Report on NAPLAN Results and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Assessing Educational Outcomes Against SDG 4

The National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is an annual assessment for students in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 across Australia. Its function is to provide data on individual and school-level performance, thereby informing policy and evaluating the nation’s progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Recent national results indicate significant challenges in meeting key educational benchmarks. With one-third of students failing to meet proficiency expectations in literacy and numeracy, there is a clear imperative to examine the systemic factors hindering the achievement of SDG 4 targets, particularly Target 4.1 (quality primary and secondary education) and Target 4.6 (youth literacy and numeracy).

Analysis of National Performance and Implications for SDG Targets

Key Findings: A Gap in Foundational Skills

The latest NAPLAN data reveals a persistent gap in foundational skills, which are critical for lifelong learning and achieving SDG Target 4.4 (skills for employment and entrepreneurship). According to Dr. Jordana Hunter of the Grattan Institute, these applied literacy and numeracy skills are essential for daily life, from managing a business to engaging with cultural activities.

The national performance falls short of the aspirational goal of having 90 percent of students in the top two proficiency standards. Currently, only two-thirds of students are achieving at the “Exceeding” or “Strong” level. This one-third of students not meeting expectations represents a significant cohort at risk of falling behind, which directly impacts Australia’s ability to deliver on its commitment to quality education for all.

Understanding the NAPLAN Proficiency Standards

To address educational disparities effectively, it is crucial to understand the NAPLAN performance categories:

• Exceeding: The student’s performance surpasses expectations for their year level.
• Strong: The student meets the challenging but reasonable expectations for their year level.
• Developing: The student is working towards the expected standard but is not yet meeting it.
• Needs additional support: The student is not achieving the expected learning outcomes and requires intervention.

Experts, including Glenn Fahey from the Centre for Independent Studies, have described results in the lower two bands as a “code red.” This signals an urgent need for intervention to prevent long-term educational disengagement, which can lead to negative psychological and social outcomes for students.

Addressing Inequities in Education: A Focus on SDG 10

Socioeconomic Disparities and Educational Opportunity

The results underscore the influence of socioeconomic factors on student achievement, a direct challenge to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG Target 4.5 (eliminate disparities in education). Professor Joanna Barbousas of La Trobe University notes that “postcode, culture and privilege still shape opportunity,” indicating that systemic inequities persist. When a third of all students are underperforming, it points to a systemic issue rather than individual failings.

The long-term consequences of falling behind are severe. Research from the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) shows that fewer than one in five students who are behind in Year 3 manage to catch up by Year 9. This reinforces cycles of disadvantage, contrary to the principles of SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 4.

Support for Vulnerable Students

Organisations like The Smith Family address these challenges through programs such as “Learning for Life,” which provides financial assistance for school essentials to 71,000 children. CEO Doug Taylor highlights that a lack of resources impacts academic outcomes and well-being, demonstrating the interconnectedness of poverty and educational attainment.

Strategic Interventions to Achieve Quality Education for All

Recommendations for Stakeholders

Achieving SDG 4 requires a multi-faceted approach involving governments, schools, and families. Key strategies include:

1. Early Intervention: Implementing earlier phonics and numeracy testing in Year 1 to identify and support struggling students before learning gaps widen.
2. Targeted Support: Rolling out small-group tutoring as part of national school funding agreements to provide catch-up support for students in the “Developing” and “Needs additional support” categories.
3. Parental and Family Engagement: Parents are encouraged to discuss results with teachers and reinforce learning at home through activities like reading and practicing basic mathematics.
4. Systemic Reform: Experts call for fundamental changes to teacher education and teaching practices to align with evidence-based methods. This is vital for lifting results for all students, particularly those from disadvantaged communities.

These interventions are critical for ensuring that no student is left behind and for building an educational system that is truly equitable and inclusive, in line with the core vision of the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to quality education, but also touches upon the impacts of poverty and inequality on educational outcomes. The following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are relevant:

• SDG 4: Quality Education – This is the central theme of the article, which discusses the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), student proficiency levels, the importance of foundational skills, and the need for systemic changes in teaching and early intervention.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article explicitly states that educational outcomes are shaped by socioeconomic factors. It highlights that “postcode, culture and privilege still shape opportunity” and that disadvantaged students are “disproportionately represented in the lower NAPLAN bands,” pointing directly to inequalities in educational access and achievement.
• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article connects financial hardship directly to educational barriers. It mentions the Smith Family’s “Learning for Life” program, which helps children from families who cannot afford “school essentials such as shoes, uniforms, lunch boxes, laptops, excursion fees and stationery,” illustrating how poverty impacts students’ ability to participate fully in their education.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific targets can be identified:

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes. The article’s focus on NAPLAN results for students in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 directly relates to measuring learning outcomes in primary and early secondary education. The concern that “one third of students not meeting expectations in literacy and numeracy” shows a direct engagement with this target.
   • Target 4.6: By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy. The article emphasizes that NAPLAN tests “basic literacy and numeracy, which are the building blocks of an education and are vital for kids when they grow up.” This aligns with the goal of achieving functional literacy and numeracy skills.
   • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States. The article points to a systemic failure, stating, “it’s about a system that hasn’t kept pace with what we know works. This includes how we prepare teachers for the classroom.” This highlights the need to improve teacher education and training to lift student results.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article’s finding that “disadvantaged parents — disproportionately represented in the lower NAPLAN bands” indicates a lack of equitable outcomes and points to the need for inclusion and support for these groups.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard. The statement that “postcode, culture and privilege still shape opportunity” is a direct critique of the inequality of outcome in the education system, which this target aims to address.

3. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services… The article highlights that a lack of financial resources prevents students from accessing “school essentials,” which are a form of basic service necessary for education. The Smith Family’s intervention addresses this gap for vulnerable families.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

1. For SDG 4 Targets:

   • Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics. The article is built around this indicator. The NAPLAN results are a direct measure of this. Specific data points mentioned include:
     • “one third of students not meeting expectations in literacy and numeracy.”
     • The goal that “90 per cent of students in the top two proficiency standards — ‘exceeding’ and ‘strong’.”
     • The four proficiency bands themselves (“exceeding,” “strong,” “developing,” and “needs additional support”) serve as the measurement scale.
   • Indicator 4.6.1: Proportion of population in a given age group achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a) literacy and (b) numeracy skills. The NAPLAN test is described as “a test of applied skill… the types of skills that people really need in day-to-day life,” which directly aligns with measuring functional skills for the student population.
   • Implied Indicator for 4.c.1 (Proportion of teachers with the minimum required qualifications): While not providing a number, the call to reshape “teacher education and policy” and the critique that the system hasn’t “kept pace with what we know works” implies that the quality and effectiveness of teacher preparation is a key metric for improving educational outcomes.

2. For SDG 10 Targets:

   • Implied Indicator for 10.2.1 / 10.3.1: The article implies an indicator by highlighting the disparity in NAPLAN results between different socioeconomic groups. The statement that “disadvantaged parents — disproportionately represented in the lower NAPLAN bands” suggests that progress can be measured by tracking and reducing the gap in proficiency levels between disadvantaged students and their peers.

3. For SDG 1 Target:

   • Implied Indicator for 1.4.1: The article provides a concrete number that serves as an indicator of need. The fact that the Smith Family’s “Learning for Life” program “helps 71,000 children around Australia with schooling costs” is a direct indicator of the number of students whose families lack the financial resources for basic educational services.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: abc.net.au