Inclusion in large-scale assessments? How students with special education needs are treated and accommodated in ICCS, ICILS, PIRLS, and TIMSS

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity in Education: Evidence from International Large-Scale Assessments

Proposal

International large-scale assessments (ILSAs) are increasingly recognized as benchmarks for tracking global progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4), which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Despite this, ILSAs have traditionally focused on the "average" student, often under-representing–or entirely excluding–students with special education needs (SEN).
Excluding SEN students from ILSAs is both a matter of justice and a potential threat to the methodological soundness of such assessments. Such exclusions risk marginalizing SEN students, deepening divisions, sending the message that their experiences are not valued, and ultimately excluding them from important educational and policy discourse (Schuelka, 2013). They can also misrepresent the student population in each country (Borger et al., 2024), undermining the validity and comparability of ILSAs. Moreover, exclusion rates are increasing in some countries (Atasever et al., 2024; Aursand & Rutkowski, 2021), further threatening representativeness, especially when the extent and reasons for exclusion differ across contexts. In addition, evidence suggests that the number of students with SEN is growing, possibly due to increased awareness, improved diagnostics, or other factors (Pendharkar, 2023; Van Herwegen, 2022). Against this background, ensuring that ILSAs are inclusive is essential, not only for ensuring high data quality but also for fostering equity and reducing educational divides.
One way to promote greater inclusivity in ILSAs is through assessment accommodations, which involve modifying the administration of assessments without altering their content (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2015), enabling students to demonstrate their abilities without being hindered by disabilities or special needs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999). Accommodations typically fall into four categories: timing adjustments, presentation formats, response formats, and testing environments (Pritchard et al., 2016). While timing adjustments (e.g., extended testing time, additional/extended breaks) and testing environments (e.g., small groups, one-to-one testing) are common in national assessments, documentation of their use in ILSAs is limited. Implementing accommodations in ILSAs also presents challenges due to the broad and heterogeneous nature of SEN, which encompasses a wide range of needs that can vary in severity.
Guez et al. (2024) conducted one of the first systematic evaluations of accommodations in an international large-scale assessment, examining the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA) in detail and providing information on the most pressing needs and causes for exclusion along with a mapping of accommodations by specific needs. To date, no comparable work has been done for other ILSAs, such as those conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), where accommodations are allowed but detailed documentation of their implementation across countries remains scarce. Clear and systematic information on both exclusions and accommodation practices is essential for developing guidelines that promote greater inclusiveness in IEA studies and other ILSAs.
Building on the work by Guez et al. (2024), our study examines current practices for including students with SEN in IEA studies and the accommodations provided to support them. We aim to answer the following research questions:
1. How do countries define and categorize SEN?
2. Which SEN categories result in exclusion or inclusion, how many students are affected, and how are such decisions made?
3. What accommodations are provided for students with different SEN, and how are these accommodations perceived in the countries implementing them?
We conduct an international comparative study in two stages. To address the first research question, we analyzed official study documentation (sampling forms) completed by national research coordinators during each study. To address the second and third research questions, we conducted a survey of SEN-related inclusions and accommodation practices. We focus on the following IEA studies: ICCS 2022, ICILS 2023, TIMSS 2023 (grade 4 and grade 8), and PIRLS 2026.
First introduced for ICCS 2022, a dedicated sampling form was developed to collect information on SEN students. In this form, national research coordinators are asked whether clearly defined SEN categories exist in their system and, if so, to list them. Filling out this form is voluntary. We analyzed 56 complete entries, covering 33 education systems. These resulted in 358 listed needs, of which 168 were unique wordings but not necessarily distinct needs (e.g., “vision,” “visual disabilities,” “visually disabled,” “visual impairment,” “blind,” “blindness”). After cleaning and cross-checking with the classification developed by Guez et al. (2024) as well as other frameworks, such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF; WHO, 2001), we consolidated these into a final list of 17 needs.
This list informed the second phase of the study: a survey for national research coordinators to gather further insights into exclusion/inclusion decisions and accommodation practices for each need. We designed five surveys—one for each study and target grade—and distributed a total of 234 survey links to the national research coordinators of 76 countries participating in these IEA studies. Data collection is ongoing and will conclude on September 5th.
The study is expected to yield a comprehensive mapping of exclusions and accommodations by type of need, as well as insights into study-level differences (e.g., whether accommodations vary by subject or grade). By documenting and comparing these practices across countries, the survey findings aim to support the development of more inclusive ILSAs that better represent the diversity of student populations and accurately reflect the abilities of all learners.

Authors

• Ana María Mejía-Rodríguez, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)

• Nurullah Eryilmaz

• Rolf Strietholt

• Olga Kunina-Habenicht