Implications for Policy

Federal policies associated with the No Child Left Behind Act and state policies associated with Progress Monitoring have had both a direct and an indirect impact on the use of data by middle school reading teachers. These policies have increased the number of available tests from which data is generated while simultaneously decreasing the use of some of those tests. Likewise, these policies have both augmented the availability of and masked the need for resources to support data-informed instructional decisions.

Based on the findings of this study and the literature review, several policy changes are recommended to advance the use of data by teachers in high-performing middle schools to improve the reading achievement of low-performing students.

4.1.5.1 Policies Concerning Assessments

NCLB requires states to create standards for what every child should know and learn in all grades and evaluate student progress toward those standards by using tests aligned with the state standards. These state tests generate new forms of data for teachers and the high stakes attached to this data encourage educators to use it to make instructional decisions. However, assessment data previously used by teachers is no longer available as schools eliminate or reduce the amount

of norm-referenced testing. On the other hand, the administration of benchmark tests aligned to the state test has increased.

Progress Monitoring is a state sponsored program that requires special education teachers to assess students frequently toward designated goals. Oral reading tests that teachers can administer individually and quickly are commonly used to monitor student progress. In addition, comprehension tests that students can complete without teacher input are widely used for this purpose. Conversely, there is a reduction in the use of curriculum-based tests, individual teacher-developed tests, and performance assessments by special education teachers. These assessment tools may be less valuable in measuring progress but might do more to promote student learning.

One of the positive outcomes of NCLB is the formulation in Pennsylvania of a set of assessment anchors and eligible content to guide curriculum and instruction at each grade level. However, the Reading PSSA includes few items to assess any one skill from the assessment anchors and eligible content. Therefore, in addition to not being timely enough, the results are not specific enough to use in targeting instruction for individual students.

4.1.5.2 Recommendations for Assessment Policy

There is an alternative to giving an annual test that has limited value beyond ranking schools and/or a benchmark test that has relatively few items to assess each skill. A series of shorter, online, formative assessments based on the assessment anchors and eligible content should be given throughout the year. Since testing of all the eligible content would not be confined to a period of several days or hours, more test items could be included for each skill assessed.

Results from these online assessments could be automatically reported to the state while also providing real-time data to teachers for identify reading strengths, reading weaknesses, and

adjusting instruction. Instructional interventions could be followed by retesting of specific skills. The ability of students to retest only in areas of weaknesses, as opposed to the retaking of an entire benchmark test several times a year or every student being tested on fluency, makes this assessment system as individual as the students we are assessing. This shifts the focus from school achievement levels to student learning.

Even in high-performing middle schools, it is unrealistic to expect all students to achieve at the same levels. It is important that any changes to assessment policies address the needs of each individual student and do not mask the needs of any students by basing accountability on overall student performance or performance of subgroups with a minimum of 40 students. As with the progress monitoring of special education students, the state should base accountability on academic growth of each individual student toward a goal. However, the goal should be personal and based on the needs of each student.

While using the assessment anchors and eligible content as guidelines for instruction, teachers would have flexibility in the sequence of skill instruction and consequently the sequence of testing. In this way, testing would be guided by the curriculum instead of the current practice in some schools of using preparation for the test as the curriculum.

4.1.5.3 Policies Concerning Resources

Federal and state policies are also linked to school and/or district allocation of resources. Reporting mandates of NCLB have forced districts to invest in data systems. Districts and schools rely on these systems to organize the data necessary to demonstrate attainment of AYP targets. In addition, special education teachers have been provided access to data systems to comply with state mandated Progress Monitoring. On the other hand, the lack of external mandates results in little attention being given to the need regular education teachers have for a

data system to make student assessment data easily accessible. However, regular education teachers are responsible for educating the majority of middle school students.

4.1.5.4 Recommendations for Resource Policy

While availability of resources to aid in data-driven decision making should not be dependent on federal or state policies, policy changes could encourage schools and/or districts to provide these resources to all teachers. Policies that require the monitoring of academic progress of all students could help balance the distribution of these resources. An online assessment system would create more useful and timely data for instructional purposes, promote the use of data- driven decisions, and require schools to provide data systems to all teachers.

Technical capacity is just one aspect of a successful data-driven school culture. Policies are needed to build human capacity in the utilization of data systems and the use of data in instructional decisions. To that end, principal and teacher certification programs should require training in data analysis. Certification programs for special education teachers should require additional training in reading assessments. Districts should be obligated to provide professional development in progress monitoring to regular education as well as special education teachers. Even high-performing schools should be required to follow a knowledge management protocol that enables teachers to collect and analyze data, transform data into information through collaborative discourse, and build communities for knowledge sharing.