people and planet

10
mandating a particular assessment activity can ensure
continuity. There is a formal policy in place in more than
half the countries reviewed by SABER, including Ghana,
Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka (World Bank, 2016a).
Regular funding is also required. Yet only in one-third
of the countries reviewed by SABER was a budget
allocated to the national assessment programme.
In Armenia, where a national assessment was carried
out in 2010 to assess grade 8 students in language and
history, regular funding is provided to the Assessment
and Testing Centre (World Bank, 2011). In Zambia, the
budget funds all national assessment activities while aid
from development partners is used for supplementary
support (OECD and World Bank, 2014). Public funding
of national assessments can be weak; in Pakistan,
the activities of the National Education Assessment
System, financed by the World Bank, waned when
responsibility was transferred to provincial governments
(Dundar et al., 2014).
An assessment should be carried out by organizations
whose work is recognized, respected and widely
accepted. SABER reports indicate that 60% of countries
had a stable national assessment body. In Uganda,
putting the National Examinations Board in charge of
assessments has clarified institutional structures and
improved development and implementation (Kanjee and
Acana, 2013).
A widely debated issue is whether assessment bodies
should be attached to ministries of education. Many
Latin American countries have made significant
changes in institutional arrangements. Ecuador
established its National Education Evaluation Institute
in 2012, transferring responsibility from the Ministry
of Education, in response to a mandate in the new
constitution. In Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, bodies have
seen their autonomy strengthen and responsibilities
broaden through sheer practice or legal provisions. But
some specialized education ministry units have also
been successful, as in Guatemala and Peru (Ferrer and
Fiszbein, 2015).
Another issue is capacity. National assessments
require experts to act as national and regional
coordinators, item writers, statisticians, data managers
and translators. The pool of qualified professionals
for such highly specialized positions is limited. Some
tertiary education departments lack programmes in
education statistics and measurement. Many qualified
professionals move to other government posts or the
private sector, or pursue graduate studies abroad.
Only six countries with SABER reports were considered
adequately staffed (World Bank, 2016a). Of the two
poorest, the Democratic Republic of the Congo relied
heavily on an EGRA project; only Mauritania had a strong
team, although staff were mainly temporary or part time
(World Bank, 2013e, 2014a).
As to the second dimension of assessment quality,
countries need to take steps to assure a valid and reliable
national assessment programme. Many assessment
units’ technical reports are unavailable or not sufficiently
detailed to establish whether these criteria are met. Only
four SABER countries made comprehensive, high quality
technical reports publicly available: Mauritania, Uganda,
the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam.
Concerns related to field operations may affect
the perceived representativeness and legitimacy of
assessment results. Almost half the countries with
SABER reports, including Mozambique and Sudan, had no
regular internal review mechanism (World Bank, 2016a).
In Serbia, the quality of test items and instruments in
the National Assessment of Fourth Grade Students was
verified by external experts and psychometric analysis.
A standardized administration manual is used (World
Bank, 2012a). In Latin America, many technical reports do
not indicate the criteria used to judge item validity, such
as cultural biases, nor do they comment on curricular
relevance or comparability across years (Ferrer, 2006).
Ensuring learning assessment quality standards and
providing support
Providing a supportive enabling environment and
clear standards that help ensure reliability, validity
and transparency is no easy matter. But doing so is
critical if national assessment results are to be counted
as valid sources for the global indicator. How can the
international community be assured that national,
regional or international assessments are fit for the
purpose of global monitoring?
This question raises two issues. First, if technical
requirements of conducting assessments are overly
stringent, then the institutional or organizational
capacity needed to conduct them will be beyond the
reach of many countries. As a result, a small pool of
private service providers could dominate the business of
learning assessments, undermining their relevance and
use by countries. Assessing learning outcomes for global
monitoring should be seen, first and foremost, as a public
good that contributes to country progress in education
and sustainable development. It should not become an
opportunity to increase market share.
200
CHAPTER 10 | TARGET 4.1 – PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION