In this era of performativity, more and more schools have software programs that use pupil performance in standardised and/or nonstandardised tests to decide which pupils need learning support. In the past, teachers made decisions about which pupils needed extra literacy or numeracy support based on their knowledge of stages of learner knowledge acquisition, or stages of learner development, without the aid of predictive programs. What has the development of such orograms, and the increasing reliance on them placed by schools, meant for teachers’ professional knowledge? This paper reports longitudinal research that brings together two seemingly quite separate areas - how schools make judgements on pupils' literacy needs and how far these decisions are informed by people with appropriate professional knowledge. 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.        In a high-stakes assessment system with a heavy emphasis on performance in school league tables, such as that which has existed for some years in the UK, schools are under great pressure to allocate their resources for supporting pupils where they are most effective at raising the school’s position in league tables. Software that runs prograns based on pupils’ achievement against chronological age may seem to be attractive and offer reliability, but are there unforeseen consequences of such reliance? And is the recent move by the UK government away from having so many compusory tests going to reveal an area of teacher ignorance, about how to interpret pupils’ literacy performance? This paper raises together three questions about how primary schools in England decide which pupils will receive extra teaching or other support to improve their literacy skills. The first question is what kind of literacy ‘problem’ leads to a pupil being chosen to receive extra literacy support; the second is in whom does the professional responsibility reside for making that choice; and the third is what is the consequence for teachers’ level of professional knowledge about pupils’ literacy progrss and develoment.

The research ran over a two-year time frame. It comprised two sets of visits to a group of primary schools in north-east England whose National Curriculum test score were consistently good. The two visits were two years apart, and the second ones repeated the first, i.e. the same data collection procedures were used on each occasion. The purpose of the visits was to find out how pupils were selected to receive specialised literacy support and how that support was tailored to pupils' individual needs. Semi-structured interviews of key personnel in the decision-making processes in the schools were the main source of data, supplemented by observations and discussions with groups of staff. The focus throughout was upon the issue of what subject knowledge about literacy learning was being used by the decsion makers.

Teachers do not exercise their subject knowledge when selecting pupils for literacy support. This was done by teaching assistants, who may not hold a subject qualification. Neither the teacher nor teaching assistant interprets the pupils’ reading or written work – they base decisions on pupils’ positions on a chart. The teachers or teaching assistants mark the children's work: they do not diagnose the literacy problem. So professionally-informed judgements on the nature or depth of literacy difficulty are not made. Decision-making centred on matching pupils in need of literacy support to existing small groups, each focussing one issue (e.g. spelling, reading) and how to run these withdrawal groups within the teaching day. Some opted for withdrawal during literacy lessons, which disadvantaged the pupils further. Other schools used playtime, or time from other lessons. Teaching plans to address needs were not devised by the professionals, but selected from online materials.