WHO WE ARE    |   PUBLICATIONS   |  PRESENTATIONS   |  PROJECTS   |   RELATED SITES   |   STAFF   |   SITE MAP   |   SEARCH   |   WHAT'S NEW   |   HOME 

A Perspective on Education and Assessment in Other Nations:  Where Are Students with Disabilities?

NCEO Synthesis Report 19

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
in collaboration with St. Cloud State University and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education

Prepared by:

Judy L. Elliot, Hyeonsook Shin, Martha L. Thurlow, and James E. Ysseldyke

April, 1995

Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Elliott, J.L., Shin, H., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E (1995). A perspective on education and assessment in other nations:  Where are students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report No. 19). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis19.html

Overview

The United States is currently alarmed about the failure of its educational system to produce good citizens who have the skills needed to compete in a global economy. As a result, it has engaged in a set of activities designed to remedy this situation, ranging from the passage of educational reform laws (e.g., Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Improving America's Schools Act, School to Work Opportunities Act), to involvement of the business community in identifying goals and practices (e.g., SCANS, 1991), to renewed commitment to national and international assessments to monitor progress.

Results from international comparative studies, in fact, were a primary impetus for concerns about the poor performance of America's students and the need to reform and rejuvenate the U. S. educational system. Despite protests by some researchers (e.g., Berliner, 1995; Bracey, 1993, 1994; Stedman, 1994) about the validity of results, international comparisons seem consistently to position the U. S. almost at the bottom. American students know less math, are less literate in reading, and lack understanding in other subject areas.

The performance of U. S. students and citizens on their own country's assessments, such as the National Adult Literacy Survey, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Test, similarly has led to concerns. In addition to concerns about performance on these assessments, there has been recent interest in exactly who is included in the assessments. Work at the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) raises questions about the extent to which U. S. national assessments and the assessments of individual states actually reflect the performance of "all" U. S. students (McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, & Spiegel, 1992; Shriner, Spande, & Thurlow, 1993). In fact, it has been estimated that only half of those students receiving special education services participate in NAEP, and anywhere from 0% to 100% in various state assessment programs (with most states excluding about half of their students with disabilities).

Findings about the exclusion of students with disabilities in U. S. assessments necessarily lead to questions about the status of students with disabilities in international comparison assessments and in the assessments used in other nations. Are students with disabilities included in these assessments? Are appropriate accommodations used during the assessments? When are "exclusion rates" reported? Do all countries start from the same base of "all" students?

The purpose of this paper is to address these kinds of questions. We do this by examining students with disabilities in international comparison studies and in assessments in each of 14 nations, including the U. S., that are among those included in previous or current international comparative studies.

International Comparative Studies

Most societies value the school achievement of their youth. This is reflected in the cooperation of many nations in attempts to collect common sets of data on students. Those who have conducted international comparative studies in education have continuously published reports that warn of a crisis in the U.S. educational system associated with students' low performance, particularly in mathematics and science, and a crisis due to the U.S.'s reduced economic competitiveness (Torney-Purta, 1990).

Quality of education is a focus of interest in many nations, but cross-national comparisons are generally made in terms of outcomes. Results of international studies have been used to show and explain how educational outcomes differ across countries. They show how well or poorly students in a country are performing relative to those in other countries. Cross-national comparisons in student achievement go beyond a simple documentation of differences across countries. International studies have allowed stakeholders to trace parallel trends in the development of educational practices and assessment. Findings from international comparisons have guided policy in education in at least two ways: (a) each country learns from other countries' experiences of successes or failures in educating their youth, and (b) policymakers make innovative changes in the education of their youth through the understanding of other countries' successful reform activities (Torney-Purta, 1990). In addition, a growing international theme has been noted in the role of national curricular plans and national goals that are formulated in a way to be used as criteria for evaluation.

Five major international comparisons are reviewed in this section: (a) Reading Literacy Survey (IEA), (b) International Assessment of Educational Progress (ETS), (c) Third International Mathematics and Science Study, (d) International Education Indicators Project (OECD), and (e) Computers in Education Study (IEA). For each of these we describe the purpose, what we know about the inclusion of students with disabilities in them, and what we know about the use of accommodations.

Reading Literacy Survey

The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) conducted surveys in 1991 of the reading literacy of 9- and 14-year-olds in 32 countries (Elley, 1992; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1994). (See Table 1 for an alphabetical list of participating countries and their ranking in overall reading achievement.) The purpose of this study was to ascertain average levels of reading literacy and voluntary reading activities, and to identify factors related to differences in reading literacy among different systems of education. This information was to become baseline data for monitoring reading achievement, and to facilitate the development of valid international reading literacy tests. The selected ages of the samples were based on an earlier IEA study that suggested age 9 would be useful for identifying factors related to learning to read, and age 14 would represent the level of reading achievement of students exiting the compulsory-school system (Elley, 1992).

Exclusion criteria. Student populations targeted for the IEA Survey of Reading Literacy were all students attending mainstream schools on a full-time basis. The percentages of students excluded from the defined population and during the testing are shown in Table 2. According to Elley (1992), "students in separate special education schools were excluded from the defined [target] populations" (p. 101). Students not given the tests during the testing session were those who were "unable to take any items on the test because of learning or physical disability (typically mainstreamed children)" or those who "have insufficient knowledge of the language of the test even to follow the general instructions (typically recent immigrants)" (Elley, 1992, p. 101). Students with disabilities who do not fall into the above categories of exclusion may have participated in the reading literacy surveys. However, Elley (1992) and the Reading Literacy Technical Report (NCES, 1994) did not discuss accommodations allowed in testing for students with disabilities.

International Assessment of Educational Progress

The International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) was initiated by Educational Testing Service (ETS) in 1988 for the purpose of international comparative studies. Stimulated by the increased interest of other countries in using NAEP test items in their national assessments of educational achievement, the first IAEP was conducted to assess achievement in math and science of samples of 13-year-old students in five countries (Ireland, Korea, Spain, United Kingdom, U.S.A.) and four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec) (Educational Testing Service [ETS], 1992b; Suter & Sherman, 1989; Torney-Purta, 1990).

Table 1.  Participating Countries and Ranking in IEA Reading Literacy Survey

Table 2.  Percentage of Students Excluded from IEA Reading Literacy Survey

Table 3.  Countries, Participants, and Performance (Percent Correct) in Second IAEP

These international educational assessments, conducted in 1988 and again in 1991, were funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Education Statistics. In the second IAEP study, students aged 9 and 13 from about 20 countries (see Table 3) were tested in math, science, and geography (Suter & Sherman, 1989).

The IAEP used test items from a pool of items used in the 1986 NAEP, which was established to monitor educational achievement in the United States. The results of the first IAEP are documented in a report entitled A World of Differences (Lapointe, Mead, & Phillips, 1989). Test items in the second IAEP were selected both from NAEP and from items provided by participating countries. The second IAEP study was said to have greater representation of each country's curriculum in each subject area than the first IAEP study. The results of the 1991 IAEP study were used in a cross-linking study with NAEP. The results of the mathematics achievement of 13-year-old students in various countries, which was conducted in 1991, were statistically linked to the results from the 1992 NAEP study of mathematics achievement of U.S. eighth-grade students. This linkage provides comparisons of academic achievement between U.S. states and other countries. For the comparisons see Education in States and Nations: Indicators Comparing U.S. States with the OECD Countries in 1988 (NCES, 1993).

Exclusion criteria. The guidelines for excluding students from the second IAEP were based on the 1988 NAEP guidelines. The second IAEP guidelines are provided in the IAEP National Coordinator's Manual (ETS, 1990). It reads that students can be excluded only if they cannot function in the test situation. According to the manual, non-native language speakers, educable mentally retarded students, and functionally disabled students are considered unable to function in the testing. The reasons for any exclusion from IAEP testing (see Table 4) were to be documented on the Student Listing Form by school coordinators. The school coordinator was encouraged to include the student in the assessment when in doubt about a student's involvement in assessment. However, there is no information about the number of students who were excluded from the IAEP studies.

According to the manual, some students with disabilities may have participated in the IAEP assessments. IAEP recommended that countries provide a practice test a day or two prior to the assessment for students who were not familiar with multiple-choice formats (ETS, 1992b). However, documentation of testing accommodations allowed specifically for students with disabilities has not been found.

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is investigating differences in outcomes of math and science education across countries, schools, and students of three age groups: 9-year-olds, 13-year-olds, and those in their last year of secondary school. The predecessor of TIMSS was the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS). The SIMS was conducted in the early 1980s in 20 educational systems around the world (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA], 1987). The following countries participated in the SIMS.

The SIMS focused on international differences in the mathematics curriculum, teaching methods, and student achievement in mathematics. Included in the SIMS were the following components (IEA, 1987):

arithmetic, algebra, geometry, statistics, measurement, attitudes toward mathematics, opportunity-to-learn mathematics, curricular differentiation and intensity, homework, class size, yearly hours of mathematics instruction, teacher background and attitudes, role of mathematics textbook, and extent of calculator use.

An executive summary about the SIMS results is provided in The Underachieving Curriculum (IEA, 1987). The First Mathematics Study focused more on student achievement in mathematics and regarded it as the overall educational outcome. Although the result of each of these studies was a ranking of countries based on their scores in the specified areas, the main goal of TIMSS is not ranking of countries but gathering information about successful educational practices (Robitaille, McKnight, Schmidt, Britton, Raizen, & Nicol, 1993).

Table 4.  Reasons for Exclusion from IAEP Testing

TIMSS was launched in the Fall of 1994 under the direction of Al Beaton, an education professor at Boston College. Sponsored by IEA, TIMSS will investigate teaching practices and the influence of instructional practices and curricular content in mathematics and science on the achievement of the age 9 and age 13 sample groups (Schmidt, 1993). TIMSS is a cross-national study, which describes mathematics and science learning outcomes and explains why differences exist (see Table 5 for the TIMSS study components).

The TIMSS surveys are being administered at two different times, either in the fourth quarter of 1994 or in the second quarter of 1995, depending on when the school year begins in the calendar year (Foy & Schleicher, 1994). The main survey involves the following countries (Foy & Schleicher, 1994):

Austria	Estonia	Korea	Scotland
Australia	France	Kuwait	Singapore
Belgium	Germany	Latvia	Slovakia
Bulgaria	Greece	Lithuania	Slovenia
Canada	Hong Kong	Mexico	Spain
China	Hungary	Netherlands	Sweden
Cyprus	Indonesia	New Zealand	Taiwan
Czech Republic	Iran	Norway	Thailand
Denmark	Ireland	Poland	Tunisia
Dominican Republic	Israel	Portugal	United States
Ecuador	Italy	Romania	Venezuela
England/Wales	Japan	Russia	Zimbabwe

The basic test consists of 70 multiple-choice questions and 30 longer open-ended questions. In addition, a small subgroup of students takes an hour-long performance assessment that may require them either to conduct a physics experiment or work out and explain in writing a complex math problem (Viadero, 1994). For those students specializing in math or science, different forms of the test will be administered. In the U.S., the target group includes high school students taking more advanced classes in those subjects. This aspect of TIMSS will yield information on what researchers are calling the "attained curriculum" or what is learned.

Table 5.  Study Components of TIMSS

To gain information about the "intended curriculum" - what is supposed to be taught - and the "implemented curriculum" - what is actually taught - other measures have been devised. Underway is a process of analyzing the most widely used math and science materials of those countries participating in the study. One thousand two hundred texts and other curricular materials have been collected (Viadero, 1994). The materials are being analyzed for content.

To gather information on the "implemented curriculum," researchers will be surveying students and teachers in schools where the assessment is being administered. Students' home backgrounds and classroom experiences will be examined. Teachers will be asked to provide sample lesson plans. In addition, three countries (Germany, Japan, U.S.) are paying to have a cadre of researchers visit schools for the purpose of videotaping a typical classroom lesson for a subgroup of eighth graders participating in the assessment.

The framework for TIMSS took two years to complete. Reaching consensus on the specific test items was said to have taken almost as long (Viadero, 1994). The final results of TIMSS will not be available until 1996.

Exclusion criteria. In TIMSS, it is expected that "the target population will consist of all students in the appropriate grades in all schools of all educational subsystems of a country" (Wolfe & Wiley, 1992, p. 14). It is also stated in the TIMSS Sampling Plan (Wolfe & Wiley, 1992) that every effort will be made to minimize exclusions of students with special needs, thereby guarding against biases that are often raised in international comparisons due to such exclusions. Further, rules of the TIMSS 1994 surveys suggest there will be documentation of exclusions that do occur, the numbers of students excluded, and reasons for the exclusions (Wolfe & Wiley, 1992).

Those conducting TIMSS do recognize the possibility of excluding some children and some schools in the assessments of student achievement in mathematics and science. According to the TIMSS sampling plan, "certain children are physically, emotionally, or mentally unable to take the TIMSS tests [and] they may be located in special schools or special classrooms" (Wolfe & Wiley, 1992, p. 14). TIMSS also recognizes the possibility of excluding schools that are politically or geographically inaccessible.

In addition, a school may be excluded if it provides instruction only to students in the excluded categories defined under "within-school exclusions." According to the TIMSS Sampling Manual (Foy & Schleicher, 1994), within-school exclusions include educable mentally retarded students, functionally disabled students, and non-native language speakers. Definitions of these three categories are similar to those that were used for the second IAEP testing. The extent of within-school exclusions expected is unknown.

Provisions for assessment accommodations are neither mentioned in the TIMSS Sampling Manual (Foy & Schleicher, 1994) nor in the TIMSS Sampling Plan (Wolfe & Wiley, 1992). Although exclusion criteria are covered in depth, the manuals do not discuss those students who may need accommodations during assessment.

International Education Indicators Project

The International Education Indicators Project (INES) of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) was proposed in two preparatory conferences, hosted by the U.S. and French authorities in 1987 and 1988 respectively. Under the responsibility of the Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) and with the financial support of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the INES compared the educational systems of the OECD countries (NCES, 1993). The following OECD countries are participating in the International Education Indicators Project (NCES, 1993).

This project takes a comprehensive approach to measuring both educational outcomes and inputs/resources that may explain differences in student achievement across countries. Three clusters of educational indicators are used to provide information on: (a) the demographic, economic, and social contexts of education systems (i.e., population, employment, gender differences in education, the Gross Domestic Product per capita), (b) costs, resources and school processes (i.e., expenditure on education, pupil-teacher ratio, participation in education, decision-making), and (c) the outcomes of education (i.e., educational attainment, learning outcomes and achievement, post-school status) (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 1992).

Exclusion criteria. The OECD International Education Indicators Project did not collect its own data, at least for three of the indicators of learning outcomes (i.e., mathematics achievement, school differences in achievement, student differences in achievement). Multiple comparisons of achievement scores of 13-year-olds in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry were based on the data from the Second International Mathematics Study collected by the IEA in the early 1980s, and comparisons of overall proficiency in mathematics and between-school variance drew upon the data from the second IAEP study conducted by ETS in 1991 (OECD, 1992).

Thus, the exclusion criteria for the OECD reports on student achievement may be different depending on the original source collecting data and the results presented. Similar differences would be expected in the accommodations allowed in assessment procedures, if in fact any were allowed. The OECD countries participating in the assessment of student achievement in mathematics agreed on the criteria requiring each country to clearly and consistently define the target population and keep the participation rate high, at a level of at least 85% (OECD, 1992). However, no data was found on the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of students with disabilities.

Computers in Education Study

The Computers in Education Study will be conducted by IEA. This is a survey designed to assess the use of computers in schools and to assess student proficiency in using computers. The countries that will participate are not known yet. However, once determined, each country will individually conduct the study. The target groups of students are those in grade 8 or age 10, age 13, and the last year of secondary education.

Exclusion criteria. Students who are considered "atypical" are to be excluded from the study. Excluded students are those who are severely disabled or unable to read or speak the language of the test, or whose schools are not recognized to be part of a mainstream national education program. It is unclear at this time whether this study provides any testing accommodations for students with disabilities. The ways in which results will be reported are also unknown.

Summary

The five international comparative studies reviewed here reflect the diverse approaches that have been taken in comparing nations. While it is not possible to specifically compare the exclusion criteria or the results of their application, this discussion of them certainly leads to questions about the likelihood that they could be implemented consistently from one country to another. When a country participates in an international assessment, it is likely that the ways in which exclusion criteria are applied are a reflection of the inclusion of students in the country's assessment and education systems. For this reason, it is important to look more carefully into the education and assessment systems of some of the countries included in international comparative studies.

Educational Assessments in Other Nations

The purpose of this section is to review the educational assessment systems in 14 countries. These countries are identified in the world map below. They were selected because of their involvement in past or current large-scale assessments (e.g., nationwide assessments, province-wide testing, district-wide tests). We also investigate the extent to which students with disabilities are addressed in the large-scale assessments of student achievement outcomes. The 14 countries, listed in alphabetical order, are:

Argentina	China	Korea (South)	Tunisia
Australia	England and Wales	Netherlands	U.S.A.
Canada	France	Nigeria
Chile	Japan	Sweden

When an attempt is made to study a country's assessment system, it is necessary first to understand that country's educational system. Because we are interested in how students with disabilities are dealt with in the country's assessments, it is also important to look at special education within the context of the larger educational system.

In this section, we examine each country in terms of: (a) the general education system, including age of entry and duration of schooling, (b) educational policies and procedures for students with disabilities, (c) how decisions are made about placements, (d) assessment practices, and (e) the reporting of assessment results. Following the presentation of individual countries, we summarize what we know across countries.

The reader is advised that while some of the terminology in this section differs, it is interchangeable throughout (e.g., tracking and streaming). Due to the vast differences in educational systems, cultures and other extraneous factors, the language of the described educational systems may also vary. While the meaning of terms may be evident, their usage may differ from country to country. Further, documents sometimes provide different ages of entrance to compulsory education and different years of schooling in some countries. Such differences may be due to different ways of counting age and different times of starting the school year in the calendar year.

It should also be noted that finding information on countries other than the U. S. was not always very easy. We generally had to rely on the International Encyclopedia of Education (both the 1985 and 1994 editions) and the Statistical Yearbook (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1992) for information. In the following discussion on the formal education systems of the 14 countries, the information in the charts (e.g., age of entry, duration of schooling) was derived from the Statistical Yearbook (UNESCO, 1992). When information was incomplete or seemed quite dated, we made telephone calls to the country's embassy in the U. S., and then often followed this with calls to their respective attachŽs for education. Still, we often thought we did not have the most current information. With limitations, this study presents the overview of the 14 countries' educational and assessment systems.

Argentina

Argentina is located in the southern part of South America. It has a total land area of 1,068,298 square miles (2,766,890 square kilometers) (excluding Falkland Islands and Antarctic territory), and its total population is 33,533,256, according to estimates in 1993 (Wright, 1995). The majority of the population (more than 90%) is of Spanish or Italian origin (Petty, 1994). Almost half of the labor force is employed in the service sector. Major industries are food processing and motor vehicles (Wright, 1995).

General education system. In Argentina, the preprimary and primary educational system was decentralized in 1978, and it is now in the control of provincial governments. The Ministry of Education has planned to decentralize secondary education since 1993. However, when it comes to financial allocations for public schools, the government still takes responsibility.

Primary schooling is obligatory for all children in Argentina. Compulsory education is provided for students from ages 6 to 14. Argentina's people seem to prefer private schools or Catholic organizations rather than public education. This may be related to the government's effort to support a low-quality, wide spread education. Argentina's education has been pestered by moderate dropout rates. Even in the primary schooling level, only about 60% graduate within a seven-year period. And about 90% of students stay in school for at least seven years. Repetition rate is 25% in the first grade of primary schooling, and 10 to 20% in other grade levels of primary schooling. Almost 50% of secondary school students drop out (Petty, 1994).

Special education. Although Argentina has adopted a basic policy of integrating students with disabilities into general education settings, students who are blind, deaf, mentally impaired, or who have mental disorders are primarily still found in special schools. At the secondary level, protected workshops are provided for students from age 14 to 21 years, in an attempt to increase their employability (Petty, 1994).

Placement/tracking decisions. For secondary schooling, a decision is made about which major stream each student will take. Bachillerato, Commercial, and TŽcnico are three streams of secondary schooling. All secondary schools have a three-year basic curriculum. An additional two or three years of specialization provides specific additional areas of studies in each stream. Enrollment is largest in Bachillerato stream (Petty, 1994). In secondary schools, students are promoted to the next higher grade on the basis of grades and/or tests in subject fields. There are no nationwide examinations (Petty, 1985).

Assessment practices. In the early 1990s a national network was established through a REDUC (Red Latinoamericana de Informaci—n Educativa) center and educational statistics were collected up to 1987. However, "there is no form of established assessment. Very little research is conducted on a nationwide basis" (Petty, 1994, p. 337). In the most recent edition of the International Encyclopedia of Education (Petty, 1994), there is no discussion about either whether students with disabilities are included in or excluded from assessment procedures or whether any accommodations in assessment procedures are allowed for those students with disabilities who might be participating in assessments.

Reporting of results. In the International Encyclopedia of Education, no discussion is made about Argentina's policies and practices concerning reporting of assessment results. Further, no reference is made to scoring or reporting of results for students with disabilities.

Australia

Australia is an island continent located between Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. The population is predominantly European in its origin, and the institutional system is British (McKenzie, 1994). Its land mass is 2,967,897 square miles (7,686,850 square kilometers). Australia is slightly smaller than the U.S.A. The total population was estimated as 17,827,204 in 1993 (Wright, 1995). About 70% of the workforce currently works in the service-industry sector (McKenzie, 1994), and major industries include mining, industrial and transportation equipment (Wright, 1995).

General education system. Education in Australia is the responsibility of the individual States and Territories that form the Commonwealth. Until 1975 all states used inspectors to monitor the quality of public schools and teachers, although the inspectorate system has weakened since then (McKenzie, 1994). A public school system is operated by each state government. School systems differ from state to state in terms of curriculum, methods of assessing student achievement, and policies about the education of students with disabilities. There is neither a national framework for schooling nor national curriculum or national credential to mark the end of secondary school. No regular national testing of student performance is conducted (Ruby, 1990).

Preprimary education, which is not compulsory, starts at the age of 4 (UNESCO, 1992). Compulsory education is offered to children at the ages of 6 to 15 (or age 16 in Tasmania) (McKenzie, 1994). Primary education lasts for either six or seven years, depending on the state. Secondary education is available for either five or six years depending on the length of primary education in the state. In the past, beyond the minimum school-leaving age of 15 (or 16 in Tasmania), school participation rates declined markedly and male adolescents were employed or receiving part-time education through apprenticeships at a TAFE (Technical and Further Education) college. Since the 1980s the proportion of students remaining in school beyond the minimum school-leaving age of 15 has increased (McKenzie, 1994).

Special education. Special education is provided for students with physical or intellectual disabilities in regular classes, regular schools, special classes, special schools, at home or in institutions. With the current emphasis on mainstreaming students with disabilities into general education settings, the proportion of students in special schools has declined (McKenzie, 1994).

In an attempt to integrate students with disabilities into regular education settings to a greater extent, two new program elements were introduced in 1981. The Severely Handicapped Children's Program was established to provide funds to governmental and nongovernmental educational systems for children with severe developmental disabilities or children in long-term residential care, and the Early Special Education Program provides educational services for young children with disabilities (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985). In spite of these efforts, in Australia there have been obstacles to such efforts to integrate students with disabilities into general education settings. Lack of consistent diagnostic criteria has made it difficult to identify students (OECD, 1994). Hence, it is hard to find a systematic and consistent set of data on prevalence figures for students with disabilities.

Placement/tracking decisions. In the past, external assessment was extensively used to make decisions on student placement. However, there is no national credential to mark the end of secondary schooling, and there is no regular national testing of student performance (Ruby, 1990).

The first formal qualification is made at the end of Year 10, based on the results of internal school assessment, but a higher school certificate is given based on an external examination given at Year 12 (McKenzie, 1994). In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland, the external examination of Year 12 has been replaced by an accredited internal school assessment (McKenzie, 1985). The results of assessment at the end of Year 12 are usually used by higher education institutions to select students. In addition to the norm-referenced assessment of student achievement, there is increasing use of criterion-referenced assessment and teachers' judgments (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985; McKenzie, 1994).

Currently, promotion in primary and secondary schools is made by age. Students automatically progress from one grade to the next each year and from primary to secondary school, regardless of students' success or failure during the year. Therefore, at the transition from primary to secondary, repeating a grade is unusual.

Decisions about streaming of secondary schooling are made depending on each state's educational system. Victoria has operated a dual system consisting of general high schools and technical schools. Tasmania and the ACT have also adopted a system of separate institutions at the upper secondary level at Year 11 and 12. Other states operate a system of comprehensive secondary schools and do not have a system of streaming at the secondary level (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985).

Assessment practices. States and the Commonwealth collaborate to develop a common format for the collection of data on schooling. Data on inputs and enrollment are usually collected on a national basis. However, it is the responsibility of each State and Territory to decide on appropriate ways of measuring educational outcomes, and which groups of students are included in the sample pool. Primarily, educational indicators are measured by each state's different system (Ruby, 1990). The Schools and Curriculum Division of the Australian Department of Employment, Education and Training states that the primary responsibility for the education of all children, including those with disabilities, lies with State and Territory governments.

Although Australian assessment activities are mainly the responsibility of each State and Territory, the Commonwealth is currently involved in developing a number of performance indicators for a small project involving non-school organization service providers in the Australian Capital Territory in 1994. The following performance indicators are an example of what will be used to measure the effectiveness of the services provided in this project:

• levels of school attendance,

• educational performance and confidence of participating students,

• levels of social, cognitive and language skills in hearing impaired students,

• access to and participation in recreational activities,

• awareness of leisure and social skills leading to enhanced integration,

• levels of gross and fine motor skills.

Keeping in mind that each service provider has different educational objectives and service, the users of these indicators are advised to take caution in the comparison of outcomes across various services.

Since the late 1980s, many attempts have been made to assess student achievement (McKenzie, 1994). In 1975 and in 1980, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and the State Department of Education were involved in assessing literacy and numeracy of both 10- and 14-year-old national samples in general education programs. This was the only systematic attempt to monitor student achievement at the national level (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985). Considerable opposition to nationwide large-scale assessment activities prevented this national testing program in literacy and numeracy from continuing. However, ACER continues to conduct national tests of student achievement in math and science as part of the IEA's international studies (McKenzie, 1994).

In addition to assessing student achievement for the purpose of monitoring student learning and deciding student placement, holding educational systems accountable for the purpose of providing quality education for students with disabilities has been an issue since the 1980s. Data have been collected to address the accountability of the educational systems.

Statistics and data on students with disabilities are collected through each state's own categorization criteria. However, in the most recent edition of the International Encyclopedia of Education (McKenzie, 1994) no discussion is made about whether Australia has criteria for inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment processes. Further, no information is found regarding accommodations of testing procedures or formats for students with disabilities in large-scale assessments.

Reporting of results. In Australia, neither nationwide large-scale assessments nor reporting each individual student's achievement is welcome. The results of assessment at the end of Year 12 are usually reported as an overall ranking of all students, and they do not provide an indication of each student's actual level of achievement (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985).

Each state provides a public annual report on educational outcomes, along with funding arrangements made by the Commonwealth. Since the 1982 States Grant Act (Schools Assistance), the Commonwealth also has tried to gather information on how its funds are used, but it has not collected outcome data. Australia's lack of interest in collecting outcome data on a national basis is well described in the Report of the Quality of Education Review Committee (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985). There were few data on outcomes and no established mechanisms for systematically recording outcome information.

Although national testing has not been welcome in Australia (Ruby, 1990), the first national report on schooling was published in 1990 as an attempt to stimulate national approaches to student assessment. The report is to be published on a regular basis. Federal and state education authorities are to be involved in documenting resource levels and student outcomes (McKenzie, 1994).

Canada

Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass. It is located in the northern part of North America and excludes Alaska and Greenland. Its land mass totals 3,851,794 square miles (9,976,140 square kilometers), and its population was estimated over 27 million in 1993 (Wright, 1995). Canada is slightly larger than the U.S. Canada is a federal state, which consists of ten provinces and two territories. A national system of education does not exist in Canada (Berg, 1994).

Cultural backgrounds are diverse. Greater than 60% of Canada's population live in Ontario and Quebec where the primary language is English and French, respectively (Berg, 1994). The Canadian economy was originally dominated by agricultural and resource-based industries. Currently the majority of the labor force (about 75%) is employed in service industries, and Canada's major industries include minerals, food products, wood and paper products (Wright, 1995).

General education system. "There is no such thing as the Canadian educational system" (Blair, 1985, p. 630). Standards are set at the provincial rather than at the national level (U.S. General Accounting Office [U.S. GAO], 1993). There is no uniform, nationwide educational system or curriculum. The educational system depends on each province, and within a province many different school systems exist (Blair, 1985).

Schooling starts at the age of four, but this is not compulsory. Compulsory education starts at the age of 6 and continues until the age of 16 (UNESCO, 1992). In contrast to elementary education, secondary education is differentiated into composite or vocational types (Blair, 1985). Most secondary schools are composite and offer a wide range of courses, including not only academics but also business and technical courses. Graduates from composite schools usually go to universities or colleges or may want to get a job. Most graduates from vocational secondary schools are employed.

Special education. As the system of general education varies from province to province, so do the policies and legislation regarding special education. Special education is the responsibility of each province. Funding is arranged and provided at the discretion of each province. Due to such province-by-province variability, progress has not been made across provinces, to an equal degree, in terms of mandating special education services for all students with disabilities or identifying those eligible students (Hutchinson & Wong, 1987).

Children with disabilities are educated in special schools, special classes, or general education classrooms. Although students with special needs have been integrated into general education classrooms as much as possible since the 1970s, there also exist separate schools for categories of disabilities. Special schools usually serve students with mental, visual, or hearing impairments (Berg, 1994).

Placement/tracking decisions. Continuous progress is emphasized in elementary schools; however, at the secondary level, promotion is made by subject rather than by grade (Berg, 1994). Until the 1960s, students had to pass compulsory, province-wide departmental exams in order to graduate from high schools. Currently, classroom teachers and principals play an important role in making decisions about students' graduation from secondary schools. A final decision is based on overall school performance and local school test results.

Assessment practices. At least since the 1960s, provincial exams have been abolished or decreased; however, they are being revived in an attempt to set provincial achievement standards (Blair, 1985). Tests are tied to each provincial curriculum, and provincial tests are used to assess student achievement in subject areas or to certify students' mastery of high school courses (U.S. GAO, 1993).

As mentioned earlier, Canada does not have a nationwide educational system or national curriculum. However, Canada has developed a Canada-wide national assessment as part of a national indicator project (U. S. GAO, 1993). The development and use of this nationwide, large-scale assessment reflects Canada's increased interest in the overall assessment of the effectiveness of provincial educational systems and the comparison with the data from international studies (e.g., TIMSS). In 1989, the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada developed the School Achievement Indicators Program, which provides data to assist each province and territory in making policy decisions and planning programs. Indicators of student participation, graduation rates, and the achievement of 13- and 16-year-old students in reading, writing, and mathematics are included in the Canada-wide national assessment (Berg, 1994).

Along with the recent emphasis on the measurement of educational outcomes through the assessment of student achievement, educational assessment focuses on the evaluation of programs, teachers, schools, and school systems. At the elementary level, some provinces have undertaken large-scale student testing in specific subjects at selected grade levels to evaluate both students and schools.

Criteria for including or excluding students with disabilities in large-scale assessments are not discussed even in the most recent edition of the International Encyclopedia of Education (Berg, 1994). However, some students with disabilities seem to participate in the assessments, and accommodations are allowed in testing for students with disabilities. Examinations are modified to accommodate students with physical or learning disabilities, members of a linguistic minority, or those who are in crisis (U. S. GAO, 1993). A board of examiners or a provincial education agency makes decisions about accommodations needed for students with disabilities. Some of the accommodations allowed are as follows (U. S. GAO, 1993):

1. Examinations are prepared in both English and French;

2. Students are excused from writing examinations when they have illness, accident, or bereavement;

3. Difficulty levels of examinations are tailored to individual students when a specific subject is a general graduation requirement for all students;

4. Different examinations are tailored for the basic and academic English courses in British Columbia and Alberta;

5. Students voluntarily participate in most examinations except tests for college-bound students;

6. Students are provided with multiple opportunities either to retake competency-based examinations without repeating a course or to repeat the course and then retake the exam;

7. When examinations are retaken, the highest grade is recorded on the student's transcript.

Reporting of results. Provinces do not attach high stakes to tests (U. S. GAO, 1993). In order to prevent test results from being misused as an evaluation of individual teachers and students, test scores are aggregated before they are reported. Despite such safeguards, it is difficult to find data on how the achievement results of students with disabilities are dealt with in the process of reporting the assessment results.

Chile

Chile is located along the southwestern coast of South America. The mountainous country covers 292,259 square miles (756,950 square kilometers), and its estimated population reached approximately 13,739,759 in 1993 (Wright, 1995). Major industries include copper and other minerals, foodstuffs, and fish processing. In recent years, the labor force working in the service sector has increased. About 38.6% are employed in the service sector and about 31% in industry and commerce areas (Wright, 1995).

General education system. In Chile, young children aged 0 to 6 are educated under the voluntary three-level, pre-primary schooling system: nursery, middle level, and transition. Entrance age to preprimary education is 5, but education before the first-level of schooling is not compulsory. Compulsory education starts at the age of 6 (primary school) and continues for eight years (UNESCO, 1992). The first four years of primary schooling provide basic education.

Since the 1980s, more varied alternatives have been provided at the post-primary level for the purpose of meeting the needs of the labor markets. Basically, the four years of secondary school has two branches, academic and vocational and both have the same right to the university (Rodriguez, 1994). The two years of the lower-level general secondary education is offered from grade 9 to 10. Then, students choose between another cycle of two more years of general academic education or vocational training.

Special education. As in other countries, in Chile the major purpose of special education is to integrate students with disabilities into general education settings. Experts in the Ministry of Education diagnose students with special needs in such areas as learning difficulties, communication disorders, vision impairment, mental retardation, and motor difficulties. Despite the integrative principle of special education, most students receiving full-time special education programs are found in special education units because there are few general education institutions that can integrate those students (Rodriguez, 1994).

Placement/tracking decisions. Student promotion decisions are usually made by teachers. Students are evaluated on their performance in learning objectives in specific subject fields. Nationwide examinations are held to select candidates for universities. These examinations consist of a battery of tests, including an aptitude test (verbal and mathematical reasoning), and several achievement tests in the subject areas to be studied. Except for these examinations, no examinations exist to pass from one level of the system to another (Rodriguez, 1994).

Assessment practices. In Chile, school outcomes were evaluated through Programa de Evaluaci—n de Rendimiento in 1982-84. Since 1988, the Ministry of Education has administered a nationwide examination to all students in Grades 4 and 8. The results of the educational process are annually diagnosed in terms of the attained objectives. All students in Grades 4 and 8 participate in multiple-choice tests in Spanish and mathematics, but only a sample of them participate in testing of history, geography and natural science. This system of educational assessment also includes indicators of student personal development, school efficiency, dropout rates, and the number of years studied (Rodriguez, 1994).

In the most current edition of the International Encyclopedia of Education (Rodriguez, 1994), no discussion is included on criteria for inclusion or exclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments and about accommodations in testing for students with disabilities.

Reporting of results. The Ministry of Education collects and regularly publishes information on educational indicators such as enrollments, attendance, quality of education, human and financial resources, achievement of academic objectives, and illiteracy rate (Rodriguez, 1994). The percentage of achievement on each one of the objectives is reported to every school. The results show how much students in each class have obtained the objectives. These results provide school-by-school comparisons as well as the relative position of each school in comparison to national outcomes. Recommendations as well as results are provided to schools, in an attempt to help each school improve its education. The results are also used to allocate material and human resources to lower-achieving schools in poverty areas (Rodriguez, 1994).

Data on educational inputs, resources and outcomes are collected, but it is not clear whether Chile has established any criteria or procedures about how to deal with students with disabilities in the process of reporting the data and the assessment results.

China

China is located in the eastern part of the Asian continent. China's total land mass is approximately 3,705,392