This research brings together two seemingly quite separate areas - how teachers make judgements on pupils' literacy needs and how decisions in schools are made. More specifically, the research raises questions about whether similar assessments of literacy need and decisions as to how to resource them are likely to be made of children with similar literacy needs. It also asks what relationship exists between such resource allocation systems and teachers' professional knowledge about pupils' literacy learning and difficulties.Theories of organisational decision-making have developed chiefly from models of management . Prominent among long-held theories is that of Carter and Ford (1972), whose central tenet is that organisational decion-making is generally rational at the macro-level, i.e. at the point of policy-formulation, but the closer to the level of implementation one looks, i.e. towards the more micro-level, the less rational and more subjective these decisions become. Burt (2004) suggests that there is also a move from rational to behavioural when decisions are made closer to the point of action or delivery. (This is not to suggest that rationality and behaviouralism are opposites or mutually exclusive.) According to this theory, then, different schools could be making quite different decisions concerning resource allocation, even when deciding about supporting children with rather similar needs. Countering this tendency, if true, there is a cross-cutting influence upon schools' decision-making systems for allocating support resource. In a high-stakes assessment system with a heavy emphasis on performance in school league tables, such as that which exists in the UK today, schools are under great pressure to allocate their resources for supporting pupils where they are most effective. This means where they make most return for the school in terms of helping the school perform well. This may result in schools responding similarly at points of decision. This paper brings together three aspects of how primary schools in England decide which pupils will receive extra teaching or other support to improve their literacy skills. The first aspect is an exploration of what decisions are made and why using an approach in which the school, under strong guidance from the Local Authority, makes decisons on allocation of support resources (usually in the form of small groups withdrawn for extra tuition on specific aspects of literacy) according to the gap between the pupil's actual and expected attainment levels. More support is given to cases where small gains by pupils will help the school reach its targets.A qualitative methodology was employed in this small scale study, whichh is a pilot for a larger scale project. Semi-structured interviews of key personnel in the decision-making process were the main source data. After an initial review of both the literature on decision-making and of the practice models available to schools for allocating resource, it was decided to select two Local Authorities and interview staff in 2 schools in each (total 4 schools). The authorities chosen were both in the north-east of England. They contrasted in nature (semi-rural/small town in one case, urban in the other) and in geographical scale and number of primary schools (large in the first case, compact in the second). One key manager/co-ordinator for primary literacy was interviewed in each local authority. Their responsibility included monitoring how schools in their local authority allocated literacy support and advise on best practice. Within the four schools, interviews were conducted with key personnel. These were the special needs and literacy co-ordinators, class teachers, the Head Teacher and any further teachers who had a significant role in the decsion-making process. Details of interview schedules and analysis tools will be presented at the paper.The research found evidence to suggest that decisions about which pupils receive what kinds of literacy support may not be made through teachers exercising their professional subject knowledge. There is a system, based on assessments undertaken regularly by all pupils, which does it for them. The teachers' role, or that of teaching assistants, is to mark or assess the children's assessment work: they do not diagnose the literacy problem. In other words, they do not make professional judgements on the nature or depth of literacy difficulty.It was found that decision-making centred on matching pupils revealed as in need of literacy support to existing small groups, each group focussing on an area of literacy (e.g. spelling, reading) and resolving how best to include these withrdrawal groups wirthin the normal teaching day. Some schools opted for withdrawal during literacy teaching time; otehrs did not and went for a different opportunity. The research reported here also found that the teaching plans for addressing these needs are often not devised by the teacher, but are taken from ready-made materials provided under the government's National Strategy.Furthermore, the professional with the most knowledge and understanding of both the system for identifying pupils' literacy performance, and the selection of teaching resources for use in the target groups, was often the teaching or classroom assistant.All this may or may not be a bad thing, but it suggests that teachers tend to make few decisions individually, and maybe schools exercise little individuality in meso-level decisions-making terms. The implications for this are wide. One is that teachers' professional subject knowledge is irrelevant - what knowledge of literacy difficulties, their etiology and the impact of different remedies, do teachers need to assess their pupils, when resource allocation is decided by such a mechanised assessment system? Another implication is that as fewer teachers make fewer decisions, they are becoming further de-professionalised.The following are key to the argument and conceptual basis of the researchBeach, S. A. (1994) 'Teachers' theories and classroom practice: Beliefs, knowledge or context?' in Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 15, 189-196Burt, G. (2003) 'Organisational Decision making: Rationality, Rules, Religion or Randomness?' Mathematical Social Science (research) Note 2 http:/iet.open.ac.uk/pp/g.j.burt/main.htm Carter, C. F. and Ford, J. L. (1972) 'Uncertainty and expectations in economics' Oxford: Blackwell Cunningham, A.E., Perry, K.E., Stanovich, K.E. and Stanovich, P.J. (2004) 'Discipline Knowledge of K-3 Teachers and their Knowledge Calibration in the Domain of Early Literacy' in Annals of Dyslexia, 54,1 Cyert, R.M. and March, J. G. (1992) 'A behavioural theory of the firm', Blackwell: Camb. Mass. McCutcheon, D,. Harry, D., Cunningham, A., Cox, S., Sidman, S. & Covil, A. (2002) 'Reading Teachers' Knowledge of Children's Literature and English Phonology' in Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207-228 Poulton, E.C. (1994) Behavioural decision theory. A new approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press It is intended to submit for to a string national or European journal.