Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is intended to assess all Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 to ensure equity and inclusion. This paper explores the extent to which equity and inclusion are achieved for students with disability through NAPLAN reporting. Document analysis of publicly accessible NAPLAN reports, technical reports, handbooks and protocols was conducted to evaluate how this cohort is represented in NAPLAN reports. This paper demonstrates the paucity of NAPLAN reporting about students with disability. It highlights opportunities for NAPLAN data from this cohort to be reported and used to inform educational decisions at all levels (teachers, schools, systems and parents) for students with disability.

Keywords

Inclusive education educational equity (opportunities)educational accountability reporting (student achievement)assessment disability discrimination monitoring (assessment)

Introduction

The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) was established in 2008, becoming a primary mechanism by which the learning progress of all Australian students could be monitored and tracked by governments, school sectors and individual schools. One aim was to identify student groups at educational risk, which includes students with disability.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how achievements of students with disability are represented in NAPLAN reports and to identify opportunities for NAPLAN to support greater equity and inclusion for students with disability. Researchers have argued that NAPLAN does not fulfil these goals for students with disability (e.g. Cumming & Dickson, 2013; Haisken-DeNew et al., 2017). Given that a lack of inclusivity in NAPLAN has been evident through the research for many years, this paper aims to identify the extent to which progress has been made to rectify inequities in NAPLAN reporting for students with disability.

Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 undertake NAPLAN annually. NAPLAN is a series of standardised, census tests that provide an indication of student learning and progress within the domains of literacy and numeracy. The original intention of NAPLAN was to ‘identify students at an early stage who were not meeting minimum standards in literacy and numeracy’ (Parliament of Australia, 2014b, Section 2.6). It was developed to report on progress towards achievement of two primary educational goals (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2016) drawn from the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008), namely, to ensure that:

• Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence;

• All young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens (Parliament of Australia, 2014b, Section 2.4; MCEETYA, 2008).

More recently, the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Education Council, 2019) echoes the earlier goals of equity, excellence and successful learning, extending them from ‘Australian schooling’ to ‘the Australian education system’ (p. 4). The new Education Declaration also recognises the need for students to develop lifelong learning. It calls for ‘targeted support’ that helps learners from a range of disadvantaged groups, including ‘…children with disability to reach their potential’ (Education Council, 2019, p. 17).

In keeping with these goals, NAPLAN is intended to fulfil a range of purposes. Firstly, NAPLAN data supports monitoring the efficacy of programs and policies in improving student learning outcomes at the National as well as State and Territory levels (McGaw et al., 2020). At a local level, it can be used to inform school improvement (Joseph, 2018; McGaw et al., 2020). The reports provided to parents allow them to monitor how their child is progressing (Joseph, 2018; McGaw et al., 2020). Finally, it also holds schools and school systems to account for literacy and numeracy outcomes (Joseph, 2018; McGaw et al., 2020; Swain & Pendergast, 2018).

Accountability testing occurs in many countries (Torres, 2021), enabling governments to monitor the performance of schools and education systems. While NAPLAN is an accountability test (Cumming & Dickson, 2013; Joseph, 2018; McGaw et al., 2020), the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) once maintained that it was ‘low stakes’ (ACARA, 2014; Howell, 2012). However, in 2010, when NAPLAN data became publicly available through the introduction of the MySchool website, NAPLAN school level data could be compared by the public, used for school selection by parents and scrutinised by other stakeholders. This means it is now perceived by some to be ‘high stakes’ (Gorur, 2016; McGaw et al., 2020). Furthermore, NAPLAN data is linked with resourcing and funding for schools (Parliament of Australia, 2014a, Section 3.48; Davies, 2012). It is also high stakes for teachers, whose performance could be scrutinised based on how their students achieved on the test (Gorur, 2016). As Howell (2017) points out, ‘confusion is intensified by inconsistencies between claims that NAPLAN is a low-stakes test, and high stakes uses of the data’ (p. 569). These high-stakes uses of the data may influence schools’ application of NAPLAN protocols around participation.

NAPLAN is a brief point-in-time test that should not be the only source of evidence about students’ literacy and numeracy skills. However, Thompson (2013) has described NAPLAN’s negative influences on curriculum choices, pedagogy and learning opportunities. NAPLAN data needs to be considered in the broader context of delivering a rich and effective curriculum for all students.

Research into NAPLAN and students with disability

According to NAPLAN protocols, students can be exempted, withdrawn or reported absent from NAPLAN (ACARA, 2022a). Although student absences require no formal approval, student exemptions can only be granted on the grounds of having language backgrounds other than English (where the student has attended an Australian school for less than a year) or having a significant disability (ACARA, 2023a), which includes ‘students with significant intellectual disability and/or those with significant co-existing conditions which severely limit their capacity to participate in the tests’ (ACARA, 2023a, Exemptions section, para. 3).

Despite ACARA’s (2023d) assertion that ‘every effort is made to ensure it is an equitable experience, regardless of the student’s background, school location or disability’ (Who is expected to do NAPLAN? section, para. 1), there has been criticism of the way in which NAPLAN caters for students with disability and allows for their exclusion (Haisken-DeNew et al., 2017; McGaw et al., 2020; Teather & Hillman, 2017). This potential for exclusion contradicts an early focus of NAPLAN which was to identify student groups at risk (Cumming & Dickson, 2013) or students who need additional support (Adams et al., 2020), including those with disability. There is considerable research that discusses the exclusion of students with disability from NAPLAN (e.g. Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Canavan, 2017; Elliott et al., 2012; Haisken-DeNew et al., 2017; McGaw et al., 2020; Teather & Hillman, 2017).

Legislation and making disability count

In Australia, participation of students with a disability in educational accountability tests takes place within a specific social and political context. This has evolved through a series of policy and legislative decisions that are summarised in Table 1. These include the 30-year-old Discrimination Act (1992b), the Disability Standards for Education and a Parliamentary Inquiry (Parliament of Australia, 2016) into educational access and attainment for students with disability. Table 1 demonstrates the range of educational policies that have been enacted over the past 150 years in Australia. Few of these have improved our understanding of educational access and attainment of students with disability.

Table 1.

Timeline of the development of educational policies and legislation pertaining to students with disabilities in NAPLAN testing in Australia.

Date	Act, covenant or other legislative process or inquiry	Jurisdiction/Authority	Details
1872	Education Act	Victoria	Compulsory, free, secular education for all children under 15 years
1992	Disability Discrimination Act, 1992a (DDA)	Commonwealth	Objectives: To eliminate discrimination against persons on the ground of disability (last amended 03/03/22)
1999	The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for 21^st Century Schooling	MCEETYA	Goals of schooling agreed and detailed as explicit and defensible standards through which effectiveness, efficiency and equity of schooling can be measured and valued
2005	Schools Assistance Regulations – Learning Together: Achievement through choice and opportunity	MCEETYA	Outlines measurement benchmarks and standards for achievement as well as detailing funding access
2005	Disability Standards for Education 2005	DESE	Introduces reasonable adjustments and defines standards for participation and addresses measures for compliance
2008	The Melbourne Declaration	MCEETYA	Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence: ‘Provide all students with access to high quality schooling that is free from discrimination’ and aims to ‘reduce the effect of other sources of disadvantage, such as disability, homelessness, refugee status and remoteness’ (p. 7)^a
2008	National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy	ACARA	Purposes: Monitoring programs and policies; system accountability; school improvement; individual student achievement and growth; information for parents on student performance
2009	Annual NAPLAN National Reports	ACARA	Reporting of NAPLAN results becomes publicly available
2010	My school	ACARA	MySchool sparks Inquiry into NAPLAN administration and reporting
2010	Inquiry into the Administration and reporting of NAPLAN testing	Commonwealth	Recommendation 3: MCEECDYA and relevant jurisdictional Test Administration Authorities ‘look at’ and report publicly to ensure that children with disabilities are not discriminated against and denied rights to participate in NAP
2013	Australian Education Act	Commonwealth	Names assessments as key data sources for funding (NAP; NCCD; Ministerial Council Disability Guidelines; Data Standards Manual: Student Background Characteristics [ACARA]; National School Statistics Collection Manual; TIMMSS; PIRLS; PISA)
2014	Effectiveness of NAPLAN	Commonwealth	Recommendation 2: ‘…when designing adaptive testing for NAPLAN Online the needs of students with disability are taken into account’ (Parliament of Australia, 2014a)^b
2016	Parliamentary Inquiry	Commonwealth	Title: Current levels of access and attainment for students with disability in the school system, and the impact on students and families associated with inadequate levels of support. The inquiry made 10 recommendations about supporting people with disability to be educated
2018	National Consistent Collection of Data for Students with Disability established	ACARA	The first count and characterisation of the needs of students with disabilities. Allows for distribution of funding for education from the Commonwealth
2018	NAPLAN online and adaptive	ACARA	Adaptive online testing is trialled and equated to paper-based testing across Australia
2018	National Schools Reform Agreement	Council of Australian Governments	The National School Reform Agreement is a joint agreement between the Commonwealth, States and Territories to lift student outcomes across Australian Schools. It specifies the objectives, outcomes and measures by which the agreement will be shown to meet its stated aims
2019	Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration	Education Council	‘Supporting all young Australians at risk of educational disadvantage’ and ‘Targeted support can help learners such as … children with disability to reach their potential’ (p. 17)^c
2019	Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Initiated)	Commonwealth of Australia	Investigating prevention and protection of people with disability from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Due to report 29 September 2023
2020	NAPLAN not delivered due to COVID-19	ACARA	COVID-19 pandemic. NAPLAN was not administered
2022	Full online delivery of NAPLAN nationally	ACARA
2023	Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Concluded)	Commonwealth of Australia	The release of the final report of the Royal Commission, in particular Volume 7. Summary and recommendations, which details recommendations including the importance of NAPLAN reporting especially recommendation 7.9

^aMinisterial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534449.pdf.

^bParliament of Australia (2014b). The Impacts of NAPLAN. In The effectiveness of the National Assessment Program - Literacy and numeracy (Chapter 3). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/Naplan13/Report/b01.

^cEducation Council (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. https://www.dese.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration.

A confounding factor in this lack of understanding is that the number of students with disability in Australia is unclear. Based on data collected by the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD), ACARA (2023e) reports that 24.2% of students enrolled in Australian schools had a disability in 2023. In contrast, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2022) states that students with disability constitute around 10% of the school-aged population, while the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2019) reported 7.7% of children (approximately 357,500) under 15 as having a disability in 2018. These population discrepancies may be attributed to the way in which disability is interpreted, recognised or defined across data sources, whether it be from parents, schools or medical professionals. This lack of clarity reduces the possibility of representing the population of students with disability accurately.

Disparity in defining the population of students with disability may also be attributed to a lack of clarity in the Disability Discrimination Act (1992a) (Cth), from which the NCCD draws its definition of disability. The Act defines the breadth of the term¹ and context of the disability, stating it ‘…includes a disability that: (h) presently exists; or (i) previously existed but no longer exists; or (j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or (k) is imputed to a person’ (S.4.1) [emphasis added]. According to the NCCD, imputation of a disability means that a school may establish reasonable grounds to make a judgement that a student has disability in the absence of a formal medical diagnosis (NCCD, 2021a). This has implications for determining participation rates of students with disability in NAPLAN.

While the true size of the population of students with disability is uncertain, it is evident that they are a population at risk. In 2018, approximately 34% of people with a disability aged 20 and over had completed Year 12 or equivalent compared with around 66% of people without disability (AIHW, 2022). It is also worth noting that people living with disability have lower employment rates (53.4% compared with 84.1% of people without disability [ABS, 2020]). Given that educational attainment is still an area of inequity for people living with disability, large-scale standardised tests, like NAPLAN, could provide a means of monitoring the effectiveness of schooling for this group, if the tests were fit for purpose and if the population parameters were known. Furthermore, data from standardised tests may provide impetus for greater focus on government-funded support to improve educational outcomes for students with disability, as per NAPLAN’s original intention.

The Disability Discrimination Act (1992a) (Cth) and the Disability Standards for Education (2005) (the Standards) were established to provide clarification and elaboration of legal obligations in relation to the education of students with disability. The Standards are legally binding (Cumming & Dickson, 2013; Department of Education, Skills and Employment [DESE], 2020) and refer to students with disability having the right to access education ‘on the same basis’ as students without disability (s.2.2). To achieve this, the Standards refer to the schools’ and other education providers’² obligation to implement ‘reasonable adjustments’ (s.3.4).

In educational assessment, adjustments are ‘measures or actions … taken by an education provider’ (The Standards, s3.3) that should minimise the impact of traits associated with the disability. In assessment, adjustments should not be relevant to the construct that is being assessed (Camara, 2009), enabling the student to demonstrate their knowledge and skill without changing the construct. By addressing a functional impairment, an appropriate adjustment enables more valid inferences to be made about the student’s proficiency in the area that is being assessed (Kettler, 2012). Kettler (2012) asserts that adjustments should be made based on both the individual characteristics of the student with disability and the assessment task and constructs that are being assessed.

A wide range of adjustments is described in the literature (Cormier et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2016; Gibson et al., 2005; Strnadová et al., 2020), and some authors have commented on the ‘…substantial research attention…’ (Elliott et al., 2012) to testing adjustments. Research into the effectiveness of assessment-based adjustments is evolving internationally (Albus et al., 2020; Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Elliott et al., 2010; Gibson et al., 2005). However, research findings in this area are inconsistent (Cormier et al., 2010) and may demonstrate limited efficacy of these adjustments (Douglas et al., 2016; Tai et al., 2022). Analysis of adjustment data from NAPLAN could provide an opportunity for greater understanding of how well the adjustments for students with disability support them. However, there has been criticism of the adjustments available to enable students with disability to access NAPLAN testing (Cumming & Dickson, 2013; Jenkin et al., 2018).

There is a paucity of research into how NAPLAN data are gathered, analysed and reported for those students with disabilities who are accommodated to participate. To address this, the present study investigates the following questions:

• To what extent are the data pertaining to students with disability analysed and reported?

• To what extent do the sanctioned adjustments support students with disability to demonstrate what they know and can do as assessed by NAPLAN?

• What gaps exist in the collection and reporting of NAPLAN data for students with disability?

Method

The current study seeks to explore the presence of students with disability in NAPLAN data and critically analyse what this means for educational provision for this group of students.

Data collection

Documents dating back to 2008 were collated from primary sources including current and historic NAPLAN National Protocols, historic NAPLAN National Reports and NAPLAN Technical Reports from the NAPLAN website (ACARA, 2023b) (see Table 2). Handbooks, Guidelines and Protocols were accessed from the NAPLAN website and from two State-based Test Administration Authorities (TAAs) websites from Queensland and Victoria (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2022; Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2022). The National and Technical Reports were analysed in depth. TAA documents were excluded after consistency was established with the National Protocols in relation to adjustments for students with disability.

Table 2.

NAPLAN documents analysed.

Document type	n	Length of document	Analysis focus	Purpose of the document
National Protocols for Test Administration	4	205–558 pages	Sanctioned adjustments for students with disability	Management of NAPLAN test security, test environment and factors that might ensure valid, reliable, nationally comparable results
National Protocols for Test Administration	4	205–558 pages	Sanctioned adjustments for students with disability	Instructions on the testing adjustments for students with disability
NAPLAN National Reports	13	205–558 pages	Thematic analysis of references to students with disability	Reporting NAPLAN results across states, systems, grades and key learning areas of assessments
NAPLAN Technical Reports	7	185–656 pages	Thematic analysis of references to data about students with disability	Reporting statistical analyses undertaken to link NAPLAN results over time and equate different test modalities (online, paper-based, adaptive)
NAPLAN Handbooks (State and Territory)	2	N/A	To ensure consistency of sanctioned adjustment protocols with National guidelines	State and Territory specifications of NAPLAN protocols, including sanctioned adjustments

Data analysis

Originally, the authors intended to conduct a thematic analysis of NAPLAN documents (Bowen, 2009; Braun & Clarke, 2006) using reflexive thematic analysis (Morgan, 2022) to explore latent meaning. This approach ‘relies on the researchers being alert to the social political and cultural factors that influence their perspectives’ (Morgan, 2022, p. 73) and the perspectives of the people they study. However, NAPLAN documents were found to contain too few references to students with disabilities to conduct a thematic analysis. Documentary analysis was therefore used (Cohen et al., 2007). Documentary study supports longitudinal analyses, allowing researchers to demonstrate how NAPLAN’s reporting of students with disability has evolved over time (Cohen et al., 2007).

NAPLAN documents published between 2008 and 2022 were searched. Preliminary analysis of each document type (see Table 2) determined the structure of each document. Documents were then compared for potential redundancies, iterations and information that could be used to corroborate evidence across sources (Cohen et al., 2007). This enabled researchers to identify what data are collected about students with disabilities in NAPLAN and revealed that none of these data are reported.

NAPLAN Protocols, National Reports and Technical Reports are lengthy (see Table 2). The documents were searched using nomenclature associated with assessment of students with disability. The contexts for each instance of searched terms were examined to identify whether the terms were used in relation to students with disability or within different contexts (such as statistical applications). Search terms and results of this analysis are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Disability terminology by NAPLAN National Reports.

Report year	Terminology used when referring to students with disability
	Disabilit/ies	Accommodat/ed/ion/es	Adjust/ment/ed/ing		Accessib/le/ilty		Modify/ying/ication		Exemption/ing/ed		Withdr/awn/ew		Participant/pated/pation)
	n	n	Other Ref N	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref N	Other Ref n	Disability Ref, n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n
2021	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	312	1	91	0	293	0
2019	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	344	1	119	0	365	0
2018	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	333	1	118	0	365	0
2017	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	342	1	121	0	364	0
2016	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	347	1	118	0	358	0
2015	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	338	1	116	0	342	0
2014	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	337	1	115	0	341	0
2013	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	340	1	108	0	334	0
2012	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	307	1	92	0	262	0
2011	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	303	1	85	0	261	0
2010	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	292	1	30	0	203	0
2009	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	235	1	10	0	151	0
2008	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	512	1	140	0	217	0

Results

A unifying theme that emerged was the absence of students with disability from reporting. Students with disability were referenced in relation to sanctioned educational adjustments (in the Protocols), and withdrawal and exemption (in the reports).

NAPLAN National Protocols

The National Protocols outline the sanctioned adjustments available to students with disability to enable access and participation. Adjustments as specified in the National Protocols for NAPLAN between 2012 and 2022 were analysed. Table 4 shows that these were largely identical between 2012 and 2022, bar the addition of alternative items for online testing. Schools were expected to consult with their TAAs regarding adjustments for students (ACARA, 2022a, Protocol 1.0.4, p. 4) and encode adjustments in the school data entry platform (ACARA, 2022a, Protocol 3.2.1, p. 8). However, the National Reports do not mention encoded adjustments.

Table 4.

Sanctioned adjustments as reported in the National Protocol documents by year.

Adjustments	2022	2021		2019		2012^a
Adjustments	Online	Paper	Online	Paper	Online	Paper
NAPLAN support person	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Oral sign/support	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Scribe (writing task)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rest breaks	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Extra Time – 1 minute for every 6 minutes of test time	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^b	Yes^c	Yes^b
Extra Time – 1 minute for every 3 minutes of test time	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^b	Yes^c	Yes^b
Extra Time – 1 minute for every 2 minutes of test time	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^b	Yes^c	Yes^b
Extra Time – double total test time	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes^c	No
Extra Time – 5 minutes per half-hour	N/A	Yes	N/A	Yes	N/A	Yes
Assistive technology (browser that allows setting manipulation i.e. customised pointing devices, keyboards, software access, etc.)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (screen reader)
Computer	Yes (Year 3)^d	Yes	Yes (Year 3)^d	Yes	No (Year 3)^e	No
Electronic test	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Colour contrast modification	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Braille, large print, black and white, electronic test format	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Alternative items – audio	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Alternative items – visual	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Black text with white background (use with COL and system settings to invert colours for white text with black background)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Black text with blue background (or coloured paper or overlay)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^f
Black text with lilac background (or coloured paper or overlay)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^f
Black text with green background (or coloured paper or overlay)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^f
Black text with yellow background (or coloured paper or overlay)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes^f

^aNo substantive changes were made to adjustments from 2012 to 2018.

^b‘…however, in some cases, up to an additional 15 minutes per half hour of published test time may be provided’ (ACARA, 2019, pp. 21-22; ACARA, 2012, p. 20).

^c‘…depending on the level of disability or logistics involved with the use of assistive technology, a longer time may be needed. In any case, the teacher and school are best placed to make a final decision based on the specific circumstances of the student in question, in line with TAA requirements’ (ACARA, 2019, p. 20).

^dAll NAPLAN will be conducted online in 2022, except Year 3 writing, which is completed on paper (ACARA, 2022a).

^eA scribe is assigned ‘Please note for Year 3 writing, the paper test scribe rules apply’ (ACARA, 2012, p. 18 footnote).

^f‘Coloured Overlays’ (ACARA, 2012).

The National Protocols also require data for withdrawals and exemptions to be submitted to TAAs (ACARA, 2022a, Section 3.1.2, p. 8). Participation of students with disability is largely defined in terms of withdrawals and exemptions. For instance, section 5.2 of the Protocol (2022) states that: ‘Students with significant intellectual disability and/or students with significant comorbidity³ that severely limit their capacity to participate in the tests may be exempt from taking NAPLAN’ (p. 13). Exemptions are decided by agreement between the principal and parent/carer, who concur that a student is not able to access the tests, even with adjustments. Reasons for exemptions must be documented (ACARA, 2022a, Section 5.2, p. 13), and exempted students are recorded as participants who are below national minimum standards. The National Reports do not include reasons for students being withdrawn nor do they report them under categories of exemption.

NAPLAN National Reports

Analysis of the NAPLAN National Reports revealed no information about the achievement of students with disability nor adjustments they received as shown in Table 3. Reasons for this are unclear. However, data sharing restrictions, data privacy concerns and other legislative concerns related to the sharing of health information (such as disability diagnoses) between legal jurisdictions could be contributing factors.

Analysis also revealed that the performance of different student groups is reported including State or Territory, sex, Indigenous status, geolocation, LBOTE status, parental education, and parental occupation. However, performance of students with disability is not reported. Participation rates are also reported along with overall exemptions, withdrawals and absences for States and Territories as well as for Indigenous students. However, the participation of LBOTE students and students with disability is not reported.

NAPLAN Technical Reports

NAPLAN Technical Reports provide information about how NAPLAN data are analysed. It was found that achievement data for students with disability are not discussed in the Technical Reports. However, data about exemptions, withdrawals and absence have been analysed here because students with disability may be included in each of these categories. Both the Technical Reports and the National Reports indicate that exempted student data are treated as assessed and pooled into ‘below National minimum standards’. However, deficit assumptions and subsequent treatment of exemption data may not provide an accurate representation of this cohort of students. As Cumming and Dickson (2013) state, ‘It should not be assumed that students with disability are also low academic achievers’ (p. 232).

Statistical imputations are made for students who are absent or withdrawn based on demographic information. No testing adjustments for students with disability are discussed in the reports. However, statistical adjustments are reported (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Disability terminology by NAPLAN Technical Reports.

Report year	Terminology used when referring to students with disability
	Disabilit/ies	Accommodat/ed/ion/es	Adjust/ment/ed/ing		Accessib/le/ilty		Modify/ying/ication		Exemption/ing/ed		Withdr/awn/ew		Participant/pated/pation)
	n	n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref, n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n	Other Ref n	Disability Ref n
2019	1	0	21	0	0	4	7	0	2	1	3	0	18	0
2018	1	0	50	0	1	0	3	0	24	1	26	0	0	0
2017	1	0	66	0	1	0	3	0	24	1	28	0	38	0
2016	1	1	18	0	1	0	1	0	26	1	29	0	31	0
2015	1	0	19	0	1	0	1	0	26	1	29	0	27	0
2014	1	0	19	0	1	0	1	0	26	1	29	0	27	0
2013	1	0	19	0	0	0	1	0	26	1	29	0	24	0

Discussion

To what extent are the data pertaining to students with disability analysed and reported?

This study finds that NAPLAN documents demonstrate a conspicuous absence of reporting about students with disability that has persisted over the life of the assessment, despite assertions that students with disability are encouraged to participate in NAPLAN (ACARA, 2023c). It is also despite the legislative requirement that was introduced after NAPLAN began that the performance of students with disability be reported (Schools Assistance Regulations, 2009, s. 3). Since 2008, every NAPLAN National Report has referenced the term ‘students with disability’ only in the context of exemption from assessment. There is no mention of their achievement nor information to track the educational progress of this at-risk group despite data from other at-risk groups being reported and analysed (e.g. Adams et al., 2020; Cumming et al., 2020; Dixon & Angelo, 2014). This appears to be contrary to the stated purpose of NAPLAN to identify students at risk and could present an underexplored opportunity to support the provision of universal education for students with disability. There is further opportunity to ensure that NAPLAN reporting practices are consistent with the recent National School Reform Agreement (2018) and the current Schools Assistance Act 2008: Administrative Guidelines (Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2013). There is also scope for aligning NAPLAN with Australia’s inclusive education agenda and with recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Commonwealth of Australia, 2023).

The invisibility of the cohort of students with disability in NAPLAN reports also raises questions regarding collection of data that may never be used for the benefit of students with disability. It appears to contrast ACARA’s assertion that NAPLAN is inclusive of students with disability (ACARA, 2021b; 2021a, November 12). The extent to which students with disability are withdrawn for ‘philosophical objections to testing’ as per National Protocol 5.3.1 (ACARA, 2022a, p. 14) is not reported. Absentee data regarding this cohort are also unreported. This has implications for interpreting ‘statistically imputed’ performance descriptions for students who are withdrawn or absent. Although this expression has a clear statistical meaning, imputation may be based on data that misrepresents students in these categories, which may perpetuate systemic, discriminatory stereotypes of students with disability.

To what extent do the sanctioned adjustments support students with disability to demonstrate what they know and can do as assessed by NAPLAN?

No information is reported regarding the scope and nature of adjustments that are provided during NAPLAN making their efficacy unknowable. While the National Protocols require schools to record sanctioned adjustments for students with disability to enable their participation in NAPLAN, no data about sanctioned adjustments are reported at the National level. In line with Davies (2012) and Dempsey and Davies (2013), this paper finds that scrutiny of sanctioned adjustments continues to be warranted but that it is not possible when the students to which they might be applied are not visible through the reporting. Evaluation of sanctioned, reasonable adjustments could lead to broader consideration of possible adjustments and may enable greater participation of students with disability. It might also allow policy makers to determine whether the sanctioned adjustments are suitable. Analysis and review of NAPLAN adjustments may also enable greater validity in interpreting the achievements of students with disability. Not reporting these findings limits the extent to which educational decisions informed by NAPLAN data can be applied to all students universally in Australia.

NAPLAN documentation defines participation of students with disability in terms of absenteeism, exemption and withdrawal, indicating a deficit-based approach to disability. The formulas cited across reports defining participation include expressions such as:

• ‘Assessed = present + exempt’

• ‘Total number of students in year level = assessed + absent + withdrawn’ (sic: NAPLAN report, Terms used in this report).

However, definitions of participation were altered slightly in 2022 to ‘Participants = assessed + non-attempts + refusals + exempt’ and ‘Total number = participants + absent + withdrawn’ (sic: ACARA, 2022b, p. ix). These algorithms may create confusion when interpreting the reports, because students who did not undertake NAPLAN are included in the participant population and therefore in the total number of students.

Despite the recent alterations, these algorithms continue to render students with disability invisible by aggregating them into exempt data and, likely, hiding them within withdrawn and absentee data. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain the extent to which these students are represented in the measured cohort which necessitates caution when making inferences about them (e.g. Thompson et al., 2018).

An explanation and justification may be warranted for the reasoning behind the statistical treatment of exemptions, withdrawals and absences in the Technical Reports. Exempt students’ data are included in the analysis as ‘assessed’ and deemed ‘below National Minimum Standard (NMS)’ (e.g. ACARA, 2021b; 2021a, p. viii). This process of exemptions assumes that those with ‘significant disabilities’ (who may be included in exempt data) are unable to demonstrate performance above the minimum standard within the constructs assessed. As such, NAPLAN scales may not represent all students included in this category. Because these students do not have a chance to demonstrate their level of proficiency, their proficiency cannot be known. Under current reporting methods, NAPLAN data cannot be used to monitor the effectiveness of funding for students with disability (Haisken-DeNew et al., 2017) nor the effectiveness of support programs, nor educational adjustments.

With NAPLAN’s full transition to online adaptive testing in 2022, ACARA (2021b, 2021a, November 12) suggests it will be more accessible to students with disabilities. However, studies have found that computer adaptive testing may pose issues of disadvantage for students who experience test anxiety (Ortner & Caspers, 2011; Ortner et al., 2014). This may impact further on the participation and achievement of some students with disabilities in NAPLAN, unless appropriate and effective adjustments are sanctioned, implemented and reported.

Data regarding students’ disability ‘levels of adjustment’ are generated by schools for the NCCD and, for students who are exempted from NAPLAN due to disability, the NCCD level is reported to TAAs. Therefore, there appears to be opportunity for performance data to be linked to students with an NCCD profile (see National Protocol, 2022, 5.2.3). ACARA and the TAAs could work together to link and report findings so that more can be gleaned about the educational experiences of students with disability through NAPLAN. Furthermore, ACARA and the TAAs may have an opportunity to report the nature of adjustments and their impact, consistent with the principles of the National School Reform Agreement (2018) and the current Schools Assistance Act 2008: Administrative Guidelines (DEEWR, 2013).

What gaps exist in the collection and reporting of NAPLAN data for students with disability?

The current study identifies the imperative not just to collect data for students with disability but to report it to ensure education is universal and inclusive in Australia. This study identifies opportunities to improve reporting clarity and to extend reporting to include links to other data sets (e.g. NCCD) so that the impact of adjustments can be made clearer and, if warranted, changed and potentially even improved. It also indicates the potential utility of reporting and analysing findings in NAPLAN relating to students with disability regarding

• the number of students concerned,

• the achievement of these students,

• suitability of adjustments for individuals and

• adequacy of scope of sanctioned adjustments.

In doing so, Australia’s education system can demonstrate intent to effect improvements in education for students with disability.

Conclusion

The original purpose of NAPLAN was to identify student groups at educational risk which makes it consistent with the aims of the National Schools Reform Agreement (Department of Education and Training, 2021). However, despite many innovations in the assessment itself and repeated recommendations for greater inclusion since its inception, improvements in identifying the needs and adjustments provided for students with disability through the NCCD have not yet been achieved through NAPLAN. This study found a lack of consistency between the reported number of students with disability registered through the NCCD and the representation of this cohort in NAPLAN reports. Improved reporting about this at-risk group and their achievement would enable educational progress to be tracked, the efficacy of educational initiatives that target them to be monitored and potentially improve access to education that is universal for all Australian students.

The findings of this study align well with the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Commonwealth of Australia, 2023) regarding the importance of fully utilising and reporting all collected data to monitor and improve the evidence base to inform inclusive education practices and policies. Data collected through NAPLAN has great potential to contribute to monitoring and reporting of education outcomes of students with disability. In doing this, NAPLAN ought to contribute to improved outcomes for this vulnerable population.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kathryn Richardson

Greta Rollo

Notes

References

Adams

E. K.

Hancock

K. J.

Taylor

C. L.

(2020). Student achievement against national minimum standards for reading and numeracy in years 3, 5, 7 and 9: A regression discontinuity analysis. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.124

Albus

D. A.

Lazarus

S. S.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2020). 2017–2018 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and English learners with disabilities (NCEO report 419). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport419.pdf

Anderson

Boyle

(2015). Inclusive education in Australia: Rhetoric, reality and the road ahead. Support for Learning, 30(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12074

Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2019). Disability, aging and carers, Australia: Summary of findings. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings/latest-release#children-with-disability

Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2020). Disability and the labour force. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/disability-and-labour-force

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2012). National protocols for test administration 2012. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/National_Protocols_for_Test_Administration_270112.pdf

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2014). NAPLAN 2014 national assessment program: Student reports. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/Student_reports_brochure_2014-web.pdf

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2016). Why NAP. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://web.archive.org/web/20160822162016/

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2019). National protocols for test administration 2019. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://web.archive.org/web/20201020004124/https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/national-protocols-for-test-administration---naplan-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=10

10.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2021a, November 12). NAPLAN accessibility [Video]. YouTube. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2nS7XD83g

11.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2021b). National assessment program: Literacy and numeracy achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy: National report for 2021. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2021-naplan-national-report.pdf

12.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2022a). NAPLAN national protocols for test administration – online 2022. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://web.archive.org/web/20220307132751/https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/naplan-national-protocols-for-test-administration---online-2022.pdf

13.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2022b). National assessment program: Literacy and numeracy: Achievement in reading, writing and numeracy: National report for 2022. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2022-naplan-national-report.pdf

14.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2023a). Student participation. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/for-schools/student-participation#:∼:text=Students_with_significant_intellectual_disability_and%2For_those_with,may_be_exempted_from_sitting_the_national_tests

15.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2023b). National reports. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://nap.edu.au/naplan/results-and-reports

16.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2023c). Adjustments for students with disability. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/school-support/adjustments-for-students-with-disability

17.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2023d). NAPLAN—general. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://nap.edu.au/naplan/faqs/naplan--general

18.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2023e). School students with disability. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/school-students-with-disability

19.

Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations . (2013). Schools assistance act 2008: Administrative guidelines. Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. https://www.education.gov.au/school-funding/resources/2013-update-schools-assistance-act-2008-administrative-guidelines

20.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare . (2022). People with disability in Australia 2022. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/3bf8f692-dbe7-4c98-94e0-03c6ada72749/aihw-dis-72-people-with-disability-in-australia-2022.pdf

21.

Bowen

(2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

22.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

23.

Camara

(2009). Validity evidence in accommodations for English language learners and students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2), 1–23. https://jattjournal.net/index.php/atp/article/view/48357.

24.

Canavan

(2017). Changes and challenges: Is our education system equipped to prepare students for a brave new world? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 25(2), 17–23. https://www.alea.edu.au/public/116/files/Resources/Members_Past_Jnls_LLMY/7_22_LLMY_v25n2_June_2017.pdf

25.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.

26.

Commonwealth of Australia . (2023). Royal commission into violence, Abuse, Neglect and exploitation of people with disability: Final report: Vol. 7. Inclusive education, employment and housing. Commonwealth of Australia. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-7-inclusive-education-employment-and-housing

27.

Cormier

D. C.

Altman

J. R.

Shyyan

Thurlow

M. L.

(2010). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007–2008 (technical report 56). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511744.pdf

28.

Cumming

Dickson

(2013). Educational accountability tests, social and legal inclusion approaches to discrimination for students with disability: A national case study from Australia. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.730499

29.

Cumming

Goldstein

Hand

(2020). Enhanced use of educational accountability data to monitor educational progress of Australian students with focus on Indigenous students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09310-x

30.

Davies

(2012). Accessibility to NAPLAN assessments for students with disabilities: A ‘fair go. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2012.7

31.

Davies

Elliott

S. N.

Cumming

(2016). Documenting support needs and adjustment gaps for students with disabilities: Teacher practices in Australian classrooms and on national tests. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(12), 1252–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1159256

32.

Dempsey

Davies

(2013). National test performance of young Australian children with additional educational needs. Australian Journal of Education, 57(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944112468700

33.

Department of Education and Training . (2021). National schools reform agreement. Department of Education and Training. https://www.education.gov.au/quality-schools-package/resources/national-school-reform-agreement

34.

Department of Education, Skills and Employment . (2020). 2020 review of the disability standards for education 2005: Discussion paper. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. https://www.education.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005/resources/2020-review-disability-standards-education-2005-discussion-paper

35.

Disability Discrimination Act . (1992a). (Cth). Disability Discrimination Act. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04426/2018-04-12/text

36.

Disability Standards for Education . (2005). (Cth). Disability Standards for Education. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767

37.

Discrimination Act . (1992b). (Cth). Discrimination Act. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00763

38.

Dixon

Angelo

(2014). Dodgy data, language invisibility and the implications for social inclusion: A critical analysis of indigenous student language data in Queensland schools. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.3.02dix

39.

Douglas

McLinden

Robertson

Travers

Smith

(2016). Including pupils with special educational needs and disability in national assessment: Comparison of three country case studies through an inclusive assessment framework. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63(1), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1111306

40.

Education Council . (2019). The Alice Springs (mparntwe) education declaration. Education Council. https://www.education.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration

41.

Elliott

S. N.

Davies

Kettler

R. J.

(2012). Australian students with disabilities accessing NAPLAN: Lessons from a decade of inclusive assessment in the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654934

42.

Elliott

S. N.

Kettler

R. J.

Beddow

P. A.

Kurz

Compton

McGrath

Bruen

Hinton

Palmer

Rodriguez

M. C.

Bolt

Roach

A. T.

(2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600406

43.

Gibson

Haeberli

F. B.

Glover

T. A.

Witter

E. A.

(2005). Use of recommended and provided testing accommodations I. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503100103

44.

Gorur

(2016). The performative politics of NAPLAN and MySchool. In Lingard

Thompson

Sellar

(Eds.), National testing in schools: An Australian assessment. Routledge.

45.

Haisken-DeNew

Polidano

Ryan

(2017). Early academic outcomes of funded children with disability (working paper no. 29/17). Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research. https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=2531573

46.

Howell

(2012). The silent voice in the NAPLAN debate: Exploring children’s lived experiences of the test. [Paper presentation]. Joint AARE/APERA conference, Sydney. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2012/Howell12.pdf

47.

Howell

(2017). Because then you could never ever get a job!’: Children’s constructions of NAPLAN as high-stakes. Journal of Education Policy, 32(5), 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1305451

48.

Jenkin

Spivakovsky

Joseph

Smith

(2018). Improving educational outcomes for children with disability in Victoria: Final report. Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University. https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/257778184/257778112_oa.pdf

49.

Joseph

(2018). Why we need NAPLAN. Centre for Independent Studies. https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2018/05/rr36.pdf

50.

Kettler

(2012). Testing accommodations: Theory and research to inform practice. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654952

51.

McGaw

Louden

Wyatt-Smith

(2020). NAPLAN review: Final report. New South Wales Department of Education. https://naplanreview.com.au/pdfs/2020_NAPLAN_review_final_report.pdf

52.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs . (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. https://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-93985-20090206-1100-www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

53.

Morgan

(2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044

54.

Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students With Disability . (2021a). Imputing disability for the NCCD. [Video transcript]. Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students With Disability. https://www.nccd.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/Animation_Transcript_3.txt

55.

Ortner

T. M.

Caspers

(2011). Consequences of test anxiety on adaptive versus fixed item testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000062

56.

Ortner

T. M.

Weißkopf

Koch

(2014). I will probably fail: Higher ability students’ motivational experiences during adaptive achievement testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000168

57.

Parliament of Australia . (2014a). The impacts of NAPLAN. In The effectiveness of the national assessment program - literacy and numeracy. Parliament of Australia. (Chapter 3). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/Naplan13/Report/c03

58.

Parliament of Australia . (2014b). NAPLAN’s objectives. In The effectiveness of the national assessment program - literacy and numeracy. Parliament of Australia. (Chapter 2). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/Naplan13/Report/c02

59.

Parliament of Australia . (2016). Current levels of access and attainment for students with disability in the school system, and the impact on students and families associated with inadequate levels of support. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/students_with_disability/

60.

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority . (2022). NAPLAN handbook for principals and coordinators-Online. Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. https://web.archive.org/web/20230814165002/

61.

Schools Assistance Regulations . (2009). (Cth). Schools Assistance Regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2009L02456

62.

Strnadová

Dowse

Danker

Tso

(2020). A review and synthesis of educational supports for students with disability: Evidence-based practices in Australia. Summary report. University of New South Wales. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/disability-learning-and-support/our-disability-strategy/UNSW-Summary-Report_-__Review-and-Synthesis-of-Educational-Supports-for-Students-with-Disability.pdf

63.

Swain

Pendergast

(2018). Student voice: Student feelings as they journey through National Assessment (NAPLAN). Australian Journal of Education, 62(2), 108–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944118779602

64.

Tai

Ajjawi

Bearman

Dargusch

Dracup

Harris

Mahoney

(2022). Reimagining exams: How do assessment adjustments impact on inclusion? National centre for student equity in higher education. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Tai_Deakin_Final.pdf

65.

Teather

Hillman

(2017). The invisible students with disabilities in the Australian education system. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(6), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2017-0029

66.

Thompson

(2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 62–84. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017709.pdf

67.

Thompson

Adie

Klenowski

(2018). Validity and participation: Implications for school comparison of Australia’s national assessment program. Journal of Education Policy, 33(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1373407

68.

Torres

(2021). Does test-based school accountability have an impact on student achievement and equity in education? A panel approach using pisa. (OECD working paper No. 250). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/0798600f-en

69.

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority . (2022). Handbook for principals – NAPLAN online. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/naplan/publications/2022/2022HandbookforPrincipalsOnline.pdf

The invisible cohort: Reporting of students with disability in the national assessment program for literacy and numeracy

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Research into NAPLAN and students with disability

Legislation and making disability count

Method

Data collection

Data analysis

Results

NAPLAN National Protocols

NAPLAN National Reports

NAPLAN Technical Reports

Discussion

To what extent are the data pertaining to students with disability analysed and reported?

To what extent do the sanctioned adjustments support students with disability to demonstrate what they know and can do as assessed by NAPLAN?

What gaps exist in the collection and reporting of NAPLAN data for students with disability?

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Notes

References