After Soviet collapse the Central Asian countries encountered to build not only their nation-states and economies but also their own policies in education and health care system. More than over decade from 1991 Kazakhstan followed the Soviet standards of assessment for school and university graduation when students took examinations mostly in various oral forms. The new standards of school testing were designed for students to the mid-2000s.

United National Testing (UNT) was introduced in 2004 to assess and certify the complex knowledge of school graduates for further acceptance to higher education institutions in Kazakhstan. There are two languages (Kazakh and Russian) in education system of Kazakhstan. From 2004 to the present the UNT format was changed between 120-140 scores and the number of subjects was increased from four to five including three core subjects (History of Kazakhstan, Mathematics and Reading) and two profile ones depending on students’ choice of educational programs at universities.

In 2020 Ministry of Education and Science made decision to integrate UNT with international assessment standards as SAT and PISA (Program of International Student Assessment). UNT of 2020 included such functional tests of PISA as reading and mathematical literacy. According to the Ministry, such changes were aimed to decrease cheating at UNT campaigns among graduates and to increase functional literacy on reading, mathematics, and languages (writing). It also should be noted that UNT includes the English language added to the Kazakh and Russian test languages from 2018.

Simultaneously, National Testing Center (NTC) of Kazakhstan which organizes and manages UNT represents data on admission examinations differentiating graduates’ scores on urban and rural areas, and languages of examination. Overall, the UNT data from 2014 to 2020 which are available on the NTC website differs from year to year and it is not standardized making its analysis complicated. Whistle the PISA data is standardized and it includes gender, social class, and subjects additionally to languages of examination.

Whereas, the global studies on education and students’ performance included complex data such as culture, economic value of education, gender, language, class, ethnicity, and parental education (Colon & Sanchez, 2010); ability, gender, native language, and self-confidence (Lindo et al., 2008); gender patterns and differences, confidence, communication, class, ethnicity, and subject choice (Tinklin et al., 2001); and gender, class, ethnicity, and locality (Arnot et al., 2001). Most of those studies confirmed female attainments to compare with male ones in educational achievements starting in the mid-1960s. Gender is a significant factor in international studies on education related to complexity of social class, ethnicity, and locality (Arnot et al., 2001). In Kazakhstan educational data and inquiries do not include gender as a specific focus and they do not apply gender issues in research analyses.

This study is aimed to analyze the UNT data in 2014, 2017, and 2020 to compare scores of students from Kazakh and Russian schools of urban and rural areas in Kazakhstan. As Ministry of Education made decision to integrate UNT with SAT and PISA, it is planned to compare UNT with PISA as two types of assessment (national and international). I suppose this comparative analysis will improve UNT and its interpretations with further enhancement of Kazakhstan’s education policy in assessment and examination.

Statistical analysis of the United National Testing (UNT) was used with urban-rural and languages’ variables in 2014, 2017, and 2020 in Kazakhstan. Comparative analysis of the UNT and PISA to study assessment through urban-rural and language aspects in Kazakhstan.

Data of the United National Testing (UNT) in Kazakhstan include three basic parameters: urban-rural, language of study and tests’ scores. The statistical analysis of UNT in 2014, 2017, and 2020 in Kazakhstan demonstrated that rural areas affect Kazakh schools more than Russian ones. The tables within-subject effects and between-subject effects presented that there are no significant differences between languages but something between urban and rural schools in Kazakhstan. Additionally, the pairwise comparisons tables showed that graduates from urban area were better to compare with rural one both in Kazakh and Russian schools. Moreover, gender and other patterns from PISA should be included in assessment’s analysis as UNT in Kazakhstan to develop more sustained educational policy in the future particularly in the rural area (Steinthorsdottir & Sriraman, 2007).

Arnot, M., Gray, J., James, M., Rudduck, J. & Duveen, G. (2001). Recent research on gender and educational performance. Office for standards in education. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary_James3/publication/271828060_Recent_Research_on_Gender_and_Educational_Performance_Ofsted_Reviews_of_Research/links/5a913cfea6fdccecff027c6a/Recent-Research-on-Gender-and-Educational-Performance-Ofsted-Reviews-of-Research.pdf Colon, Y., & Sanchez, B. (2010). Explaining the gender disparity in Latino youth’s education: Acculturation and economic value of education. Urban Education, 45(3), 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085908322688 Baird, J.-A., Issacs, T., Johnson, S., Stobart, G., Yu, G., Sprague, T. & Daugherty, R. (2011). Police Effect of PISA. Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment. Echazarra, A. & Radinger, T. (2019). Learning in Rural Schools: Insights from PISA, TALIS and the Literature. OECD Education Working Papers, # 196, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8b1a5cb9-en Francis, B. & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing Gender and Achievement: Questioning Contemporary Key Debates. Routledge. Inglis, F. & Aers, L. (2008). Key Concepts in Education. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Isaacs, T., Zara, C., Herbert, G., Coombs, S.J. & Smith, C. (2013). Key Concepts in Educational Assessment. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Kohlhaas, K., Lin, H.-H., & Chu K.-L. (2010). Disaggregated outcomes of gender, ethnicity, and poverty on fifth grade Science performance. RMLE Online, 33(7), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2010.11462070 Lindo, J. M., Sanders, N.J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2008). Ability, gender, and performance standards: Evidence from academic probation (NBER Working Paper No. 14261). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14261 Ramos, R., Duque, J.C. & Nieto, S. (2016). Decomposing the Rural-Urban Differential in Student Achievement in Columbia using PISA Microdata. Estudios de Economia Aplicada, 34(2), 379-412. Soh, K. (2014). Test Language Effect in International Achievement Comparisons: An Example from PISA 2009, Cogent Education, 1:1, 955247, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2014.955247 Steinthorsdottir, O.B. & Sriraman, B. (2007). Iceland and Rural/Urban Girls – PISA 2003 Examined from an Emancipatory Viewpoint. In B. Sriraman (Ed.), International Perspectives on Social Justice in Mathematics Education (pp. 169-178). The University of Montana Press. Sullivan, K., McConney, A. & Perry, L.B. (2018). A Comparison of Rural Educational Disadvantage in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand Using OECD’s PISA. SAGE Open, October-December: 1-12. Swann, J. (2003). Schooled language: Language and gender in education settings. In J. Holmes, & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 624-644). Blackwell Publishing. The Scottish Executive Education Department. (2001). Gender and pupil performance in Scotland’s schools. University of Edinburgh. https://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/old_site/PDF%20Files/Gender_Report.pdf Wright, R.J. (2008). Educational Assessment: Tests and Measurements in the Age of Accountability. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.