New Yorkers United for Kids

Building a teacher coalition for testing alternatives

Parents in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and regional communities want assessment to show learning without crowding out the curriculum. They seek a fair go for every child and a real say for schools in local decisions.

Testing in Australia is layered. NAPLAN is national, the Australian Curriculum sets shared expectations, and state departments control many school requirements. A coalition therefore needs a precise local objective, not a general complaint about exams.

Forming a coalition with teachers to advocate for testing alternatives starts with professional judgment. The group should listen, protect teachers who cannot safely speak publicly, and test proposals for educational value, workload and fairness. A shared approach is more durable than a parent-only petition.

Start with shared values in Australian schools

Use familiar language while keeping claims accurate. “Putting the kids first,” “a fair go” and “having your say” can open a school-gate meeting, then become concerns about curriculum time, wellbeing, disability access and reporting.

Respect local structures. NSW parents often use parent-and-friends (P&C) associations or Carers’ Committees, Victorian families use school councils, and Queensland families use P&C associations. Each has formal powers, while an informal teacher-parent group can begin in the school library.

Agree on a written statement early. It should say that assessment serves learning, student data privacy is protected, and the coalition supports local discretion. Avoid demanding that every teacher reject every test; agreement on principles will survive staff changes.

Map the tests and the decision-makers

List the assessments students face, including NAPLAN, state tests, literacy checks and classroom reporting. Note each test’s purpose, frequency, consequences and data retention. Participation and withdrawal rules differ by state and student group, so check current guidance before proposing opt-out activity.

Map who can act. Teachers may change classroom practice, principals may approve internal projects, school councils may pass motions, and departments determine external reporting. State ministers and parliamentary education committees address wider policy. Federal MPs have roles in national testing and privacy but do not run NSW or Victorian schools.

Within New York’s Common Core debate, districts have pursued performance-based assessments, prompting discussion of portfolios, presentations and moderated school tasks. Governance differs from Australia’s, so investigate workable models rather than copy a New York county resolution or assume one alternative fits every state.

Invite teachers into a safe working group

Begin with a small listening session outside preparation and assessment periods. A 45-minute after-hours school meeting, or a virtual session with an agenda, lets teachers describe testing’s effects without turning the event into confrontation.

Some teachers will support the issue publicly; others need confidentiality because of employment concerns. Offer anonymous comments, a no-camera option and a rule that staff will not be quoted without consent. Involve the relevant union where employment conditions are affected.

Give the group a shared brief and a way to disagree. Parents can organise meetings and evidence, teachers can evaluate proposals, and a principal or council representative can explain approvals. Agree on decision-making, media contact, privacy and what happens when the group cannot endorse a recommendation.

Develop credible alternatives

Define an alternative package instead of using “testing” as a catch-all. A pilot might combine curriculum portfolios, oral presentations, teacher-observed projects and a moderated sample task. These retain scrutiny while giving students more ways to show understanding, including pupils poorly served by written tests.

Test the pilot against evidence rather than enthusiasm. Review sample work, moderation, time costs, accessibility, data security and whether families understand the results. Use de-identified examples publicly. Data collection should follow the Australian Privacy Act where applicable and relevant state or territory rules for public schools.

International campaigns offer comparisons. An international civic party example shows how a formal organisation can turn local concerns into political participation; a school coalition still needs different safeguards and a direct classroom connection. Local evidence, teacher voice and local control should remain central.

Recommendations for a credible coalition

A coalition becomes durable when shared concern becomes a testable programme. These practices give parents and teachers a common structure:

Review the pilot at term’s end. Keep what improves reporting or reduces disruption, change what adds burden, and publish a short evaluation. Success can mean a credible model for another school, even without an immediate policy change.

Launch a small, measurable pilot

Start with the school rather than the whole state. Two teachers, two parents, a principal or council representative and a union contact can test one reporting method in one year level. Record the starting point: curriculum coverage, staff time, student anxiety and reporting burden.

Use the pilot to build a public case. Show sample work under agreed privacy rules, compare workload notes and ask families whether the new evidence feels fair. A concise brief can accompany a school-council motion or state committee submission, turning classroom evidence into an actionable request.

The concrete next step is to schedule a 45-minute listening meeting with the principal, one teacher representative and the P&C or school council chair within the next two weeks.

✉