The national NAPLAN results are in for 2026. Years 5, 7 and 9 saw their numeracy scores increase, however a reported “dip” in Year 3 results has raised alarm bells.
The organisation that runs the NAPLAN test, described the results as “clearly concerning”. And Education Minister Jason Clare noted while the older years’ results were “good news”, Year 3 numeracy was a “different story”.
What is going on with Year 3 numeracy? Do we really need to be concerned?
Read more:
NAPLAN results are coming home. Here’s what parents should keep in mind
What were the Year 3 results?
There appears to be a downward trend in Year 3 numeracy, but the overall decline in national average scores is small and not statistically significant. To be precise, there has been a drop of 2.7 scale score points (out of 1,000) compared to 2025.
It also depends what scores you look at. NAPLAN results are grouped into four bands: “needs additional support”, “developing”, “strong” and “exceeding”.
The percentage of Year 3 students who were exceeding standards in numeracy this year has actually grown since 2024. Though, again this growth is small – about a 0.3% improvement.
Year 3 is a special case
Year 3 is also different from other years tested in NAPLAN. In Year 3, students are still developing their understanding of foundational mathematics concepts, such as number sense, patterning and spatial reasoning.
Students use concrete materials such as structured blocks and counters, visual models such as number lines and fraction drawings, and discussion to demonstrate what they know in mathematics – these cannot be replicated in an online NAPLAN test.
So the difference between how children learn and how they are assessed can make it harder for students to demonstrate what they actually know.
For young children, classroom-based assessment conducted by teachers who know their students well can provide a richer picture than what can be captured through a single standardised assessment
Read more:
The biggest news from NAPLAN 2026? The results aren’t really better or worse
Is it fair?
The NAPLAN test is also done online. We know disadvantaged students are less likely to have consistent opportunities to develop digital skills, both at home and at school. So the test naturally advantages students who have more access to screens.
For Year 3 students in particular (who may have never done a test on a computer before), a fully digital assessment may introduce an additional barrier – unrelated to their mathematics knowledge.
A standardised test such as NAPLAN also brings in additional language challenges, which can disproportionally affect younger students, who are still developing basic reading and writing skills.
A new review
The federal government has already announced a review of the mathematics curriculum up to Year 2, along with a new Year 1 numeracy check.
The review, being done by the NAPLAN testing authority, is due to report to education ministers in October 2026.
These initiatives are aimed at strengthening early mathematics, but are not guaranteed to improve student outcomes alone. Decades of education research shows changes to curriculum do not guarantee any improvements and need to be accompanied by sustained time and support for teachers.
Frequent changes can also be disruptive and increase teacher workload. The curriculum was only revised relatively recently in 2022.
International comparisons suggest increasing external testing is unlikely to be the solution. Research shows us high-performing school systems such as Finland and Singapore rely heavily on teacher judgement and ongoing classroom assessment rather than frequent national standardised tests.
The bigger picture
Rather than becoming distracted by small changes in national Year 3 scores, we should focus instead on the broader inequities NAPLAN continues to expose.
The gaps between metropolitan and remote students, Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, and girls and boys are persistent and significant.
These are the results that should concern us most, and where policy attention has the greatest potential to improve outcomes.
Katherin Cartwright is affiliated with the Mathematical Association of NSW and the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Bronwyn Reid O’Connor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Read More: Read More
