Reflection

The federal No Child Left Behind Act may be leaving many children behind even in schools the accountability system has identified as high-performing. Because accountability is based on the percentage of high-performing students, the federal mandates of NCLB overlook the needs of the small percentage of low-performing students in these schools. Unless they are one of a minimum of 40 students in a designated subgroup, their achievement is not an accountability factor in many of these schools until the year 2014. In addition to ignoring the stigma that comes

with being among the small percentage of low-performing students in these schools, the academic needs of these students may be lost in a system that focuses on measuring and reporting school and/or district academic achievement instead of promoting individual student learning.

This study looked at data use by reading teachers in three high-performing middle schools to address the needs of these low-performing students. In each of these buildings, the number of teachers who responded to the survey and who volunteered to be interviewed was overwhelming. The administrators were supportive of the study, and the staff gave freely of its time and knowledge. However, the researcher found that teachers in each of these three buildings used data to varying degrees. The extent of data use and the assessment data used were often a result of external factors as opposed to professional judgment of the individual teachers. Federal and state policy had an enormous impact on the use of data by reading teachers in this study.

The federal government has shifted its focus from educational inputs to educational outcomes since the Coleman report, Equality of Educational Opportunity. However, there remains a lack of equality in educational opportunity for low-performing students in high- performing schools. Under NCLB, high-performing schools inevitably focus resources on the subset of students whose achievement is necessary to satisfy AYP goals. Teachers of low- performing students not included in these accountability subgroups do not have equal access to these important resources. The inequality of resources for teachers translates into inequality of educational opportunity for students. This is especially true for regular education teachers and their students.

State policy requires special education teachers to monitor individual student progress. Unlike the AYP goals of NCLB, this mandate addresses the needs of all students with disabilities regardless of how many are present in a school. To facilitate compliance with this policy, special education teachers receive training in assessment tools and data use. In addition, these teachers have data systems that provide easy access to data. However, regular education teachers responsible for educating the majority of the students do not have these mandates. Consequently, they are less likely to be provided with these resources. The lack of these resources hinders their ability to use data to guide instructional decisions.

While federal and state policies have led to an increase of resources for some teachers, these mandates are often forcing teachers to make decisions based on compliance instead of best practice. Teachers are required to base instructional decisions on data from tests that are not sensitive to classroom instruction, do not address the academic strengths and weaknesses of their individual students, and/or do take into account the human development of each student.

For example, the PSSA is widely used to identify low-performing students. However, this test was designed to rank schools for the purpose of accountability. The tests is not frequent enough or specific enough, nor are the results timely enough to be of value to guide instructional decisions designed to meet the academic needs of individual students. Moreover, the mandatory PSSA testing has led schools to eliminate other school wide tests teachers found to be of more instructional value. Furthermore, practice tests aligned to the state assessment are replacing classroom assessments that have the potential to not only measure student learning but also to promote it.

Another source of data that teachers use for compliance that may not be sensitive to classroom instruction and individual student needs comes from oral reading tests. Many special

education teachers use oral reading tests to comply with state Progress Monitoring mandates. These tests are popular among these teachers because the tests can be administered individually in a short amount of time and can be given frequently.

However, not every special education student has problems with reading fluency. Teachers are basing their use of this test on external factors that are not tied directly to the needs of individual students. Furthermore, the assessment data used for accountability is words per minute and does not involve an analysis of the miscues. Compliance with state mandates is resulting in testing practices that produce data that shows student achievement but does not guide differentiated instruction.

In an educational environment guided by easily administered tests and mandated achievement data, some low-performing reading students may not be getting exposure to rich literature based literacy programs. The short passages used for comprehension and fluency testing may be taking time from higher leveled reading materials that engage middle school students in thinking about and discussing topics of personal interest and encourage learning.

Federal and state policies are not the only factors that affect the use of data by teachers in high-performing schools. Without the external pressures that motivate teachers in low- performing schools to use data to improve overall student achievement, strong school leaders are necessary to galvanize teachers in high-performing schools to use data to address the academic needs of individual students.

Middle school reading teachers must overcome many obstacles to be able to use data to address the needs of their low-performing students. High teacher-to-student ratios, lack of easy access to relevant data, lack of data analysis skills, and time constraints are a few of the obstacles. Strong school leaders committed to the learning of every child are necessary for

teachers to rise above these obstacles. School leaders must work with teachers to identify and provide resources necessary to make instructional decisions designed to address the needs of every student. These resources should include data that enables teachers to go beyond helping students score at a certain level on a state test and provides insights to promote student inquiry and personal learning.