Although there has been intense criticism of NAPLAN in educational policy debates in Australia, little scholarly efforts have been made to understand the underlying cognitive mechanisms that contribute to the public narrative about the national testing program. We aim to provide tentative evidence about the way public perceptions about NAPLAN may be formed. Our results show empirical support for the incentive, interpretative, and institutional effects, which suggest ways that national testing program can be improved. That is, it needs to (a) provide a diverse range of incentives to promote people's self-interest (incentive effect); (b) demonstrate good alignment with the core values, social norms, and attitudes of the given society (interpretative effect); and (c) build a consensus about the institutional use of the test results (institutional effect). We conclude with practical implications and recommendations about seeking public support for the seemingly unpopular national educational policy.