The defensibility of national curriculum assessment in england

Research Papers in Education

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 101-127

  Newton, Paul E ^a  

^a Qualifications/Curriculum Authority   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accountability; Assessment; Defensibility; Reliability; Testing; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016718322     PISSN: 02671522     EISSN: 14701146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0267152032000081887     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council On Measurement In Education (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
2. Baird, J., Cresswell, M. and Newton, P. (2000). ‘Would the real gold standard please step forward?’, Research Papers in Education, 15, 2, 213-29.
3. Baker, E., Sutherland, S. and Mcgaw, B. (2002). Maintaining GCE A Level Standards: the Findings of an Independent Panel of Experts. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
4. Baron, J. (1988). Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or Foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and Testing. London: Falmer Press.
6. Black, P. (2000). ‘Research and the development of educational assessment’, Oxford Review of Education, 26, 3&4, 407-19.
7. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998).‘Assessment and classroom learning’, Assessment in Education, 5, 1, 7-74.
8. Blank, R. K., Porter, A. and Smithson, J. (2001). New Tools for Analyzing Teaching, Curriculum and Standards in Mathematics and Science:Results from Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
9. Brennan, R. L. (2001). ‘An essay on the history and future of reliability from the perspective of replications’, Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 4, 295-317.
10. Brookhart, S. M. (1993). ‘Teachers’ grading practices: meanings and values’, Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 2, 123-42.
11. Campbell, D.T. (1960). ‘Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait or discriminant validity’, American Psychologist, 15, 546-53.
12. Commission On Instructionally Supportive Assessment (2001). Building Tests to Support Instruction and Accountability: a Guide for Policy Makers. Arlington, VA:American Association of School Administrators. Available online at: [1 May, 2002].
13. Corbett, P. (2002).‘Spin straw into gold’ (Curriculum Special English), Times Educ. Suppl., 4466, 1 February, 8-9.
14. Craik, F. I. M. and Lockhart, R. S. (1972). ‘Levels of processing: a framework for memory research’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-84.
15. Cresswell, M. J. (2001). ‘Heaps, prototypes and ethics: the consequences of using judgements of student performance to set examination standards in a time of change’. Inaugural Lecture at the University of London, Institute of Education, 12 December.
16. Cronbach, L.J. (1989).‘Construct validation after thirty years’. In: Linn, R.E. (Ed.) Intelligence: Measurement, Theory and Public Policy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp.147-71.
17. Daugherty, R. (1997). ‘Consistency in teachers’ assessments: defining the problem, finding the answers’, British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 8, 1, 32-8.
18. Davis, A. (1998). The Limits of Educational Assessment. Oxford:Blackwell.
19. Davis, A. (1999). Educational Assessment: a Critique of Current Policy. Ringwood: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
20. Davis, A. (2001). ‘Accountability and school inspection: in defence of audited self-review’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35, 4, 667-81.
21. Goldstein, H. and Cresswell, M.J. (1996).‘The comparability of different subjects in public examinations: a theoretical and practical critique’, Oxford Review of Education, 22, 4, 435-42.
22. Haertel, E. H. and Linn, R. L. (1996).‘Comparability’. In: Phillips, G.W. (Ed.) Technical Issues in Large-Scale Performance Assessment. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
23. Hambleton, R.K. (1994). ‘The rise and fall of criterion-referenced measurement?’ Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 4, 21-6.
24. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L. and Schmidt, M. (2002). ‘Perspectives on alternative assessment reform.’ American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1, 69-95.
25. Henry, J. (2001).‘Professor calls for end to “bogus” tests’, Times Educ. Suppl., 4457, 30 November, 1.
26. Henry, J. (2002).‘Zero tolerance is a big mistake’, Times Educ. Suppl., 4466, 1 February, 24-5.
27. Linn, R. L. (1994a). ‘Criterion-referenced measurement: a valuable perspective clouded by surplus meaning’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 4, 12-14.
28. Linn, R. L. (1994b). ‘Assessment-based reform: challenges to educational measurement’. Paper presented at Angoff Memorial Lecture, Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service.
29. Massey, A. J. (1995). ‘Criterion-related test development and national test standards’, Assessment in Education, 2, 2, 187-203.
30. Mcmillan, J. H. (2001).‘Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 1, 20-32.
31. Mehrens, W. A. (1998).‘Consequences of assessment:what is the evidence?’ Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6, 13 [online].Available online at: [1 May, 2992].
32. Messick, S. (1989). ‘Validity’. In: Linn, R.L. (Ed.) Educational Measurement. Third edn. New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company.
33. Morrison, H. G. and Wylie, E.C. (1999). ‘Why National Curriculum testing is founded on a methodological thought disorder’, Evaluation and Research in Education, 13, 2, 92-105.
34. Murphy, R. J. L. (1978).‘Reliability of marking in eight GCE examinations’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 2, 196-200.
35. Murphy, R. J. L. (1982).‘A further report of investigations into the reliability of marking of GCE examinations’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 1, 58-63.
36. Newton, P. E. (1996). ‘The reliability of marking of General Certificate of Secondary Education scripts: mathematics and English’, British Educational Research Journal, 22, 4, 405-20.
37. Newton, P. E. (1997). ‘Measuring comparability of standards between subjects: why our statistical techniques do not make the grade’, British Educational Research Journal, 23, 4, 433-49.
38. Newton, P. E., Driver, R. and Osborne, J. (1999). ‘The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science’, International Journal of Science Education, 21, 5, 553-76.
39. Nichols, P. D. and Smith, P.L. (1998). ‘Contextualising the interpretation of reliability data’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 3, 24-36.
40. Ollerenshaw, C. and Ritchie, R. (1997). Primary Science: Making It Work. Second edn. London: David Fulton Publishers.
41. Popham, W. J. (1994). ‘The instructional consequences of criterion-referenced clarity’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 4, 15-18.
42. Reay, D. and Wiliam, D. (1999). “I’ll be a nothing’: structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment’, British Educational Research Journal, 25, 3, 343-54.
43. Sainsbury, M. and Sizmur, S. (1998).‘Level descriptions in the National Curriculum: what kind of criterion referencing is this?’, Oxford Review of Education, 24, 2, 181-93.
44. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P. and Gao, X. (1993). ‘Sampling variability of performance assessments’, Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 3, 215-32.
45. Shorrocks-Taylor, D. (1999). National Testing: Past, Present and Future (Issues in Assessment and Testing). Leicester: BPS Books.
46. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). ‘The unfulfilled promise of classroom assessment’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 3, 5-15.
47. Torrance, H. (2001).‘Assessment for learning: developing formative assessment in the classroom’, Education 3-13, 29, 3, 26-32.
48. Wiliam, D. (1993). Technical Issues in the Development and Implementation of a System of Criterion-Referenced Age-Independent Levels of Achievement in the National Curriculum of England and Wales. King’s College, University of London. Unpublished report.
49. Wiliam, D (1995). ‘Combination, aggregation and reconciliation: evidential and consequential bases’, Assessment in Education, 2, 1, 53-73.
50. Wiliam, D. (2000a).‘Integrating formative and summative functions of assessment.’ Keynote address to the European Association for Educational Assessment, Prague, Czech Republic, November.
51. Wiliam, D. (2000b).‘The meanings and consequences of educational assessments’, Critical Quarterly, 42, 1,105-27.
52. Wiliam, D. (2001a). Level Best? Levels of Attainment in National Curriculum Assessment. London:ATL.
53. Wiliam, D. (2001b).‘Reliability, validity and all that jazz’, Education 3-13, 29, 3, 17-21.
54. Wiliam, D. (2001c).‘What is wrong with our educational assessments and what can be done about it?’ Education Review, 15, 1, 57-62.
55. Williams, J. and Ryan, J. (2000). ‘National testing and the improvement of classroom teaching: can they coexist?’, British Educational Research Journal, 26, 1, 49-74.
56. Wood, R. (1976a). ‘Halo and other effects in teacher assessments’, Durham Research Review, 7, 1120-6.
57. Wood, R. (1976b). ‘Your chemistry equals my French’, Times Educ. Suppl., 30 July.
58. Wood, R. (1991). Assessment and Testing: a Survey of Research. Cambridge: UCLES.