1
Robin Hemmons
TLT 432 – Summer 2013
June 25, 2013
Professional Journal Article and Presentation
Buly, M., & Valencia, S. (2002). Below the Bar: Profiles of Students Who Fail State Reading
Assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.
Problem: This study focuses on the patterns of reading abilities of individual students, and how
state reading assessments cannot truly give accurate data on a student’s reading strengths and
deficits. This invalid data has been used by policymakers to redesign classroom instruction for
beginning readers, and for implementing early interventions for struggling readers (Buly &
Valencia). Based on state assessment scores, decisions are also made for classroom practices,
state test preparation, and curriculum. Students that fall below proficient levels of state standards
are not receiving the best remedial instruction due to misinformed policymakers.
Design: This study was implemented in the state of Washington, over a testing period of 6 weeks
in September through October. Trained examiners, whom were all certified teachers, measured
specific components, and worked with students individually, outside of his or her classroom.
Skills such as word identification, phonemic awareness, reading comprehension, vocabulary,
rate, and expression were assessed with a battery of tests.
Sample: 108 students, who were enrolled in 17 out of 20 elementary schools in the district,
and had scored below proficiency (Levels 1-2 out of 4) on the Washington Assessment
of Student Learning State Assessment (WASL) were examined.
Students came from:
-
An Ethnically diverse, semi urban school district (Approximately 18,000
students)
-
A group that has not been identified as needing special instruction
Note: English Language Learners (ELLs) were found to participate in this study;
however they were no longer receiving English as a Second Language (ESL) services
that have exited from ESL program (no longer receiving ESL services).
2
Measures: Measurements were used based on battery tests such as the Woodcock-Johnson
Psycho-Educational Battery- Revised (WJ-R) for word identification skills, the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test- Revised (PPVT-R) for vocabulary knowledge, the Qualitative Reading
Inventory II (QRI-II) for comprehension, accuracy, rate, and fluency, (total words per minute
and accurate words per minute) and the phoneme deletion and phoneme segmentation subtests of
the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) to assess phonemic awareness.
Reading selections were taken from the WASL to score for accuracy, rate, and expression from a
scale score of 1 to 4.
Data Analysis: A cluster analysis was presented in this study, showing a particular pattern of
student performance. Each cluster not only used specific study participants as examples of each
performance category, but also described the strengths and weaknesses of each student’s reading
abilities, and offered what type of instruction that particular type of student would benefit from
the most.
Results: State Assessments that are focused more on reading comprehension, do not provide
valid data for students who fall below the proficient level, and need further instruction on reading
abilities such as decoding, word identification, rate, and fluency. The data shows that reading
failure is individualized, and using scores from a state assessment, do not benefit the student in
redesigning and implementing interventions that will be successful and accurate in acquiring
reading skills.
What Does This Mean?: For use of planning curriculum and instruction, current high stakes
assessments are not valid enough to be used in that way. Moreover, if educators and
policymakers are using State assessment scores for attaining data to change mandated
curriculum, instruction, or classroom strategies, we need to change what is being tested in the
state assessments.
Questions to Ponder: Are policymakers using data other than State Assessments to create
policies? How will educators react to mandated classroom strategies? Will teachers advocate for
each of his or her students to learn in the way the student would best be able to or will they
follow the rules of the State/Administration to keep his or her job?
Reflection:
It saddens me that policymakers are using state assessments to dictate what a teacher
should be doing in a classroom. If each student is an individual with individual needs, how can
one test be the end all, tell all… for all? If teachers are trained through multiple opportunities to
practice strategies, and gain experience of instructing a variety of diverse classrooms, then they
will not only have the background knowledge of the state’s intentions, but teachers could also be
trusted with the freedom and room to learn each of his or her students’ strengths and needs, while
gearing instruction on those observations as well as classroom assessment and test scores.
Due to the fact that teachers are responsible for a large number of students and have
limited instructional time available to them, classroom teachers are forced to teach to the state
3
assessments. Without the time given for teachers to instruct key skills, such as reading abilities,
teachers are not able to provide opportunities for students to practice these skills. I would rather
have a student make a mistake in my class, allowing me to correct and guide them, than teach
them how to score well on a state assessment. And after reading this journal article about
Reading State Assessments, test scores are extremely invalid for finding out what specific skill
deficits a student has in reading. Why are we spending so much time teaching students how to
score well on a test that is ultimately disadvantageous to students, teachers, administration, and
school districts?
In my classroom, I will set aside time for instruction that is focused on state assessments,
because this is the reality of the public education system today, and a requirement for working
within that system as an educator. However, I will make sure that I give individual as well as
classroom assessments on a daily basis, and look at each student on an individual basis, so that I
am aware of the progress of his or her strengths and needs. I appreciate the idea of reading
probes, and assessing students not only in comprehension, but also decoding, rate, fluency. I will
also implement the strategy of vocabulary instruction.
There was a line in the journal article, “Vocabulary knowledge has long been recognized
as a significant factor in reading comprehension” and also a section emphasizing the benefits of
vocabulary instruction for ELLs, that really encouraged me to incorporate vocabulary building
strategies in each and every lesson. Vocabulary knowledge and comprehension is key, and will
naturally improve skills in any ability of reading.
I am aware of the need for honesty and integrity when doing my work.
Robin Hemmons