Does Australia need more national exams for school students?

Australian school students already do major tests in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 before going on to final exams in Year 12.

But amid ongoing concern around Australian students’ academic performance, there’s been a call for more testing.

The Page Research Centre, affiliated with the National Party, has proposed students sit additional exams in Years 6, 10 and 12. These would occur alongside NAPLAN, rather than replace it.

More testing might seem like an obvious response. But would it work? And is it needed?

What does the report say?

The report examines how assessments works across New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory. It identifies “concerning trends”, such as:

• different assessment requirements among states and territories

• an increased proportion of Year 12 students receiving higher final grades, despite steady or declining results from other national and international assessments.

The report recommends a study into increasing the number of national exams that directly assess curriculum knowledge. This is distinct from tests such as NAPLAN, which assesses students’ literacy and numeracy skills.

How much testing already happens?

Compared to other similar countries such as the United States, England and New Zealand, Australia uses less frequent standardised testing to measure student performance.

But Australia already has several layers of standardised testing, where students sit the same exam at the same time.

Each year, NAPLAN tests every student in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. Each round covers reading, writing, language conventions (including punctuation) and numeracy. So, a student sits 16 tests across four school years to track both individual and group performance.

A select sample of students in Years 6 and 10 also completes national assessments in science, civics and digital literacy, through the same testing body that administers NAPLAN. These run every three years and are used to track how students are performing in these subjects as a group.

Australia also participates in several international assessments, which tell us how Australian students are performing over time and compared to other countries. These run at both primary and high school levels.

Recent media reporting has focused on the latest results from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s PISA exams, which test 15-year-olds’ skills in reading, maths and science.

How are students performing in standardised tests?

There is a strong narrative that Australian students perform poorly in major tests. But it depends which figures you examine.

Nationally, students’ NAPLAN performance was broadly stable between 2023 and 2025, although this follows longer-term performance declines. Also, around one-third of Australian students fail to meet national literacy and numeracy benchmarks.

Australia’s latest PISA results showed small declines in reading and maths and stable science results. Australia remained above the OECD average in all three subjects and was similar to the UK, US and New Zealand.

Some researchers argue public debates about school performance are missing the big picture – which is that students’ scores on many standardised assessments are not in decline.

Does testing improve learning?

Research suggests some types of testing can directly support learning.

A 2021 review of 222 studies found classroom quizzes (as opposed to major exams) improved student achievement by giving students opportunities to practise recalling their knowledge. It also provided the chance to repeat class material and gain teacher feedback.

Other research on policies that attach rewards or penalties to students’ test results (such as teacher performance pay or sanction) offers a more cautious picture.

For example, a major US research review found these policies generally only resulted in, at most, small gains in student grades.

Some findings are positive. A study of America’s No Child Left Behind policy – which required schools to test students regularly, publish the results and act when students were not meeting standards – found standardised testing led to some improvements in Year 4 students’ maths scores and more limited improvements in Year 8 testing scores. But it also didn’t lead to improvements in Year 4 reading scores.

Importantly, these studies examined testing linked to accountability, such as the threat of changes to staffing and curriculum and school restructuring, not simply additional standardised exams.

Overall, these mixed findings challenge the assumption that measuring performance will reliably improve student learning.

How results are used matters

Tests do not simply measure learning. They also shape what teachers teach and students study.

A US review of 49 studies found standardised testing commonly narrowed teaching towards the content tested in the exams. This was especially so if the test emphasised isolated facts and procedures.

However, tests requiring interpretation, writing and critical literacy often encouraged teachers to connect ideas, broaden content and use more student-centred activities.

In short, the design of tests and their intended uses matter.

The bigger picture

So, the question is, if Australia was to introduced more exams, what would they encourage schools to prioritise? Would they support broader learning or simply more test preparation?

We also need to consider what new information the tests would provide. For example, would they guide teaching, identify schools needing support or determine students’ pathways?