Bringing NAPLAN back to pen and paper isn't a retreat — it must be a reset

Education ministers have moved to return NAPLAN to pen and paper after a digital backlash, pointing to concerns that too much screen time has contributed to declining Australian performance on international tests. The decision is a welcome correction, but it should be treated as the start of a serious conversation about how we assess, teach and prepare young people for life in a digital age — not as a simple reversal to paper that lets deeper problems go unexamined. Testing methods matter. Standardised assessments are designed to give families, teachers and governments a clear, comparable picture of what students know and can do. If the modality of a test — keyboard versus biro — interferes with a student’s ability to demonstrate learning, then the results will mislead everyone who relies on them. The ministers’ concern that excess screen time is eroding basic skills is not trivial: being online all day affects attention spans, reading habits and, for some, handwriting. Reverting to pen and paper for NAPLAN acknowledges that the instrument of testing can shape the outcomes. But the move must not be presented as a cure-all. Returning to paper will not, by itself, lift Australia’s standing on international assessments. Performance gaps reflect a mix of curriculum decisions, classroom practice, resourcing and social factors. If students are weaker at reading, numeracy or science, the reasons are likely to include the quality and focus of instruction, the variation between schools in staffing and support, and out-of-school circumstances. A paper NAPLAN will show where students are, but it won’t explain why they are there. There is also an opportunity cost to consider. Digital literacy is an essential skill in the 21st century. Abandoning digital assessment without a clear plan for teaching and testing digital competencies risks sending the wrong message to schools and students: that screens are inherently bad. The sensible approach is a dual one. Use paper-based tests where they most fairly measure foundational literacy and numeracy, while designing separate, robust assessments that evaluate digital skills — so that young people are both literate on paper and literate online. Equity must be central. One reason many teachers welcomed the move back to paper was that the digital rollout exposed stark unequal access to reliable devices and internet at home and at school. If future testing regimes oscillate between formats, governments must ensure all students have access to the tools and teaching they need to meet whichever standard is applied. That will mean investment in devices where appropriate, but equally it will mean sensible limits on screen time, better guidance for schools on when to use technology, and supports for teachers to blend digital and analogue methods effectively. Finally, policymakers should use this moment to look beyond the mechanics of testing. If international results are falling, ask whether the curriculum is coherent and focused on fundamental skills; whether early childhood provision is giving children the best start; and whether teachers have the time for focused instruction. Assessment can diagnose, but it cannot treat. Returning NAPLAN to pen and paper answers one question about how students are examined. The bigger question remains: how do we teach better, more equitably and in a way that readies children for both the written page and the streaming screen? If the hand that holds the pen is supported by a stronger system behind it, this policy shift will be a reset worth celebrating. If not, it will only be a cosmetic change that postpones harder work.