involved the dynamic of the double hermeneutic, in which the researcher generates a defensible understanding of issues from analysing multiple participants’ understandings of the same issues.

The case study methodology was chosen to identify and orchestrate the data-gathering strategies. The strategies used were semi-structured interviews, a focus group and document analysis. In total, 62 participants contributed to this study.

The research generated nine main conclusions that contribute to new knowledge about teachers’ enactment of NAPLAN in EREA schools. First, the participants accept that teachers and schools are accountable for their actions and the performance of their school but do not accept that NAPLAN serves that purpose because of its narrow focus on literacy and numeracy. Second, teachers with responsibilities for students with additional needs are more likely to be supportive of NAPLAN because data are applied to their practices involving the identification of students with those needs. Third, school leaders are more inclined than teachers to be favourably disposed towards NAPLAN, believing that it is effective in providing strategic guidance for curriculum planning. Fourth, teachers’ perceptions of NAPLAN are influenced negatively by its association with My School. Fifth, higher stakes are associated with Year 12 certification examinations in some schools and generate a greater focus for teachers’ work than NAPLAN. Sixth, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, teachers exercise increased autonomy regarding educational practices generally, especially in enacting NAPLAN. Seventh, teachers believe that NAPLAN results are optimised if authentic teaching and learning practices are observed. Moreover, schools provide rich co-curricular and social activities as part of their provision of a holistic education. Eighth, teachers’ beliefs are loosely aligned with The Charter of EREA and with Vatican teachings on the nature of schools. Teachers’ beliefs engage with a moral purpose informed by the concept of “holistic education”. These beliefs contribute to an institutional logic of professionalism, and it is this logic that ultimately influences the enactment of NAPLAN in EREA schools. Ninth, and consequently, teachers generally enact NAPLAN passively because they receive little guidance on how it may be useful to their practices.

The research concludes by offering recommendations on how resources from NAPLAN and Scout are used in “bottom-up” initiatives that are consistent with the logic of professionalism prevalent in EREA schools. Recommendations for further research are also offered.