Purpose: Few studies have examined the role of inclusivity in international assessments of student achievement, such as the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). The current study examined how the inclusivity of students with disabilities at the classroom level across countries may be associated with achievement scores, thus affecting national rankings. Method: To achieve this purpose, TIMSS mathematics and science achievement data were utilized. Findings: Results revealed how national rankings may be adjusted after examining the role of inclusivity in the classroom while statistically controlling for national economic and well-being indicators. Limitations: In terms of international comparisons, a country's history and culture can be critical in understanding its educational system and how it relates to the observed outcomes. The variables that we included in this study are quantified indicators that may reflect only some facets of each country's education system and special education inclusivity. Practical Implications: This study provides an overview of the measurement issues of children with disabilities within schools from the international context of the TIMSS while exploring the impact of student participation on rankings. Social Implications: The current study provides an empirical investigation of how country rankings in international assessment can move according to sociopolitical decisions. Originality: The current study is the first of its kind to examine the impact of inclusivity in the classroom on country rankings in international assessments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsR. (2003). Response to “Cautions on OECD's recent educational survey (PISA).”Oxford Review of Education,29, 377–389.
AinscowM., & SandillA. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organizational cultures and leadership.International Journal of Inclusive Education,14, 401–416.
4.
BeatonA., MullisI., MartinM., GonzalezE., KellyD., & SmithT. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
5.
ChromyJ. R. (2002). Sampling issues in design, conduct, and interpretation of international comparative studies of school achievement. In PorterA. C., & GamoranA. (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 80–114). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
6.
Darling-HammondL., & WentworthL. (2010). Benchmarking learning systems: Student performance assessment in international context.Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
7.
DelucaM., & StillingsC. (2008). Targeting resources to students with special educational needs: National differences in policy and practice.European Educational Research Journal,7, 371–385.
8.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS.3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
GravetterF. J., & WallnauL. B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences.5th ed.New York: Thomson Wadsworth.
10.
GrubbN. W. (2007). Dynamic inequality and intervention: Lessons from a small country.Phi Delta Kappan,89, 105–114.
11.
HalinenI., & JarvinenR. (2008). Towards inclusive education: The case of Finland.Prospects,38, 77–97.
12.
HanushekE. A., & WoessmannL. (2010). Sample selectivity and the validity of international student achievement tests in economic research (Working Paper No. 15867). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
13.
HusénT. (1987). Policy impact of IEA research.Comparative Education Review,31, 29–46.
14.
KamensD. H., & McNeelyC. L. (2009). Globalization and the growth of international educational testing and national achievement.Comparative Education Review,54, 5–25.
15.
LindsayG. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective.British Journal of Special Education,30, 3–12.
16.
LindsayG. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming.British Journal of Educational Psychology,77, 1–24.
17.
LinnR. (2002). The measurement of student achievement in international studies. In PorterA. C., & GamoranA. (Eds.), Methodological advances in large-scale cross-national education surveys (pp. 25–57). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18.
LukeA. (2011). Generalizing across borders: Policy and the limits of educational science.Educational Researcher,40, 367–377.
19.
LuytenH., & VeldkampB. (2011). Assessing effects of schooling with cross-sectional data: Between grades differences addressed as a selection-bias problem.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,4, 264–288.
20.
MartinM., & MullisI. (2002). International comparisons of student achievement. In Shorrocks-TaylorD., and JenkinsE. W. (Eds.), Learning from others: International comparisons in education.Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
21.
MertlerC. A., & VannattaR. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation.3rd ed.Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.
MislevyR. J. (1995). What can we learn from international assessments?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,17, 410–437.
24.
MullisI., & MartinM. (2008). Overview of TIMSS. In OlsonJ.F., MartinM.O., and MullisI.V.S. (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 technical report.Boston: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.
25.
MullisI., MartinM., GonzalezE., & ChrostowskiS. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report.Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.
National Statistics, Republic of China (Taiwan). (2011). Statistics from statistical bureau. Retrieved from http://eng.stat.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=5
29.
OlkinI., & SearlsD. T. (1985, October). Statistical aspects of international assessments of science education. Paper presented at the Conference on Statistical Standards for International Assessments in Precollege Science and Mathematics, Washington, DC.
30.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2006). Education at a glance: 2006.Paris: Author.
31.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Vol. 1. Paris: Author.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010b). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en
34.
PetersS. J. (2003). Inclusive education: Achievement education for all by including those with disabilities and special education needs.Washington, DC: World Bank.
35.
PetersS., & OliverL. A. (2009). Achieving quality and equity through inclusive education in an era of high-stakes testing.Prospects,39, 265–279.
36.
PraisS. J. (2003). Cautions on OECD's recent educational survey (PISA).Oxford Review of Education,29, 139–163.
37.
RombergT. A. (1971). Publicity and educational research: A case study.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,2, 132–135.
38.
Rustique-ForresterE. (2005). Accountability and the pressures to exclude: A cautionary tale from England.Education Policy Analysis Archives,13, 1–39.
39.
Shorrocks-TaylorD., & JenkinsE. W. (2002). Learning from others: International comparisons in education.Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
40.
SkilbeckM. (2006). Educating the knowledge society.Minerva,44, 89–101.
41.
SpringJ. H. (2008). Globalization of education: An introduction.New York: Routledge.
42.
SprinthallR. C. (2000). Basic statistical analysis.6th ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
TabachnickB. G., & FidellL. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics.5th ed.New York: HarperCollins.
44.
TannerD., & TannerL. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice.4th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
45.
TienkenC. (2008). Rankings of international achievement test performance and economic strength: Correlation or conjecture?International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 3, 1–15.
46.
UNESCO. (1994). World conference on special needs education: Access and quality.Paris: Author.
