CERC's Electronic Book

Doing Comparative Education: Three Decades of Collaboration

Part III: Achievement, Assessment, and Evaluating Learning

Comparative School Achievement
National Case Study Report
International Study of School Achievement
Reflections
The Two Faces of Examinations
Tradeoffs in Examination Policies: An International Comparative Perspective
Secondary School Examinations: International Perspectives on Policies and Practice
An International Perspective on National Standards
A Comparative Assessment of Assessment
An International Comparison of End-of-Secondary School Examinations

Source: Max A. Eckstein, Great Expectations:
an International Comparison of End-of-Secondary
School Examinations. Background paper prepared
for a Conference of the Office of Educational
Research and Innovation, Department of Education,
Washington, D.C., submitted February 3, 1994.


GREAT EXPECTATIONS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF END-OF-SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATIONS1


Introduction

National examinations represent general expectations for student achievement, reflect standards, and provide both a stimulus to establishing overall quality in education and a yardstick to measure it. This paper reports on end-of-secondary school external examinations in four countries of particular interest to the United States. Common and divergent features of practice are described in their respective contexts, including examination content and format, the burdens placed on candidates, and the organization and management of external examinations. The different patterns provide policy makers in the United States and elsewhere with a range of possible options for improving school performance in their own systems, but also present them with numerous dilemmas. These revolve around such issues as how uniform or diversified an external examination should be, what level(s) of difficulty should be targetted, and how the respective claims of national and regional authority can be reconciled.

The Functions of National Examinations

Before presenting the data and comparisons from international study, one question needs to be raised: what are the functions of a national, external examination?

Historically, examinations such as the Abitur, the bac, the Japanese (Joint First Stage) university entrance examination, and the General Certificate of Education in England/Wales were instituted to serve two linked functions. Taken at the end of upper secondary school studies, they certified completion at a satisfactory level of achievement, and they selected young persons for higher education, professional training, and thus, ultimately, for high office and status in society. In doing this, they were instruments whereby valuable rewards were distributed to a limited number of recipients going on to advanced studies. These are the traditional gatekeeper functions of national examinations.

But such examination systems also serve additional purposes. They are in several important ways a means of quality control within education systems. The prospect of the examination affects a student's motivation to achieve, influencing the quality of his/her work; the test paper itself legitimizes the school's course of study and shapes what teachers do in the classroom; and the results form part of parents' evaluation of their children's schooling.

In addition, however, national examinations fulfil a third group of functions relating to their broader social, economic, and political implications. We are all well aware that examinations, while not always conclusive, are powerful influences on individual success in adult life. But they also serve as a gauge of the quality of a nation's educational efforts and its work force. Taxpayers and politicians use the results to estimate how well national resources have been spent, to measure the status and relative progress of a given regional, social, or ethnic group relative to another, and to compare their nation's educational level with that of other nations. All in all, a national examination system produces results that are used in many ways, some directly associated with teaching and learning in schools, others more general. But whether they act as gatekeepers, means of quality control, or as instruments with social, economic and political implications, a common denominator of national examination systems everywhere is the powerful influence they exert over schooling and over people and their futures.

As a consequence, such examinations receive close attention in both educational and political circles, particularly as circumstances change and problems emerge that are common to many countries. Though some of these have only recently become matters of great concern abroad, the following concerns are certainly prevalent at this time in the United States: a sense of decline in the overall quality of educational practice and school outcomes, mounting evidence of inadequate and inconsistent achievement standards across the nation, and a growing suspicion that student potential at all levels of ability is neglected and insufficiently challenged. Students whether of average or higher potential are unchallenged, and their performance suffers due to the absence of generally accepted and consistent high expectations. Hence the accelerating move in the United States toward setting national goals, defining national standards, and creating ways to assess progress toward achieving them.

Some Findings of Comparative Research

One of the conclusions revealed in comparative, international study of examination systems2 is that the traditional gatekeeper functions of national examinations, certification and selection, are remarkably persistent. But no less significant are the additional functions mentioned above: quality assessment and control within school systems3, and broad social, political and economic objectives outside them. Several countries have made significant changes in their examination systems, some of them highly controversial, in order to meet new circumstances and objectives. The growth in size and diversity of the secondary school population in most of the countries we studied is without doubt a major factor in accounting for this. But it is by no means the only one. Changes in educational philosophy and teaching objectives and techniques, changing labour market demands, and changing social and political conditions all contribute to the ferment about national examinations.

This paper focusses on examination systems in England/Wales, France, Germany, and Japan, and upon those comparative findings of most interest to policy-makers in this country. All the nations are highly industrialized, all are committed to open access to post-compulsory education, and all have been successful in this policy, having provided some form of schooling for all up to age 16 and for the majority of 17-18 year olds. It will be concerned primarily with two of the three sets of functions outlined above: national examinations as gatekeepers and as instruments of quality control. Amidst current efforts to upgrade educational standards in the United States there is wide agreement that students are a precious resource whose gifts and talents remain sadly undeveloped.4 The following observations clearly have important ramifications for all students, the broad range considered "average" as well as potentially high achievers in the school population.

Examination content and format Everywhere, national examinations at the end of secondary schooling represent academic expectations. [See Table 1] The sheer physical and mental effort required to sit the external examinations is generally great5 and the subject requirements are also considerable, indicating the amount of preparatory work necessary. Youngsters in France and Japan, as in most of the countries we studied, are required to obtain passing marks in at least 6 or 7 subjects in their final examinations, and possibly more, depending on their course of studies and plans for subsequent study. In Germany, Federal requirements for graduation ensure that all study a broader curriculum through the final year of secondary school, though only four subjects are required in the Abitur. In England/Wales, where specialization begins far earlier than elsewhere, students usually submit only two or three subjects for the GCE6, though they usually take more than one paper in each subject.

Both the quantity and quality of content demanded by the examination papers is very high compared with the United States. External examinations in all countries require a good amount of information recall, but to various extents they all also test higher order cognitive skills, such as comprehension and interpretation, application and analysis of new and old material. Questions asked of eighteen-year-olds in England/Wales, France, Germany, and Japan in their respective national language and literature papers illustrate the differences. With the exception of Japan (and the United States), extended responses are usually required. All require recall and some demonstration of comprehension. But the most demanding questions, those requiring analysis and synthesis, are in fact characteristic of the papers in the first three countries. In Japan, questions testing comprehension are more common, since the Japanese reliance on multiple-choice does not easily allow for the kind of performance that an open-ended essay requires.

We observed similar characteristics in the history/social studies examinations. All require a large amount of factual recall, but the questions also call for discrimination in presenting data, interpretations, judgements, and analyses. Conventional GCE questions are often quite brief but the essay answers demand specific facts in an historical context to explain, verify, or justify a particular position, such as: explain how Prussia benefited from Frederick the Great, or, why were the French defeated in the Franco-Prussian wars? Newer types of questions may present students with data and archival materials to interpret and from which they are to draw inferences or justify a generalization.

French students must interpret and comment on a set of documents such as texts, maps, diagrams and statistical facts or write an extended essay: e.g. using your own examples, analyze how liberal democracy works in the Western world, or, based on a set of documents on, for example, Soviet society, write on daily life, ethnic diversity, and tensions in society. Examinations in Germany differ from Land to Land, but usually consist of two or more essays on a period, theme, or event. Often, the questions are introduced through a short text or contain pointers on aspects of the topic that should be addressed. Japanese students, again in multiple choice format, must show knowledge of historical periods and where people and events fit into these, but they are also asked to select the correct explanation for an event from several options and identify the correct or incorrect generalization from a number of statements offered.

Comparison of the scope, form, and content of examinations in mathematics reveals similar characteristics, though there are differences between those required of all candidates (as in Japan) and the more advanced papers chosen by specialists (in all countries including Japan). All cover a range of mathematics areas though they differ in the amount of attention given to each. All call for repetition of standard items and procedures learned from textbooks and teachers. But to different extents, they also contain more difficult questions requiring problem-solving, selection of the most appropriate means of solution, and their correct application.7 Problem-solving (analysis and synthesis) is in fact the major part of mathematics examinations in England/Wales, France, and Germany, whereas examinations in Japan and the United States tend to stress applications of mathematical skills and concepts.

The burden on candidates and their success rates We were overwhelmed at times by what students can do if expected to do so8. Like many other observers, we were sometimes adversely impressed by the heavy burden placed upon them. Concern over excessive pressure on students is widespread in several countries: reduction in the number of subjects required for the Abitur in Germany and the addition of new program options in France, and persistent disquiet over what Japanese students must endure, all attest to awareness of the possible negative effects of too heavy a load of work. But these criticisms and changes occur predominantly in the countries where the demands have been exceptionally great and where few students were permitted to pass. Not surprisingly, the reforms prompted cries that standards were being lowered, a result for which we found no firm support.

A majority of those sitting for such exams pass. Furthermore, as larger numbers sit for them, the ratio of passes to candidates has remained fairly constant or even risen somewhat. This may of course be in part a result of pre-selection through specialized schools and classes, or the practice of "redoublement" (repetition). It is also clearly due to the fact that teachers, notwithstanding reservations they may have concerning syllabus, testing devices, and pressure to achieve, have a clear idea of what their students need in order to do well and generally see their responsibility as helping them to do so. But the inescapable conclusion is that the examinations do in fact represent standards of achievement that are not merely attainable but are actually achieved by large proportions of the candidates. The examples cited are not exceptional instances and provide only a glimpse of the high expectations placed on candidates in England, Germany, Japan, and France.

Organization and management of national external examinations National examination systems are managed in a variety of ways, usually reflecting the different administrative traditions of each country. In France and Japan, the examinations belong to the Ministry of Education, in England/Wales to a number of quasi-autonomous regional examination boards, in Germany to the examining authorities of the several Länder. France, for example, with its relatively centralized and uniform educational system, issues a mark and a credential that has nationally currency and, with some exceptions, provides entry to any university in the country. The Abitur in Germany, where education is a responsibility of the Land (province), carries similar legal authority, though a numerus clausus limits access to some institutions and programs. Yet in both cases, to a far greater extent in decentralized Germany than in France, the actual formulation of the examination papers, their content, and the grading are all variously delegated to sub-national levels.

In France, the académie (regional education authority) makes its own choices from subject topics listed by the Ministry of Education and is responsible also for administering and grading the examinations (though according to national guidelines). Federal policy in decentralized Germany is based on consensus reached by the Ministers of the several Länder. The Standing Conference of Ministers of Education of the several Länder maintains unity and a degree of uniformity by constant review of the process, issues guidelines that regulate many aspects of the examinations, and periodically revises them. Each Land has its own arrangements so that differences may be quite marked among the regions (Bavaria, for example, has a centrally set uniform examination for all candidates, others allow localities and schools within their Land a larger role in determining the process and the outcomes). However, consensus on general guidelines and a high degree of reciprocity ensures nation-wide credibility and reliance on the results.

In what has been the notably decentralized case of England, examinations at the end of seondary school have been in the hands of university-influenced regional examination boards, traditionally autonomous of the Ministry and local education authorities. This has changed considerably and rapidly in the past decade due to concern for excessive variability in the school curricula across the nation, decline of comparability among regions and schools, and the desire of Government to limit local and independent authority in educational matters.9 The several examining bodies maintain close communication among themselves to keep a common core of examination content, and compare standards and grades in order to remain sufficiently comparable. In sharp contrast, uniformity of content and comparability of the results in the national common (first stage) university entrance examination in Japan comes from a central agency of the Ministry of Education which devises, administers, and grades the common examination.

Two-stage examination systems Countries often provide pre- or post-selection via a second round of examinations. The GCSE taken in several subjects in England/Wales is followed two years later by the specialized GCE A-level; France's bac is followed by the grand concours, taken by the more ambitious and able students; Japan's national achievement test is followed by entrance examinations set by universities. But all the countries we have mentioned, whether formally or informally, pre-select within the school system, sorting youngsters at least two or three years earlier into different programs or classes, not all of which prepare for the examinations.

The various roles of teachers In all the examination systems we studied, teachers are involved in different phases of the process, from formulating the questions to deciding the marks. Subject specialists do this together with school administrators and university-based subject experts. In Japan, as in the United States, psychometricians are an additional influential cadre of participants, though experts in test construction and analysis of the results are becoming more evident in England and other countries. In Germany, teachers serve as examiners in the still common practice of orals, as they do in France, where, together with administrators, they are members of juries that determine the final grades of candidates, resolve inconsistencies in marks, as well as adjudicate any infractions in the procedures.10 Even in Japan, where a specialised unit of the Ministry is responsible for all aspects of the national examination, teacher committees formulate questions, review the results, and prepare revisions for the next years.

Some of the newer practices (e.g. school-based examination assignments) inevitably involve teachers as judges and raise new problems of willingness and trust. Concerns are expressed over subjectivity and loss of comparability when teachers grade school-based assignments that are parts of the examination or assemble and assess profiles of achievement.11

Some comparative observations The contrast between the foreign examination systems we have described and the external examinations commonly taken in the U.S. is quite startling.12 These are all exceptionally undemanding with respect to content, format, and other requirements. Only the Advanced Placement examinations contain comparable challenging material (though there are no required subjects). But only a small, though nowadays, growing proportion of students take these.13 Teachers, psychometricians, and subject specialists have considerable input into these examinations, but the only controls on their activities are "in-house" governance and, more recently, public opinion.

However, nowhere are all interested parties totally satisfied; both the means and the ends of the external examination systems are frequently under fire, often resulting in important changes. Moreover, few nations rely solely on the results of external examinations for graduation and admission decisions. In most countries, professionals are divided on the subject but there is considerable movement towards including standard school assignments and records of work in a dossier for the final assessment, together with the examination results. Grades for at least the final school year are conventionally included in the results in both France and Germany, and the school-based assignment is becoming more common as part of the total examination grade in England/Wales.

In all examinations, excellence is recognized by high marks or grades that differentiate outstanding from merely passing performance. In addition, examination systems usually make provision for advanced papers chosen by students who have specialized in given subjects. These differ in breadth and depth from the basic papers and are therefore subject to higher standards of evaluation.14 However, subject requirements ensure that breadth is not sacrificed to depth (except in the case of the GCE in England/Wales).

From an international comparative perspective, we also observed some convergence in examination practices. In more centralized France, many responsibilities and choices are being delegated to regions and we observed efforts to respond to regional interests and local languages; on the other hand, other more decentralized countries (England/Wales for example) sought to obtain a greater degree of uniformity and comparability of results through a national core of common subject matter and regular assessments of student achievement. In countries that have relied mainly on a one-shot, often uniform examination at the end of secondary school, alternatives have been introduced in the form of subject options and additional kinds of evidence of student performance. Such convergence extends also to the format of examination papers themselves: multiple choice, machine scorable, so-called "objective" tests, formerly common only in Japan and the United States, are being introduced elsewhere, primarily as an efficiency measure, while extended answers that permit better judgement of quality (sometimes referred to as "authentic" tests), are again being promoted in Japan and the U.S. Movement of this kind usually represents an effort to improve a perceived deficiency within the country.

Dilemmas and Options for Policy-makers

Examples drawn from foreign practice are interesting and instructive, for although they obviously cannot simply be transplanted to a new setting, they represent a range of practical and often provocative possibilities. However, policy-makers cannot endorse them simply on their own educational merits. They must question the possibilities of adaptation to their own domestic circumstances, and their suitability both as to ends and means.15

Most important, however, policy-makers are required to negotiate an acceptable path between alternative goals that may all have great merit but are sometimes opposing if not totally contradictory. They must determine the tradeoffs among alternative policies and weigh the costs and benefits of reform measures. Thus in educational as in other policy decisions, they try to achieve one set of objectives without paying too high a price in terms of other desirable outcomes. The variety of national examination policies we have observed in different countries illustrate this.

The policy options can be grouped around a number of persistent dilemmas. We select only two foci for discussion here, both central to current concerns in the United States: uniformity vs. diversity, and the levels of expectation embodied in examination papers and their grading practices.

Uniformity vs. diversity Japan and the United States both offer limited choices to students in standardized, uniform national examinations, in contrast to England/Wales, Germany, and France which give candidates many options among subjects, syllabi, kinds and degrees of specialization, and levels of difficulty. The first policy sets limits on diversity in school curriculum and standards of achievement, but facilitates comparability, and is, supposedly, more evenhanded. However, there are serious costs: differences among regions, groups, and individuals are glossed over, often leading to accusations of cultural and ethnic bias; examinations cannot easily be adapted to the preferences and aptitudes of candidates, and to the varied requirements of society and the economy.

These criticisms are particularly intense in the United States. But by the same token, there are also costs to diversity and optionality. The prospects of a common core of national curriculum and a sense of national culture may be reduced; questions will still be raised about social equity and comparability; admissions officers in higher education and prospective employers may be puzzled by what a credential stands for. The changes introduced into the Abitur and the bac over the past two decades have made them more responsive to national and to students' needs, but the costs in terms of comparability, fear of loss of standards, and more, are apparent. The slow transfer of authority over examinations in England/Wales from local to central authority is intended to do away with what many have regarded as too great a variety of options and a laissez-faire approach to programs of study. Together with regular nation-wide assessments and a national curriculum, the reformed examination system is intended to increase student participation and curriculum uniformity.

The common dilemmas include: how to retain a common core of curriculum while responding to the various demands of regions, the economy, and social differences; how to supplement examination results with non-examination assessment criteria; and how far to differentiate examination papers for different groups and individuals. Many of these same issues also impinge on the vexing problem of expectations.

Levels of expectation Expectations influence performance levels. So much is clearly known through experience and research, and teachers ignore this principle at their peril. However, specifying the kinds and levels of expectations to be held of students is a more complex matter. It is faced by all countries committed to open access in education: how many subjects, which ones, and at what levels of competence; what mechanisms should be employed to monitor this. All the foreign countries we have cited face similar dilemmas: how to set demanding standards of achievement without discouraging too many students, that is, picking winners without making too many losers; and how to maintain high standards of performance, while increasing the number of successful candidates.

In the countries we have cited, standards are established and maintained in a variety of ways, based on their respective precedents.16 In all of them, a demanding national examination carrying substantial rewards such as admission to higher education and professional status continues to be a major means of doing this, though complemented by other mutually reinforcing mechanisms. Germany and France have traditionally used a system of in-school selection culminating in a rigorous external examination to maintain high educational standards. Japan's external examination, in an ostensibly less selective school structure, serves to set high standards to strive for and, not incidentally, ensures close adherence to the national curriculum (as in France). It may be supplemented for some students, as in France and Japan, by a second round of examinations set by universities. A central or regional authority specifies a required curriculum in France, Germany, Japan, and in recent years in England/Wales. An inspectorate may be an additional controlling factor, as in France and until recently England/Wales, while new assessment systems also serve to define and monitor national standards as in England/Wales and the United States (APU and NAEP, noted above). Thus national examinations do not stand alone as guarantees of quality standards, but are a major feature in a set of mechanisms to set and implement expectations for student achievement. They act as powerful incentives to learn.17

From their main traditional role as gatekeepers allowing only a small number of a selected minority to advance, national examination systems have been adapted to open doors to greater numbers of students and to meet changing socio-economic demands.18 But everywhere they have retained their commitment to maintain high standards and are concerned with levelling up, without cost to average or poorer students.

The fact is, however, that the United States is an exception among the nations we have observed in lacking the precedent of a national, public examination system which sets high expectations for subject-matter achievement and through which successful candidates can obtain a credential having national currency.19 Thus a critical link leading to high quality performance is missing, that is, the connection between curriculum and student achievement: external assessment according to broadly accepted, demanding criteria of learning. Other systems are able from time to time to reform their examinations in order to meet changing circumstances and policies, but the U.S. has no such recourse and thus deprives students of an important if not critical souce of motivation. In recognition of this lack, it has recently begun the reform process by setting national goals and seeking consensus on standards of achievement in specific subject areas. This accommodates traditions of local State control in education and follows its own national precedents for school reform.20 Federal initatives are now combining with State collaboration and professional input to encourage reforms in curriculum, teaching, and assessment as ways to lever education to a higher level of performance.21

Conclusion

What are some of the lessons to be learned from these examples of how countries assess students at the end of secondary school? The first broad conclusion is that there is no perfect system for all purposes, all circumstances, and all places, and that as new considerations come into play, changes are introduced in one direction or another.22 There are many ways of organizing, managing, and forming a national examination system, but none serves all necessary purposes to the satisfaction of all involved. [See Table 1]

Comparative research shows that in no country, do all youngsters take the national examination [see Table 2]. Nor is the national examination necessarily totally uniform and the same for all candidates, nor limited to one type of assessment. In fact, it is rare for all candidates in a given country to take the identical examination, though there will be common ingredients. Nor need a national examination be governed by a distant and arbitrary central authority. Even in the most centralized countries, some authority is delegated to sub-national units, yet in the more decentralized system, mechanisms exist to ensure a considerable degree of similarity in form and content of examinations across the country. And, most significantly, though the debates over national examinations and standards persist in many countries, the high achievement standards that those examinations represent are no longer held to be only for a narrowly selected few but are rather targets for the many to aim for.

Current efforts to upgrade educational outcomes in the United States are currently focussing on establishing common content standards in various subjects. The debates over how to implement such standards and assess the results are under way. Of course, no single reform measure will disarm all the critics or solve all the problems of American education. But whatever local and national reforms are envisaged in American education, it is first and last on the shoulders of teachers that responsibility falls, even though their capacity to peform their tasks effectively is constrained by circumstances largely beyond their control: public attitudes, local and central government involvement (or sometimes apathy), parental cooperation in their efforts, and appropriate pre- and in-service education. Teachers everywhere are responsible for assessing the results of their teaching, but in other countries they may also be assigned heavy responsibility for setting, administering, and grading the most critical examinations in their students' lives. This requires faith in their professional competence and involvement at various levels of policy determination and practice.23 However, the levels of student work which can be achieved depend on the values and expectations that teachers internalize and express in their daily work. Without an emphasis on superior achievement in their own education, strong moral and actual support from within their own school systems, and reinforcement by those around them, they are unlikely to succeed in affecting the direction of educational improvement.

In all the developed countries considered here, a majority of students now attends upper secondary school. Participation in national examinations has greatly increased (even in England/Wales, where growth has so far been relatively slow), and student choices and alternative methods of assessment have also increased, resulting in greater diversification. What were once exclusive and highly selective traditional examination systems continue to serve their certification and selection purposes, though they have been changing towards selecting in rather than only to selecting out. But beyond selection, they remain as standard setters representing high expectations and stimulating high achievement.

Evidently, U.S. emphasis on ability and aptitude testing has not been a sufficient means of ensuring high standards of student performance.24 Instead, one outcome appears to have been to set limits on expectations for achievement and impose minimum levels of achievement for graduation. But incorporating high expectations in the form of end-of-secondary school assessments and holding all students to them would go a long way toward removing those obstacles. As evidence at home and abroad indicates, challenging standards and demonstrated success are powerful motivational devices, have a positive effect upon average students, and enhance the performance of high achievers.25 [See Table 3]

A concluding note: the following observations bear on the use of comparative data about examinations to inform current moves to improve education in the United States. Firstly, any system of assessment reflects the goals and expectations of a country's educational system; examination syllabi and questions embody society's views of what knowledge is of most worth; and the practices derive from national precedents and concerns for excellence. Secondly, while the motivational power of high expectations is indubitable, information about the relative difficulty of national examinations, how they are governed, and how teachers participate, can be seriously misleading unless informed by appreciation of the school and social context in which these practices take place. To attempt merely to make "easy" examinations harder or "harder" ones easier will inevitably have consequences for the entire educational system. Some will be quite unexpected, and policymakers are advised to study the various experiences of other countries if they wish to minimize surprises.



                       TABLE 1 

 NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS: COUNTRY PROFILES

 
England/Wales  (General Cert. of Education, Advanced Level)

Governed by regional, university-associated Boards
Distant teacher involvement
Important for university admission and employment
No subjects required, but usually 2-3 taken
Est. pass rate: 70% of candidates
Approx. 16% of age cohort receive passing grades
Examination content: very difficult 

France  (Baccalauréat)

Ministry control through regional administrations 
Close teacher involvement
Critical for university admission/important for employment
Minimum of 6-7 subjects required
Est. pass rate: 66+% of candidates
Approx. 33% of age cohort pass
Examination content: very difficult 

Germany  (Abitur)

Governed by Minister of each province
Close teacher involvement
Critical for university admission/important for employment
Four subjects required (incl. one oral) 
Est. pass rate: 95% of candidates
Approx. 30% of age cohort pass
Examination content: very difficult

Japan  (Joint First Stage Achievement Test)

Governed by Ministry
Distant teacher involvement
Important for university admission and employment
Minimum of 6-7 subjects required
No pass/fail; approx. 66% of HS grads. enter college
Approx. 36% of age cohort enter college
Examination content: somewhat difficult

United States  (Scholastic Aptitude Test, American College
Test,Achievement Tests, Advanced Placement Tests)

Governed by private, commercial companies
Distant teacher involvement
Variously important for university admission
No subject reqs.; usually taken in English/Mathematics
No pass/fail; approx. 66% of HS grads. enter college
Approx. 60% of age cohort enter college
Examination content: AP Tests only, difficult  


                    TABLE 2 

FOREIGN EXTERNAL EXAMINATIONS: SOME COMPARATIVE FEATURES

Participation:
nowhere do all students take the end-of-secondary school exam, though the numbers are rising in most countries.
Choices:
while a common core of subjects and of content within subjects is usually required, students in many countries have broad choices among and within subjects.
Control:
national examinations are controlled by both central government and regional authorities; the balance of shared authority/responsibility depends on national precedents in educational administration. In the more decentralized systems, examination practices may differ considerably, though regulated by a national authority.
Teachers:
teachers and subject specialists are everywhere involved in the examinations, though in different capacities and ways, including examining and grading their own students.
Content and format:
except for Japan, all countries rely mainly if not exclusively, on extended answers to questions; they give considerable attention to questions requiring higher order skills such as analysis and problem-solving; in some cases, examination papers include school-based assignments.
Difficulty:
the burdens placed on students and the difficulty of the question papers differ among systems, making comparison especially complex. However, the standards exemplified in the national exams are uniformly high compared with those most commonly taken in the U.S. (SAT, ACT).
Success:
the majority of candidates pass (60+% to 90+%). This is due to a combination of factors including pre-selection, nationally determined standards, the motivational effect of the examination, its tangible and status rewards.
Uses of external examinations:
nowhere do the results of external examinations serve as the sole criteria for graduation and admission; school records and teacher recommendations supplement them. In some countries, a second round of examinations selects students for university admission and/or special programs or institutions. 


                    		TABLE 3 

      		     EXAMINATION SYSTEMS AND QUALITY CONTROL


 

What are the uses of national external 
examinations at the end of secondary schooling?


	- They embody educational standards and achievement criteria.

	- They draw attention to educational requirements, general and specific,
	and to the need to revise them from time to time. 
 
	- They set curriculum goals for school systems and teachers.

	- They provide a means for assessing how far these goals are met.

	- They give students targets to aim for.

	- They motivate students toward achievement.

	- They offer rewards for accomplishment.

NOTES

  1. The author acknowledges with appreciation many years of academic collaboration with Harold J.Noah. This paper is based on joint work during the period 1988-92. [BACK]

  2. Max A. Eckstein and Harold J. Noah. Secondary School Examinations: International Perspectives on Policies and Practices. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993; and Eckstein and Noah (eds.). Examinations: Comparative and International Studies. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1992. [BACK]

  3. Note specifically, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the U.S. and the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) in Britain. See, Caroline Gipps, "National Assessment: a comparison of English and American trends," in Patricia Broadfoot, Roger Murphy and Harry Torrance (eds.). Changing educational assessment: International perspectives and trends. London: Routledge, 1990, pp.53-64. [BACK]

  4. Expressions of concern are now legion, from the National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk (1983) to a more recent publication concerned particularly with gifted and talented students, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Oct. 1993. Comparative data and insights, added to domestic criticism, have raised national awareness of serious educational problems to a new high. [BACK]

  5. We calculated that German, English, and Japanese candidates must spend a minimum of 10-15 hours in the examination room on their required subjects alone, while the bac demands something like 20-24 hours. SAT and ACT exams, covering the two subjects of language and mathematics, call for 3 hours; achievement tests in a subject are one hour. [BACK]

  6. The General Certificate of Secondary Education, taken at about age 16, represents the end of a broad general secondary schooling and is taken in four or five or as many as 8-9 subjects. The General Certificate of Education (Advanced Level) comes after two or more additional years of more specialized study of three or four subjects. [BACK]

  7. See Eckstein and Noah, Secondary School Examinations:..., pp. 132-140, 155-169, and Appendix. [BACK]

  8. See Eckstein and Noah, op. cit, especially chapter 7 and Appendix. See also, National Endowment for the Humanities. National Tests: What Other Countries Expect Their Students to Know. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Humanities, 1991. We also examined British, French, and German publications that offered students model answers and guidelines on how to prepare them. [BACK]

  9. The move to bring the examination boards under Ministry supervision if not total authority was the resolution, under the Thatcher government, of a long-standing struggle between powers (Education Reform Act, 1988). Additional factors, educational and others, were also involved in a complex and still persistent conflict over national standards and a national curriculum, periodic national assessment, financing schools, and the powers of local educational authorities. [BACK]

  10. In Germany, too, teachers are members of the committees that perform similar duties, often in respect of students they have taught themselves. [BACK]

  11. Evaluation of their students' performance has always been a critical responsibility for teachers. However, when there are potentially far-reaching consequences as in external examinations, trust in their authority, that is, their competence, reliability, and objectivity, depends on several factors, including their professional status and their training. Nowhere is this as high as it once was. [BACK]

  12. These are the Achievement Tests, S.A.T., and A.C.T. Like Japan, the U.S. is exceptional in relying heavily on multiple-choice, standardized tests. [BACK]

  13. The same might be said of the examinations for the International Baccalaureat. As its name indicates, it was inspired by European practice and represents high standards of academic achievement. Though, like the AP, it is taken by relatively few students, it has gained some popularity in recent years and some schools in the U.S. have adopted it for selected students who follow special programs of studies. Schools that have adopted the IB, are impressed by its "quality control" effects upon curriculum, teaching, and student performance. [BACK]

  14. For example, German students must take four subjects in the Abitur, two of them at an advanced level. French students take advanced papers in their chosen series (set of subjects including required, optional required, and optional); Japanese students may select advanced papers in mathematics. [BACK]

  15. The U.S., in common with many countries, has a long and rich history of importing educational ideas and practices from abroad. But for a century and more, comparativists have reiterated the hazards of thoughtless and uninformed educational borrowing that ignored cultural differences as well as contextual similarities. Nowadays, for example, opposition to the formulation of national educational policies and their implementation continues to be grounded in fears of government "interference" and the diminution of States' rights, views that are deeply embedded in the nation's historical precedents and common consciousness. However, this ignores two facts: the strong record of the Federal Government's welcome contribution to educational progress at various critical times, and the examples of countries that guard local autonomy in education as jealously as does the U.S. but nevertheless subscribe to common national goals and procedures. As our study reveals, Germany and England/Wales are among the nations that have reconciled traditional local or other control with national goals in such matters as educational standards, curriculum, and end-of-school examinations, though not without difficulties. [BACK]

  16. Harold J. Noah, "Setting Standards in Other Countries," in Promises to Keep: Creating High Standards for American Students (Report to the National Education Goals Panel, Nov. 15, 1993). Pp. 44-53. [BACK]

  17. Recent comparative work provides further evidence along these lines. See John Bishop. Impacts of School Organization & Signalling on Incentives to Learn. Ithaca, N.Y.: Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University, Nov. 1993 (Working Paper 93-21). [BACK]

  18. Those resisting efforts to change the GCE A-level examinations in E/W often refer to it as "the gold standard" which, if altered will inevitably result in educational devaluation. [BACK]

  19. Of the countries we studied, only two have abolished well-established national end-of-secondary school/university entrance examinations: the U.S.S.R., soon after the 1917 Revolution, and China, at the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966). In both cases, they were regarded as symbols and means of old elitist educational and social practice. Access to higher education became based on personal recommendations and records of service. In both countries, national examinations were reinstated after a few years. [BACK]

  20. The U.S. leaves it to the States (and to communities, schools, and teachers within them) to perform such tasks. One or two State education authorities use examinations explicitly for selection and many more have begun to define and assess standards for credentialling purposes in order to improve student performance. But these are often stated in terms of minimum standards for high school graduation and represent average or less than average competencies. [BACK]

  21. See, Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, 1992, pp. 29ff. [BACK]

  22. We do not mean to gloss over the complex ramifications of efforts to change a nation's examination system, which are not limited to education alone but closely tied to many aspects of society, political as well as social and economic. For example, in Germany, the success of the Social Democratic Party in 1969 was followed by important reforms in the Abitur, partly rolled back after 1982, when the Christian Democrats were returned to power. In Britain, as already noted, reforms under the Education Act of 1988 reflected Conservative Party policy on educational control generally, including powers over local authorities as well as external examinations. See also note 19 above on communist rejection of what was seen as elitist practice. [BACK]

  23. Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions. Washington, D.C., especially p. 148 comparing the responsibilities and the role of teachers in examinations. See also, Eckstein and Noah, Secondary School Examinations, pp. 91-92. [BACK]

  24. An informed critic described U.S. students as the most tested and the least examined in the world! [BACK]

  25. Substantial evidence at home and abroad supports the view that all students are likely to benefit from a high quality system of standards and rigorous assessment representing high expectations. As access to public examinations increases, more students of all backgrounds participate and more succeed, showing that fears that the poor or ethnic minorities would suffer are exaggerated if not entirely unfounded. Educational disparities among sub-groups, it is submitted, cannot be ended by continued low expectations and second class standards. See, for example, Albert Shanker, "Goals 2000", The New York Times, May 23, 1992, p. E7. [BACK]

Back to Top
Go to Electronic Book's Contents
Go to CERC's Main Page
To obtain a copy of the book, order from CERC