The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing identify several strands of validity evidence that may be needed as support for particular interpretations and uses of assessments. Yet assessment validation often does not seem guided by these Standards, with validations lacking a particular strand even when it appears relevant to an assessment. Consequently, the degree to which validity evidence supports the proposed interpretation and use of the assessment may be compromised. Guided by the Standards, this article presents an independent validation of OECD's PISA assessment of mathematical self-efficacy (MSE) as an instructive example of this issue. OECD identifies MSE as one of a number of "factors" explaining student performance in mathematics, thereby serving the "policy orientation" of PISA. However, this independent validation identifies significant shortcomings in the strands of validity evidence available to support this interpretation and use of the assessment. The article therefore demonstrates how the Standards can guide the planning of a validation to ensure it generates the validity evidence relevant to an interpretive argument, particularly for an international large-scale assessment such as PISA. The implication is that assessment validation could yet benefit from the Standards as what Zumbo calls "a global force for testing".

There is a substantial international literature around the impact of different types of grouping by attainment on the academic and personal outcomes of students. This literature, however, is sparse in student voices, especially in relation to mixed-attainment practices. Research has indicated that students of different attainment levels might have different experiences and views of grouping structures. This paper represents a significant contribution to this literature. Drawing on the data collected as part of a large study on student grouping and teaching in England, we analyse the attitudes of students of different attainment levels to mixed-attainment practice, focusing on their explanations for their preferences or aversion to mixed-attainment classes. The data-set is drawn from group discussions and individual interviews with 89 students age 11/12 (Year 7) from eight secondary schools practicing mixed-attainment grouping in mathematics and English. Our analysis identifies some broad patterns in student attitudes, including a strong preference for mixed attainment among those at lower prior attainment. The analysis of the explanations students give for their opinions on mixed-attainment practice demonstrates how the learner identities of different groups of students are constituted in various ways by the discourses around 'ability', and constrained by the dominant ideology of 'ability' hierarchy.

‘Setting’ is a widespread practice in the UK, despite little evidence of its efficacy and substantial evidence of its detrimental impact on those allocated to the lowest sets. Taking a Bourdieusian approach, we propose that setting can be understood as a practice through which the social and cultural reproduction of dominant power relations is enacted within schools. Drawing on survey data from 12,178 Year 7 (age 11/12) students and discussion groups and individual interviews with 33 students, conducted as part of a wider project on secondary school grouping practices, we examine the views of students who experience setting, exploring the extent to which the legitimacy of the practice is accepted or challenged, focusing on students’ negative views about setting. Analyses show that privileged students (White, middle class) were most likely to be in top sets whereas working-class and Black students were more likely to be in bottom sets. Students in the lowest sets (and boys, Black students and those in receipt of free school meals) were the most likely to express negative views of setting and to question the legitimacy and ‘fairness’ of setting as a practice, whereas top-set students defended the legitimacy of setting and set allocations as ‘natural’ and ‘deserved’. This paper argues that setting is incompatible with social justice approaches to education and calls for the foregrounding of the views of those who are disadvantaged by the practice as a tool for challenging the doxa of setting.

Research has consistently shown 'ability' grouping (tracking) to be prey to poor practice, and to perpetuate inequity. A feature of these problems is inequitable and inaccurate practice in allocation to groups or 'tracks'. Yet little research has examined whether such practices might be improved. Here, we examine survey and interview findings from a large-scale intervention study of grouping practices in 126 English secondary schools. We find that when schools are encouraged to allocate students and move them between groups according to equitable principles by participation in a 'best practice' intervention, there is some increased equity of practice (i.e. a reduction in non-attainment factors used in allocation). However, the majority of schools continue to use subjective and potentially biased information to group students. Furthermore, some schools that claim to be using attainment setting appear to be using the inequitable practice of streaming. Our findings show that improvements in equity are constrained by operational and strategic factors, including timetabling, finance, and teachers' values and beliefs relating to student ability and progression. We suggest strategies for encouraging schools to change their grouping practices, drawing on approaches for working with complex organisations.

‘Setting’ is a widespread practice in the UK, despite little evidence of its efficacy and substantial evidence of its detrimental impact on those allocated to the lowest sets. Taking a Bourdieusian approach, we propose that setting can be understood as a practice through which the social and cultural reproduction of dominant power relations is enacted within schools. Drawing on survey data from 12,178 Year 7 (age 11/12) students and discussion groups and individual interviews with 33 students, conducted as part of a wider project on secondary school grouping practices, we examine the views of students who experience setting, exploring the extent to which the legitimacy of the practice is accepted or challenged, focusing on students’ negative views about setting. Analyses show that privileged students (White, middle class) were most likely to be in top sets whereas working‐class and Black students were more likely to be in bottom sets. Students in the lowest sets (and boys, Black students and those in receipt of free school meals) were the most likely to express negative views of setting and to question the legitimacy and ‘fairness’ of setting as a practice, whereas top‐set students defended the legitimacy of setting and set allocations as ‘natural’ and ‘deserved’. This paper argues that setting is incompatible with social justice approaches to education and calls for the foregrounding of the views of those who are disadvantaged by the practice as a tool for challenging the doxa of setting.

'Ability' or attainment grouping can introduce an additional label that influences teachers' expectations of students in specific attainment groups. This paper is based on a survey of 597 teachers across 82 schools and 34 teacher interviews in 10 schools undertaken as part of a large-scale mixed-methods study in England. The paper focuses on English and mathematics teachers' expectations of secondary school students in lower attainment groups, and explores how low-attaining students are constructed as learners who benefit from specific approaches to learning justified through discourses of nurturing and protection. The authors argue that the adoption of different pedagogical approaches for groups of low-attaining learners to nurture them may in some cases be fostering dependency on teachers and cap opportunities for more independent learning. Furthermore, more inclusive whole-school learning-culture approaches may better allow for students across the attainment range to become independent learners.

Within-school segregation of pupils by attainment remains prevalent, despite evidence that these practices detrimentally impact outcomes for those in low attainment groups. This article explores the hypothesis that 'ability grouping' by setting impacts pupil self-confidence, precipitating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Survey data from 11,546 11/12 year old pupils in 'ability sets', and individual interviews and focus groups with 66 pupils, are drawn upon to explore this hypothesis. We find a significant correlation between perceived set placement and self-confidence in the set subject. More importantly, we also find a correlation between set placement and general self-confidence in learning. Pupils' qualitative responses illustrate how setting can promote self-fulfilling prophecy, and worrying evidence of internalisation of 'ability' labels among pupils.

Grouping students by 'ability' is a topic of long-standing contention in English education policy, research and practice. While policy-makers have frequently advocated the practice as reflecting educational 'standards', research has consistently failed to find significant benefits of 'ability' grouping; and indeed has identified disadvantages for some (low-attaining) pupil groups. However, this research evidence has apparently failed to impact on practice in England. This article, contextualised by the authors' interests in education and social inequality, seeks to do two things. First, it provides a brief analysis of the existing research evidence on the impact of 'ability' grouping, with particular reference to socio-economic inequality, identifying seven different explanations for the poorer progress of pupils in low sets that emerge from the literature. Second, it applies Foucaultian 'analysis of discourse' to propose potential explanations for the apparent lack of traction of existing research with policy and practice, arguing that practices of 'ability grouping' reflect cultural investments in discourses of 'natural order' and hierarchy, with particular resonance for the discursive and political habitus of middle-class parents. The authors postulate that investing in a powerful counter-discourse of enlightenment science, illustrated via their current randomised control trial of different approaches to pupil grouping, may offer a means to challenge hegemonic discourses that underpin current classroom practice.

Cognitive interviewing (CI) provides a method of systematically collecting validity evidence of response processes for questionnaire items. CI involves a range of techniques for prompting individuals to verbalise their responses to items. One such technique is concurrent verbalisation, as developed in Think Aloud Protocol (TAP). This article investigates the value of the technique for validating questionnaire items administered to young people in international surveys. To date, the literature on TAP has focused on allaying concerns about reactivity - whether response processes are affected by thinking aloud. This article investigates another concern, namely the completeness of concurrent verbalisations - the extent to which respondents verbalise their response processes. An independent, exploratory validation of the PISA assessment of student self-efficacy in mathematics by a small international team of researchers using CI with concurrent verbalisation in four education systems (England, Estonia, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands) provided the basis for this investigation. The researchers found that students generally thought aloud in response to each of the items, thereby providing validity evidence of responses processes varying within and between the education systems, but that practical steps could be taken to increase the completeness of concurrent verbalisations in future validations.

Mixed-attainment teaching has strong support from research and yet English schools are far more likely to teach students in 'ability' groups. Although research has considered some of the specific benefits of mixed-attainment grouping, there has been little attention to the reasons schools avoid it. This article explores data from the pilot and recruitment phases of a large-scale study into grouping practices and seeks to identify reasons for the low rate of mixed attainment grouping in English secondary schools. We report on our struggle to recruit schools, and explore the different explanations provided by teachers as to why mixed attainment practice is seen as problematic. The difficulties are characterised as a vicious circle where schools are deterred by a paucity of exemplars and resources and the educational climate is characterised as fearful, risk-averse and time-poor. Suggestions are made as to strategies to support schools in taking up mixed attainment practices.

Welcome to the Best Practice in Grouping Students project. Thank you for your commitment to ensuring that the best pedagogy possible is offered to all our students, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thank you also for participating with us in this Education Endowment Foundation-funded research to support this good practice: together we can make a difference, and build the research evidence and good practice needed to improve the educational experiences and outcomes of all students. Research evidence suggests that students with lower prior attainment (often students from disadvantaged backgrounds) do better if taught in mixed-attainment (‘mixed-ability’) settings. However, we know less about why this is, or what characterises successful practice in mixedattainment classes. The Best Practice in Mixed- Attainment intervention seeks to address these questions by applying and testing principles of good practice. The information in this resource supports pedagogy in the Best Practice in Mixed- Attainment intervention. It explains the intervention rationale and methods, provides information on the elements needed to support high expectations and appropriate pedagogic approaches, and also presents some exemplar English and maths lessons. The exemplar lessons have been provided by our brilliant pilot schools, and are intended as discussion points and exemplars for further development, as well as for potential use. I hope you find the resource useful, and of course we welcome your feedback. Thanks again for your participation, and I hope that you find the project journey stimulating and rewarding.

This paper is an iteration of a poster presented at CERME 2011. It describes the scope and methods of a planned international comparative study of the relationship between lower secondary students' self-regulation, self-efficacy and mathematical competence using the OECD's PISA survey and the ICCAMS study in England.

The development of key competences for lifelong learning has been an important policy imperative for EU Member States. The European Reference Framework of key competences (2006) built on previous developments by the OECD, UNESCO and Member States themselves. It defined key competences as knowledge, skills and attitudes applied appropriately to contexts. Now most Member States have incorporated key competences, or similarly broad learning outcomes, into their school curriculum frameworks. This is a necessary but insufficient step towards implementation; for the effective development of learners' key competences, assessment must also change. This article focuses on the challenge of assessing cross‐curricular key competences in primary and secondary education. It is based on a major study for the European Commission (Gordon, et al., 2009), which drew on information gathered and validated with the help of experts in each of the 27 EU Member States. The study's typology of assessment provides a basis for reviewing some recent developments in Member States. Present challenges and innovative responses are addressed, including ‘unpacking’ key competences, ‘mapping’ them to contexts and ‘accessment’ of their full scope and range. Policy developments are considered in the context of the author's work with the European Commission's Thematic Working Group on the assessment of key competences. The article concludes with considerations for policy and practice.

In this paper we present some preliminary data from the ESRC funded ICCAMS project about current student attitudes to mathematics at Key Stage 3 in England. We compare attitudes by sex and by attainment. Whilst the data largely confirms existing findings, an unexpected result was that a very high proportion of students responded that, for mathematical success, effort was more important than ability. We also present some interview data concerning student attitudes.