In many education systems, schools are judged primarily by final exam results, with high scores often taken as indicators of quality. Yet this view is limited: some students enter with a strong educational background, while others begin at a lower level. Without distinguishing prior knowledge from progress made during schooling, outcomes may be misinterpreted and the actual contribution of schools overlooked.

The theoretical framework draws on value‑added models of school effectiveness (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Koedel & Betts, 2011), which emphasize the importance of separating students’ initial achievement from the contribution of schools to subsequent progress. This approach is widely used in European educational research to promote fairer evaluation of school performance. Rather than focusing only on raw results, it highlights growth indicators, as reflected in policies in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Ireland (Timmermans & Thomas, 2015; Leckie & Goldstein, 2019; Brown, McNamara & O’Hara, 2016).

Research on language acquisition in school contexts (Baker, 2011) further underscores the role of instructional environments and pedagogical practices in shaping outcomes. This is especially relevant in multilingual education systems, where language development depends not only on individual ability but also on teaching quality and the broader learning context.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the contribution of Nazarbayev Intellectual schools (NIS) to students’ development in Kazakh and Russian by comparing entry scores obtained in the Grade 7 selection test with exit scores achieved in the Grade 12 external summative assessment. NIS is the flagship of Kazakhstani education. Admission is highly competitive, with on average 10 applicants per place, and only the strongest students succeed (Nazarbayev Intellectual schools, 2024). The schools admit talented, motivated students with the goal of fostering their growth into critical thinkers and independent learners. NIS campuses are located across Kazakhstan (Toybazarova & Nazarova, 2018).

This study addresses two research questions:

1. To what extent do entry scores reflect students’ initial Kazakh and Russian language proficiency at admission to NIS?
2. To what extent do exit scores reflect the schools’ contribution to language development?

The first question examines students’ starting point, highlighting how selection test results capture prior knowledge rather than the effect of schooling. The second investigates how Grade 12 external assessments, aligned with international benchmarks, reflect cumulative progress and the added value of schools by distinguishing between initial ability and growth achieved through instruction.

Together, these questions allow for a more accurate evaluation of school effectiveness in language development. By comparing entry and exit scores, the study shows why it is important to look beyond raw results. It also connects to wider European discussions about fair assessment, multilingual education, and how schools can be judged not only by final exams but by the progress they help students make.

This study uses a quantitative design to explore how NIS influences students’ language development in Kazakh and Russian. The analysis focuses on one cohort across twenty schools, including 1,754 students studying in Kazakh classes and 889 students in Russian classes. Two main data sources are used. The first is the Selection Test (2019) in Kazakh and Russian, taken at Grade 7 entry, which provides entry scores. The second is the External Summative Assessment (2025), conducted at the end of Grade 12 by an independent organization and aligned with international standards such as Cambridge International A Level, which provides exit scores in both Kazakh and Russian. To examine the relationship between entry and exit scores, the study applies three approaches: 1. Correlation analysis to explore the relationship between entry and exit scores. 2. Comparative analysis to highlight differences between Kazakh and Russian classes, showing how the language of instruction shapes learning trajectories. 3. Value added analysis to estimate the schools’ contribution by comparing entry and exit scores, distinguishing prior knowledge from progress made during schooling. Together, these methods provide a comprehensive picture of how NIS contributes to students’ language development. By integrating correlation, comparative, and value‑added perspectives, the study not only examines the link between entry and exit scores but also reveals important differences across Kazakh and Russian classes.

The findings reveal a clear distinction between entry and exit scores in NIS. Students often enter with high scores, reflecting strong preparation and baseline proficiency. Yet by Grade 12, external assessment results are lower, suggesting that initial success does not guarantee equally strong graduation performance. Differences between Kazakh and Russian classes further illustrate how instructional language and school environment shape learning. Students in Kazakh classes show relatively stable progress with smaller gaps between entry and exit scores, while students in Russian classes display weaker outcomes and larger discrepancies. At entry, motivation is extremely high, which explains strong performance in Grade 7. By Grade 12, however, scores appear weaker in percentage terms. This gap may be explained by the different purposes of assessment, the intensive preparation effect for admission, and changes in motivation and workload over time. The weak correlation between entry and exit scores suggests that selection tests have limited predictive power for long term academic success. Overall, the study argues that schools should be evaluated not only by raw achievement scores but also by the added value they provide in fostering student growth. The observed differences are not signs of weakness but rather reflect the distinct roles of entry and exit assessments: one measures readiness, the other captures comprehensive development within a demanding, trilingual, internationally benchmarked system.

1.Aknouch, L. (2025). Understanding Summative and Formative Assessment Dynamics. TESOL and Technology Studies, 6(2), 26-37. 2.Bairbayeva, S. (2023, October). Advancing Equity and Diversity: A Comprehensive Case Study of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools in Secondary Education. In Publisher. agency: Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Conference «Reviews of Modern Science»(October 19-20, 2023). Zürich, Switzerland, 2023. 256p (p. 13). Universität Luzern. 3.Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual matters. 4.Brown, M., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2016). Quality and the rise of value-added in education: The case of Ireland. Policy Futures in Education, 14(6), 810-829. 5.Center for Pedagogical Measurements (2015). Model of External Summative Assessment: Methodological Guidelines. Retrieved from https://cpi-nis.kz/upload/userfiles/files/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%20C%D0%9E%20%20%D0%BE%D1%82%2027_08_2015%20%E2%84%9643(1).pdf 6.Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American economic review, 100(2), 267-271. 7.Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education Finance and policy, 6(1), 18-42. 8.Leckie, G., & Goldstein, H. (2019). The importance of adjusting for pupil background in school value‐added models: A study of Progress 8 and school accountability in England. British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 518-537. 9.Leckie, G., & Prior, L. (2022). A comparison of value-added models for school accountability. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(3), 431-455. 10.Levy, J., Brunner, M., Keller, U., & Fischbach, A. (2019). Methodological issues in value-added modeling: an international review from 26 countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(3), 257-287. 11.Nazarbayev Intellectual schools (2024). Annual report. Retrieved from https://www.nis.edu.kz/storage/files/01JVKVXA97T8Q3TRKPFKWS82C3.pdf 12.Nazarbayev Intellectual schools (2025). Rules of Competitive Selection. Retrieved from https://www.nis.edu.kz/en/page/konkurstyq-irikteu-erezeleri 13.OECD (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/synergies-for-better-learning-an-international-perspective-on-evaluation-and-assessment_9789264190658-en.html 14.Timmermans, A. C., & Thomas, S. M. (2015). The impact of student composition on schools’ value-added performance: A comparison of seven empirical studies. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(3), 487-498. 15.Toybazarova, N. A., & Nazarova, G. (2018). The modernization of education in Kazakhstan: trends, perspective and problems. Bulletin of National academy of sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 6(376), 104-114.