Situationer on Lao Assessment: LSE/USE April 2022

--Joel Wayne A. Ganibe

International Assessment Specialist, EESDP

The “WHY” of Assessment:

I. The Lao Qualifications Framework is the prime reference for assessments of learning in Laos
as it determines the qualification in each level related to knowledge, skills, application, and
social competence. It determines the principles, regulations, and measures on the systematic
management of credentials throughout the education system for the ultimate recognition,
and trust in received qualifications, ensuring that the quality of human resources
development suits the need of the National Socio-Economic Development Plan in each
period and in alignment with the regional and international standards.

In short, it is the standard by which assessments check whether the goal of education is
fulfilled or not.

Article 5: Principles of the Lao Qualification Framework:

1. Learning outcomes are fundamental
2. Learning outcomes are relevant to labor market requirements
3. Ensuring qualification papers that are accurate and can be authenticated
4. Ensuring life-long learning
5. Ensuring a robust information system that provides accurate and up to date
data
6. Relevance with regional and international standards alignment

Article 6: Scope of Application:

o applied to secondary education,
o vocational education,
o higher education
o formal and non-formal schooling,
o both public and private sectors nationwide.
The Strategic Goal of Assessment: QUALITY
 school readiness for pre-school children,
 academic competencies of children in primary and secondary education,
 functional literacy and numeracy skills among youth and adults, and
 skills for work.

How will this QUALITY be measured? Article 14 of the LQF defines the expected learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes are clear statements of what a learner can be expected to know, understand
and/or do because of a learning experience. The expected learning outcomes are to be reviewed
against the levels of learning difficulty of the Lao Qualification Framework and are to be aligned with
the needs of a profession, labor market, industry, or community. The curriculum must specify the
expected learning outcomes of each component to arrange learning-teaching and training for learners
to be able to complete the qualification based on the Lao Qualification Framework.

The Education for Employment Sector Development Project (EESDP) is particularly interested in
Article 9: Levels of Qualification as it has activities specifically supporting Levels 1 and 2 and a bit of
Level 6 for Teacher Training which is a key issue for quality delivery of curricula.

Related EESDP Project

8 levels Qualification Types
Activities/Inputs Implementing Unit
- Doctorate
Level 8 - Specialist 2
- Master Principals DTE, TTIs, PESS, DESB,
- Specialist 1 Training/Secondary IFEAD
Pedagogical Adviser (SPA)
Level 7 training; Teacher-Trainer
(college instructors)
coaching/mentoring
- Bachelor Teacher Training: Pre-service DTE, TTIs, DGE, PESS,
- Post Graduate Diploma + in-service + CPD + DESB, RIES
Level 6 Upgrade Programs.
Teaching Guides/Resources
- Associate Degree
Level 5 - Vocational Advanced
Diploma
Level 4 - Vocational Diploma
- General Vocational
Level 3 - Education Certificate
Vocational Certificate 3
- Upper Secondary Teaching Guides/Resources, DGE, RIES
Level 2 - Education Certificate In-service Training; ASLO DTE
Vocational Certificate 2
- Lower Secondary Teaching Guides/Resources, DGE, RIES
Level 1 - Education Certificate In-service Training; ASLO DTE
Vocational Certificate 1
 QUALITY EDUCATION is the target of SDG 4:
The key concepts to measure include the quality of education and learning in two subject
areas at the beginning and the end of primary education and at the end of lower secondary
education. Minimum proficiency level (MPL) is the benchmark of basic knowledge in a domain
(mathematics, reading, etc.) measured through learning assessments.

The Challenges to QUALITY

The LAO PDR Voluntary National Review on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development1 (2018) provides some baseline. Quality related indicators are
underlined:

PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES

1. Lao PDR has achieved universal coverage in primary enrolment. The primary net
enrolment rate (NER) reached 98.8 percent in 2016.
2. Lao PDR has also achieved gender parity at primary level. The gender parity index (GPI)
calculated with gross enrolment ratios was
3. 0.98, and the GPI of completion rates reached 1.00 in 2017, meaning that the proportion
of girls making it to grade 5 is the same as that of boys as a percentage of the total
relevant age group.
4. Significant gains were also realized in secondary education. The national gross
enrolment ratio (GER) target for lower secondary education was achieved in 2015/16,
reaching 82.2 percent. Upper secondary GER has increased from below 20 percent in the
early 1990s to 47.8 percent. Overall, secondary GER had increased to 67.2 percent by
2015/16.
5. Many children still drop out of school, usually in the early grades.
6. The overall quality of teaching and learning needs improvement. Assessments of grade
5 students in 2006 and 200956 highlighted the low learning outcomes in the Lao
language achieved by students. A more recent assessment in 2011/12 showed
weaknesses in both language and mathematics: one quarter of fourth grade pupils did
not have a good command of reading.
7. The literacy target for youth remains to be achieved. A large proportion of children do
not continue to secondary education. In response, the Government has non-formal
education programmes, and the numbers enrolled in these classes at lower secondary
level have rapidly increased. However, the quality and efficiency of these programs are
still inadequate.

1
https://laopdr.un.org/en/13108-voluntary-national-review-implementation-2030-agenda-sustainable-
development
 8. Measurement issues: Lao PDR has an effective education management information
system (EMIS), which produces data routinely disaggregated by sex and robust enough
for annual planning.

Included in this review of 2018 were the identified key result areas that needed to be addressed. This
included, addressing non-performance in teachers. Per the review, this issue contributes directly to
the low-level of student performance and requires technical and financial support. To recruit and
retain quality teachers, Lao PDR will implement skills upgrading and quality assurance. Appropriate
human resource policies, such as local area recruitment and salary improvements, will also be
required.

Assessment at Sub-Sector: TEACHER EDUCATION

With the teacher in mind, as the most important input for education, the SESDP (precursor of EESDP),
drafted a theory of change with the Department of Teacher Education (DTE) to map out pre-conditions
to fulfill the strategic goal to address weaknesses pointed out in the 2010 SIREP or SEAMEO-Innotech
Regional Education Program Teaching Competency Standards 11-country Report which outlined the
main challenges in Lao Teachers competence. These challenges fall mainly on Pedagogical Content
Knowledge which combines minimum subject matter content mastery and the pedagogical skills to
prepare and deliver effective learning experiences that produce target learning outcomes. This helped
in designing specific interventions especially for IN-SERVICE TRAINING.

Figure 1: Gaps in Lao teacher competencies vs Pedagogical Skills of Competent Southeast Asian Teachers
 Figure 2: Theory of Change to strengthen quality and relevance of secondary education for SESDP

Indicators included community of practice via social media specifically for teachers and basic ICT
literacy. A new STEP (Secondary Teachers Education Program) curriculum was designed based on
target competencies coupled with a Quality Assurance scheme and rubric to guide Teacher Training
Institutions towards a minimum output of properly skilled teachers.

Figure 3: Theory of Change status check during EESDP 2021

The Quality ROLE BEARERS
The EESDP understands it is not simply the competence of secondary teachers that need to be
improved with in-service trainings but rather quality must improve at all stages and actors particularly
at pre-service that sets the minimum skills of professional teachers coming out of the Teacher Training
Institutes and continuing throughout their career paths.

Thus, the critical role-bearers are identified throughout the system and their competencies will be
improved regularly with formative assessments via supervision and performance management and
evaluation system. The key roles of MOES departments are also mapped out including how their roles
and tasks crisscross and complement each other within the system.

Figure 4: Critical Actors for Quality in the System

To accomplish the empowerment of critical role bearers, the convergence approach is proposed in
terms of content and delivery
mode for knowledge and skills
development. In multiple ways to
learn, we propose seriously
considering both synchronous
and asynchronous (digital)
delivery modes for continuity
despite limits in time and space
and even for contingencies such
as pandemics or natural disasters.
Not just delivery modes but also
multiple channels, mechanisms,
and assessments for accreditation
and recognition of lifelong
learning.
 Figure 5: CONVERGENCE, A Systems Approach to Quality

Assessment at Sub-Sector: SECONDARY EDUCATION

Definitions of classroom and large-scale assessment2
Classroom assessment and system-level large-scale assessment are particularly relevant as schools
reopen post-Covid19 because they provide key information to teachers and policymakers about
students' knowledge and skills.

Classroom assessment provides real-time information to support teaching and learning in individual
classrooms. Based on their time of administration and intended use, classroom assessments are
classified as:

• Diagnostic classroom assessment usually takes place prior to any instruction to help
teachers determine the extent to which students' knowledge and skills are aligned
with curriculum-based expectations.
• Formative classroom assessment is administered as part of daily teaching practice in
the form of checks for understanding, quizzes, group classroom activities, and
homework. It provides ongoing feedback to teachers and students to monitor
students' progress towards curriculum learning goals.
• Summative classroom assessment tends to happen at the end of a curriculum unit or
at the end of the school year to establish whether students achieved the learning
goals specified in the curriculum.

Guidance Note on Using Learning Assessment in the Process of School Reopening (post Covid 19) accessed via:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36892
Information obtained from formative and summative classroom assessment is best used to support
teachers to adjust their instruction to the students' level and to provide constructive feedback to
students.

Classroom assessment provides information about individual student's performance in a specific

subject area, and it can be used to provide feedback and guide personalized instruction. Moreover,
classroom assessment activities are relatively inexpensive and logistically simple to administer by
trained teachers as part of daily instruction. In Laos, the SIREP has given this observation which can
still be observed in many classrooms even in Teacher Training Colleges. It is therefore a key result
area under EESDP.
The ff. table shows specific EESDP Solutions under the 4 Resource Scenarios during the Covid 19
pandemic where the EESDP directly responds:
 Large-scale assessment4 (including at the national or sub-national level) monitors learning
trends at the system level. Large-scale assessment provides information to policymakers and
practitioners on the overall performance levels within an education system and the factors that
contribute to that performance across the student population and for key subgroups of
students. Large-scale assessments are typically based on assessing a sample of students on a
few core subjects at regular intervals. Given the standardization involved in these assessments,
they are best suited to support informed system-wide decision-making regarding resource
allocation and implementation of initiatives to support schools and students.

Snapshot Sub-Sector: SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

M4-M73 (sample large scale assessment)
At the lower secondary level, exit exams (summative) are taken at M4 (Grade 9) nationwide to
determine that minimum academic competencies have been achieved and allowed progression
to upper secondary education level or to any post-secondary education training. Below is a
report from the Department of General Education on the conduct of the latest M4-M7 Exit
Assessments:

Statistics and Examination result for M.4.

1). The number of students that sat at the Examination was 85.782, an increase of 1.18%
overall compared with to School year 2019-2020. Slight increase in female exam takers by
0.47%
2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE
total 85 782 total 84 782 ↑1.18%
female 42 349 Female 41 461
% Female 49.37% % Female 48.9% ↑0.47%

2). The number of Examination Centers for M4 was 650 Centers, increased by 62
compared to school year 2019-2020.
2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE %
total 650 total 588 ↑62 ↑10.54

 4,836 Classrooms were used for the Examination of M4, an increase of 396
classrooms compared to school year 2019-2020.
2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE %
total 4 836 total 4 440 ↑396 ↑8.92

3). The Number of student passers was 84 042 (97.97%), female: 41.667 equivalent 89,39%
if compared to the school year 2019-2020 decreased 1,72%. Two provinces had 100%
passers including: Houaphanh and Champassak provinces. The lowest number of students
who passed the examination was from Luan Prabang province it was only 81,21%.

3
Department of General of Education Report No: 1349/DGE Vientiane Capital, date: 15th Sep. 2021
 2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE
Total takers 85,782 84,782 ↓1.18%
Total Passed 84,042 41,461 ↑50.67
% passing 97.97% 48.9% ↑49.07%
Female passers 41,667
% female passed from total 49.58% ___
% female passers 98.39%
vs female takers

4). The number of students who failed the examination was 1 740 (2.03%), female 682
(1.61%), if compared to that of the school year 2019-2020 increased 1,72%.
2020-2021 2019-2020 difference
Total takers 85 782 84 782.00 ↑ 1.18%
Total Fail 1 740 41 461.00 ↓ 39 371
% fail 2.03% 51.1% ↓49.07%
Female Failing 682.00
% female failing vs total failing 39.2%
% female failing vs female takers 1.61%

5). The number of students got red certificates with average score 9 + of all subjects was
43 equivalent 0,05%, female: 32, equivalent 0,08%, if compared with that of the school
year 2019-2020 increased 0,02%.
6). The number of student who were excellent in all areas with average scores 7 + of all
subjects was 5.827 equivalent 6,79%, female 3.921 equivalent 9,26%, if compared with
that of the school year 2019-2020 increased 0,46%.
7). The number of student who got scores 5 + of all subjects was 33.407 equivalent
38,94%, female 17.682 , if compared to that of the school year 2019-2020 decreased
7,64%.

Statistics and Examination result for M.7.

1). Number of students that sat at the M7 Examination was 58.075, female: 27.184,
decreased 5.293, female 2.476; equivalent 8,35% if compared with the school year 2019-
2020 (63.368/female 29.660)

2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE

total 58 075 total 63 368 ↓8.35%
female 27 184 Female 29 660 ↓8.35%
% Female 46.81% % Female 46.81% ↓0.47%

2). The number of Examination Centers for M7 was 328 Centers, increased number 34
Centers compared with that of the school year 2019-2020.
2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE %
total 328 total 294 ↑34 ↑10.54

o The number of Classrooms for the Examination of M7 was 3 259 classrooms,

increased 37 classrooms compared with that of the school year 2019-2020.

2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE %

total 3 259 total 2 222 ↑37 ↑1.67
 3). The Number of M7 students who passed the examination was 57.840 equivalent
99,60%, female: 27.124 equivalent 99,78% if compared to the school year 2019-2020
decreased 0,19%.

2020-2021 2019-2020 DIFFERENCE

Total takers 58,075 63 368 ↓8.35%
Total female takers 27 184 29 660 ↓8.35%

Total Passed 57,840

% total passing 99.60%
Female passers 27,124
% female passed from total 46.89% ___
% female passers vs female takers 99.78% ↓ 0.19%

Six provinces had 100% student passers including: Savannakhet, Attapeu,

Xiengkhouang, Luan Prabang, Xayaburi, and Saravane provinces. Khammouane
province had the lowest number of students who passed at 97,79%.

4). The number of students who failed the examination was 235 equivalent 0,40% , female 60
equivalent 0,22%, if compared with that of the school year 2019-2020 increased 0,19%.

2020-2021 2019-2020 difference

Total takers 58,075 63 368 ↑ 1.18%
Total female takers 27 184 29 660 ↓8.35%
Total Failed 235
% total failing 0.40%
Female Failing 60
% female failing vs total failing 25.53%
% Female failing vs female takers 0.22%

5). The number of students who got red certificates with average score 9 + of all subjects was
31 equivalent 0,05%, female: 26, equivalent 0,10%, if compared with that of the school
year 2019-2020 increased 0,02%.

6). The number of student who were excellent in all areas with average scores 7 + of all
subjects was 14.381 equivalent 24,76%, female 8.426 equivalent 31,00%, if compared to
that of the school year 2019-2020 decreased 4,98%.

7). The number of student who got scores 5 + of all subjects was 33.302 equivalent 57,37%,
female 16.308, if compared to that of the school year 2019-2020 decreased 5,35%.

Overall observation, despite the suspension of face-to-face classes since teaching and learning were
conducted mostly online (2020 lockdowns due to Covid19) this led to more rigorous review of lessons
preparing for the examination. The examinations netted good results. Primary level grade 5 was 99,
22%, M.4 was 97,97%, and M.7 was 99,60%. Expectedly, there were significant differences of student
learning outcomes in different provinces and the differences (unbalance) between students who got
average scores 5 + of all subjects and students who graduated.
Insights on latest Assessment Experience

POSITIVES
o POLICY SUPPORT. The MOES had issued the decree, guideline, official letters on the
Examination Regulation and other guidelines for use as references in organizing and
implementing the examination.
o MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.
 There was a taskforce to combat and prevent leakages during the
examination and a taskforce to protect, control and address the outbreak of
Covid 19.

 PESS and Capital made plans and had sufficient budget for the examinations,
staying in centers, copying examination papers and appointed members of
monitoring teams to monitor the examination in all districts and centers.

 Content/Coverage of examination papers used topics/courses that students

had learnt, categorized from easy to difficult levels.

 The delivery of examination papers and answer keys to PESS, DESB was
secured from leaks.

 Committees responsible for each examination center, other committees

concerned functioned well.

 The taskforce to combat and prevent leakages had checked, monitored

situations of examinations, quickly addressing problems like the wrong
sequencing/scheduling of subjects, transport of examination papers to
provincial taskforces for violations, among others.

o IMPLEMENTATION.
 Most examiners followed the examination regulations strictly.
 The situation of examinations mostly was normal, conducted as scheduled,
time duration followed.
 Local Authorities, students’ guardians/parents, security force, and physicians
had good cooperation and supported equipment for Covid 19 protection.

CHALLENGES
o CORRECTION/TABULATION.
 Checking answers of exam papers of M.4 and M.7 was not uniform as some
provinces did this entirely via cell phone.

o Some lapses by Committees responsible for centers, ie. Exam room guards
who were lax and failed to fully implement regulation. For example:
- wrong subject at wrong time as scheduled,
- ignored students copying from each other,
- used cell phones taking photos of exam papers and sent out,
- some subject exam papers were not enough for the number of
students who sat the examination.
- Some exam room guards had not complete vaccinated for Covid 19.
- Some examiners were among risky clusters and in red zone.
 - Some examiners did not comply with the regulations of the
examination.
- Some exam committees from MOES did not completely bring all
documents back to the Ministry.
 Some PESS Committees who were appointed to be responsible for exam
centers were reluctantly to carry out their works and responsibilities
assigned to them.

 Exam committees in some centers distributed mismatched exam papers and

answer sheets, insufficiently provided blank papers for students’ calculation
and mixed-up exam papers A with exam papers B while collecting exam
papers.

 Some examiners did not follow the regulation as they hid their phones,
other equipment which could be used to support their answers into
classrooms.

 After the examination some students in some provinces gathered as a group

while still in their uniform organized parties in some Beer Bars and
entertainment shops.

FOR IMPROVEMENT
o STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES/PROTOCOLS (SOP). Educators from all
levels must fully be briefed and understand the protocols in order to carry out
examinations in uniform manner. (protocols must be precise and easy to
understand)
- Proctors/Room Guards’ SOP
- Exam takers SOP
- Tabulators SOP
- Results Transmittal SOP
- Etc.
 PROPER BRIEFING/ORIENTATION OF EXAMS PERSONNEL
 LEARN AS YOU GO. Organize a meeting to draw lessons between the chair
panel, responsible committees of exam center and exam room guards every
day after the examination time is over.
 SECURITY AGAINST BIAS. Rotate exam room guards at each exam center
within nearby schools of school clusters.

WAYS FORWARD:
o PESS and Capital continue to assign the exam organization for grade 5 of primary
level to DESB to be responsible in conjunction with strengthening management and
academic work.
o RIES continues to develop exam question item bank and produce exam papers for
M.4 and M.7 in unified manner around the country.
o PESS and Capital continue to print exam papers and send to exam centers.
o PESS and Capital define criteria and standards for selecting staff who have high
responsibilities to be appointed as exam committee officers.
o Issue official notice on combating and preventing cheating for example: wrong
subject at wrong time, use of cell phone to send questions and answers, helping
students, copying each other.
o Punish violators of exam regulations.
 o Appreciate/Recognize good task performers.

Department of General Education to :

 Organize, manage graduation examinations of secondary level;

 Develop data base to track student graduates of upper secondary level;
 Improve the decree on student learning assessment.
 Draft the decree on the use of equipment to check answers to exam papers,
develop a manual of checking answers to exam papers with machine and
train technical staff of PESS and Capital.
 Improve electronic files on collecting, analyzing, and reporting the
graduation examination of primary level and train technical staff of PESS and
Capital.

Proposals:
o MOES provides automated checking machine for exam papers to PESS and also
allocates budgets for trainings on the use of the manual on exam papers; checking
machine for technical staff of PESS and Capital.
o Propose to MOES to appreciate staff who have produced good outputs in the
organization of graduation examination of secondary level.
o Propose to PESS to improve the way of how to transmit exam papers especially the
nearest center should send and receive answer sheets on daily basis.
o Exam papers writing must be well checked to assure the precision.
o Propose to take only the scores getting from the graduation exam as the sole basis
to judge the graduation exam, for yearly scores is the judgment at school level to
approve examiners got average scores 5 + of all subjects so that they can attend the
graduation examination.

INSIGHT:

https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/docs/2020-11-GPE-ANLAS-manual.pdf
 The M4 and M7 exit exams is a classic high-stakes large scale assessment activity which seems
to be the main determinator (pass/fail) if one graduates from M4 (lower secondary education)
and M7 (upper secondary education) in contrast to a more careful, authentic PORTFOLIO of
classroom based assessments that can include quizzes, long tests, projects, performances that
can ensure a fair and full appreciation of student learning outcomes versus the requirements
as specified in the National Qualifications Framework.

With performance reflective of the instructional performance of schools and districts, there is
motivation to get high scores or lose social standing. This in turn can also motivate bias and
even cheating. One thing is clear, everyone involved in the testing must have full orientation on
what is being truly measured and why it is best to have accurate, objective results for analysis
to ensure that the quality of human resources development suits the need of the National
Socio-Economic Development Plan.

OTHER ASSESSMENTS

The Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (ASLO) is administered by the Research

Institute for Educational Sciences (RIES) to students in public and private schools. The ASLO was
administered for the first time in 2006 to grade 5 students. This first assessment was named
ASLO I, and was conducted in public schools only. The assessment was administered for a second
time in 2009, at the same grade but in public and private schools, and was named ASLO II. In
2012, the assessment was renamed ASLO III for its third administration, and the targeted grade
changed to grade 3 students in public and private schools. The next administration was in 2017.

The ASLO is a low-stake assessment. It is a written assessment, administered face-to-face and

delivered through paper-pencil tests. Matrix sampling was used to design the test booklets that
were administered to test-takers.

The ASLO also comprises a test component that is administered to teachers, in addition to a
background questionnaire. Consistent with diagnostic and formative purposes, the ASLO III
serves the following:

o designing individualized instructional plans

o supporting teachers (training, relevant materials, etc.)
o school or educator accountability
o sub-national level monitoring of learning outcomes
o monitoring education quality levels
o planning education policy reforms

KIND OF DATA : Random sample

UNITS OF ANALYSIS : Results are reported at the school, sub-national and national
levels. Data are disaggregated by sex, ethnic groups, geographic location (remote, urban,
and rural) and type of schools (public and private). Results are published in reports, which
are available in print and online. Results are broadcasted on the radio and on television and
published in the media.

MECHANICS : The ASLO comprises two subjects: Mathematics and Lao

language. Each test has a duration of 60 minutes and is administered in the Lao language. The
mathematics test comprises four domains: Number, Operation, Geometry and data, and
Measurement. The Lao language test also comprises four domains: Listening, Speaking,
Reading and Writing.

 Description of test items: Test items consist of multiple-choice questions with three
or more response options and open-ended questions requiring short constructed
responses. Test stimuli consist of continuous, mixed, and multiple texts.

 Reporting metrics: Student performance is reported in three ways: A total score: the
student's total score on each test is converted to a neutral common scale allowing to
estimate differences between groups (the scale has mean of 500 and a standard
deviation of 100). Scores below 500 are below the national average and scores over
500 are above the national average.

 Proficiency levels: Six hierarchical proficiency levels are identified for each subject.
Those levels provide a criterion referenced framework that is useful to link student's
performance to possible intervention through curriculum development and teaching
strategies.

The proficiency levels in Mathematics are:

Level 1 Student can read and write natural numbers from 1 to 10000; add and
subtract two natural numbers from 1 to 10 000; multiply and divide
multi-digits with one digit; identify geometric shapes in a 2 dimension
plane.
Level 2 Student can identify and compare natural numbers from 1 to 10 000;
perform additions and subtractions; find the result of multiplication
with two digits and multi-digits; multiply numbers with 10, 100 and
1000, identify geometric shapes in space; recognize distance, mass and
time unit measurement.
Level 3 Student can compare and order natural numbers from 1 to 10 000;
determine symmetric lines and reflection shapes, identify parallel and
perpendicular lines; convert distance, mass and time unit
measurement.
Level 4 Student can write numbers from 1 to 10 000 in distribution form;
identify the factors of a single digit number; divide using a two-digit
divisor; divide numbers using 10, 100 and 1000 as divisors; identify
acute, obtuse and right angles; tell the time on the clock.
Level 5 Student can represent a simple fraction based on a figure; solve daily
life problems requiring use of multiplication and division; read the
information from a simple table; solve daily life problems by using units
of mass.
Level 6 Student can solve daily life computation problems requiring multi-step
operations; identify and describe boxes and cubes (sizes, edges and
surfaces); interpret data from simple graphs; solve daily life
measurement problems requiring multi-step operations.
 The proficiency levels in Lao language are:

Level 1 Student can remember a simple and short word and phrase; tell the
name of close people; remember simple and short words, phrase and
sentences from a story; spell simple and short words read aloud by the
teacher.
Level 2 Student can interpret the meaning of the words from the listening
exercise; use the right words at the appropriate time; interpret words
and sentences from stories; create new vivid words.
Level 3 Student can use words and passages from the listening exercise, report
their experience to others; create new vivid words and new meaningful
sentences.
Level 4 Student can analyze words, sentences and passages from the listening
exercise; express their opinion and ideas; analyze words, sentences and
passages from the reading exercise; analyze and distribute words in the
sentence (word order).
Level 5 Student can analyze the sentences from the listening exercise; speak at
the appropriate time and to the appropriate people (tactful speaking);
analyze sentences and passages from the reading exercise; analyze
words and elaborate written responses.

Level 6 Student can analyze content of from the listening exercise; speak to
persuade others or make requests; analyze important parts of speech
from the reading exercises; analyze important parts of speech by
demonstrating appropriate use of punctuation

MODELS for DEVELOPMENT

The Analysis of National Learning Assessment Systems (ANLAS) model developed by ACER is available
as a resource that countries can use to systematically gather and analyze information about their
national learning assessment systems.

ANLAS has the following main features:

• ANLAS is a comprehensive, qualitative analysis of a national learning assessment system,
focusing on three dimensions:
o Context of the assessment system
o Quality of assessment programs
o Coherence of the assessment system

Each dimension has several key areas with a defined quality objective against which the key area is
evaluated. An important element of ANLAS that is relevant to all three dimensions is the application
of knowledge and demonstration of 21st century skills.