I-Ready grade level estimates

[Anonymous]

"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

Iready is commonly thought of as a screener test for special services so it's not really meant to supplant SOLs which measure performance on grade level standards. The assumption is that less than top 1% have needs that cannot be met by differentiation within the grade level so they are 'on grade level.' But if you have a kid who is in the 99%ile for a few grades ahead then yes, they may need instruction outside of the differentiation offered within a class. But it's a wide band of 'on grade level.' This is especially true 2nd grade and below where a precocious reader can get a high percentile just because they are being compared with a group that has a lot of beginning readers. By 3rd grade, the kid may not be quite as advanced compared to their peers as reading for most kids tends to even out by then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

Iready is commonly thought of as a screener test for special services so it's not really meant to supplant SOLs which measure performance on grade level standards. The assumption is that less than top 1% have needs that cannot be met by differentiation within the grade level so they are 'on grade level.' But if you have a kid who is in the 99%ile for a few grades ahead then yes, they may need instruction outside of the differentiation offered within a class. But it's a wide band of 'on grade level.' This is especially true 2nd grade and below where a precocious reader can get a high percentile just because they are being compared with a group that has a lot of beginning readers. By 3rd grade, the kid may not be quite as advanced compared to their peers as reading for most kids tends to even out by then.

Thanks. That's interesting and could help to explain things, although I would still think a kid who is completing grade 2/3 math should show up as advanced and not "on grade level". That's far less confusing than to say they are on grade level because they can be supported in class but not necessarily because they are truly working at that grade level.

And I don't actually think a kid who is completing grade 2/3 math can really get the differentiation they need in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

The test only knows what your child answered correctly and what they answered incorrectly. It can't tell the difference between a kid who gets the concepts but makes a careless mistake and one who has no clue how to even approach the question. So, your kid has some wrong answers on telling time. Your kid likely had some other wrong answers. Maybe they don't fully understand the standard being tested. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they reached a point where the test was too long for them and they were just done with it all. Maybe they have a high conceptual understanding, but a lower executive function. In K and 1st, they're not looking for kids to flag for enrichment, but they're instead flagging below grade level kids for interventions.

You seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that iready doesn't think your kid is above grade level. Don't overthink iready, and don't take the grade levels too seriously. Your kid had some wrong answers for one of the first grade standards, but apparently did quite well overall. By iready standards, your kid doesn't currently belong in a 2nd or 3rd grade classroom for math, so it doesn't view your kid as "above grade level." For what it's worth, had your kid taken the 2nd or 3rd grade iready, it would have considered your kid "on grade level" for 2nd and 3rd grade, respectively. Iready leveling is weird, and there's a lot of overlap in the on grade level bands. It's not saying that your kid isn't smart or isn't advanced. Most of the kids in AAP or in advanced math are not considered "above grade level" by iready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

Mostly, it's things in the measurement/statistics/data areas. Even kids who are way ahead in AoPS may not have encountered some of the statistical plots that are covered in school math classes and that appear on iready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

The test only knows what your child answered correctly and what they answered incorrectly. It can't tell the difference between a kid who gets the concepts but makes a careless mistake and one who has no clue how to even approach the question. So, your kid has some wrong answers on telling time. Your kid likely had some other wrong answers. Maybe they don't fully understand the standard being tested. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they reached a point where the test was too long for them and they were just done with it all. Maybe they have a high conceptual understanding, but a lower executive function. In K and 1st, they're not looking for kids to flag for enrichment, but they're instead flagging below grade level kids for interventions.

You seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that iready doesn't think your kid is above grade level. Don't overthink iready, and don't take the grade levels too seriously. Your kid had some wrong answers for one of the first grade standards, but apparently did quite well overall. By iready standards, your kid doesn't currently belong in a 2nd or 3rd grade classroom for math, so it doesn't view your kid as "above grade level." For what it's worth, had your kid taken the 2nd or 3rd grade iready, it would have considered your kid "on grade level" for 2nd and 3rd grade, respectively. Iready leveling is weird, and there's a lot of overlap in the on grade level bands. It's not saying that your kid isn't smart or isn't advanced. Most of the kids in AAP or in advanced math are not considered "above grade level" by iready.

I'm not taking umbrage at anything. Just trying to understand. I know my kid to be above grade level in math so I'm trying to understand why the test says otherwise. Also, I'm an educator and academic, so I don't dismiss testing as readily as others do (I create cognitive measures myself and I'm sure a lot of care went into creating and testing the I-Ready).

It's funny you mention executive function--when kids are sick their EF definitely is not at its best, and certainly if a child isn't savvy about approaching tests they aren't engaging whatever EF they have to respond as best they can.

But re: not looking to flag for enrichment, that doesn't sound correct to me. Teacher said they are going to be making recommendations for level 2 next year and this is part of the data they rely on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

The test only knows what your child answered correctly and what they answered incorrectly. It can't tell the difference between a kid who gets the concepts but makes a careless mistake and one who has no clue how to even approach the question. So, your kid has some wrong answers on telling time. Your kid likely had some other wrong answers. Maybe they don't fully understand the standard being tested. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they reached a point where the test was too long for them and they were just done with it all. Maybe they have a high conceptual understanding, but a lower executive function. In K and 1st, they're not looking for kids to flag for enrichment, but they're instead flagging below grade level kids for interventions.

You seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that iready doesn't think your kid is above grade level. Don't overthink iready, and don't take the grade levels too seriously. Your kid had some wrong answers for one of the first grade standards, but apparently did quite well overall. By iready standards, your kid doesn't currently belong in a 2nd or 3rd grade classroom for math, so it doesn't view your kid as "above grade level." For what it's worth, had your kid taken the 2nd or 3rd grade iready, it would have considered your kid "on grade level" for 2nd and 3rd grade, respectively. Iready leveling is weird, and there's a lot of overlap in the on grade level bands. It's not saying that your kid isn't smart or isn't advanced. Most of the kids in AAP or in advanced math are not considered "above grade level" by iready.

I'm not taking umbrage at anything. Just trying to understand. I know my kid to be above grade level in math so I'm trying to understand why the test says otherwise. Also, I'm an educator and academic, so I don't dismiss testing as readily as others do (I create cognitive measures myself and I'm sure a lot of care went into creating and testing the I-Ready).

It's funny you mention executive function--when kids are sick their EF definitely is not at its best, and certainly if a child isn't savvy about approaching tests they aren't engaging whatever EF they have to respond as best they can.

But re: not looking to flag for enrichment, that doesn't sound correct to me. Teacher said they are going to be making recommendations for level 2 next year and this is part of the data they rely on.

If you know that your kid is on or above grade level and that shows in his progress reports, then why are you putting so much weight in a test that I can tell you as an elementary school teacher that the kids do not take seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

The test only knows what your child answered correctly and what they answered incorrectly. It can't tell the difference between a kid who gets the concepts but makes a careless mistake and one who has no clue how to even approach the question. So, your kid has some wrong answers on telling time. Your kid likely had some other wrong answers. Maybe they don't fully understand the standard being tested. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they reached a point where the test was too long for them and they were just done with it all. Maybe they have a high conceptual understanding, but a lower executive function. In K and 1st, they're not looking for kids to flag for enrichment, but they're instead flagging below grade level kids for interventions.

You seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that iready doesn't think your kid is above grade level. Don't overthink iready, and don't take the grade levels too seriously. Your kid had some wrong answers for one of the first grade standards, but apparently did quite well overall. By iready standards, your kid doesn't currently belong in a 2nd or 3rd grade classroom for math, so it doesn't view your kid as "above grade level." For what it's worth, had your kid taken the 2nd or 3rd grade iready, it would have considered your kid "on grade level" for 2nd and 3rd grade, respectively. Iready leveling is weird, and there's a lot of overlap in the on grade level bands. It's not saying that your kid isn't smart or isn't advanced. Most of the kids in AAP or in advanced math are not considered "above grade level" by iready.

I'm not taking umbrage at anything. Just trying to understand. I know my kid to be above grade level in math so I'm trying to understand why the test says otherwise. Also, I'm an educator and academic, so I don't dismiss testing as readily as others do (I create cognitive measures myself and I'm sure a lot of care went into creating and testing the I-Ready).

It's funny you mention executive function--when kids are sick their EF definitely is not at its best, and certainly if a child isn't savvy about approaching tests they aren't engaging whatever EF they have to respond as best they can.

But re: not looking to flag for enrichment, that doesn't sound correct to me. Teacher said they are going to be making recommendations for level 2 next year and this is part of the data they rely on.

DP: At some schools, teachers look at the overall scores to inform who qualifies for overall enrichment--so the percentile. They may make a distinction at the Reading/Math level for Level II depending on how your school handles that. But they aren't going down to the item level for any meaningful information. But if your kid was on the other end, seeking remedial support services, that's where patterns in the item level might matter--they are looking for gaps in their learning/understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

The test only knows what your child answered correctly and what they answered incorrectly. It can't tell the difference between a kid who gets the concepts but makes a careless mistake and one who has no clue how to even approach the question. So, your kid has some wrong answers on telling time. Your kid likely had some other wrong answers. Maybe they don't fully understand the standard being tested. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they reached a point where the test was too long for them and they were just done with it all. Maybe they have a high conceptual understanding, but a lower executive function. In K and 1st, they're not looking for kids to flag for enrichment, but they're instead flagging below grade level kids for interventions.

You seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that iready doesn't think your kid is above grade level. Don't overthink iready, and don't take the grade levels too seriously. Your kid had some wrong answers for one of the first grade standards, but apparently did quite well overall. By iready standards, your kid doesn't currently belong in a 2nd or 3rd grade classroom for math, so it doesn't view your kid as "above grade level." For what it's worth, had your kid taken the 2nd or 3rd grade iready, it would have considered your kid "on grade level" for 2nd and 3rd grade, respectively. Iready leveling is weird, and there's a lot of overlap in the on grade level bands. It's not saying that your kid isn't smart or isn't advanced. Most of the kids in AAP or in advanced math are not considered "above grade level" by iready.

I'm not taking umbrage at anything. Just trying to understand. I know my kid to be above grade level in math so I'm trying to understand why the test says otherwise. Also, I'm an educator and academic, so I don't dismiss testing as readily as others do (I create cognitive measures myself and I'm sure a lot of care went into creating and testing the I-Ready).

It's funny you mention executive function--when kids are sick their EF definitely is not at its best, and certainly if a child isn't savvy about approaching tests they aren't engaging whatever EF they have to respond as best they can.

But re: not looking to flag for enrichment, that doesn't sound correct to me. Teacher said they are going to be making recommendations for level 2 next year and this is part of the data they rely on.

If you know that your kid is on or above grade level and that shows in his progress reports, then why are you putting so much weight in a test that I can tell you as an elementary school teacher that the kids do not take seriously?

I wouldn't say I'm putting so much weight on it. As I said, I'm just trying to understand how much weight to put on it and why it is discrepant with my own experience of my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards."

The answer is that these are two distinct comparative metrics. The percentile is comparing your child's performance to other children's performances. In this metric literally all of the test takers could fail but your child could fail less badly and therefore be 99th percentile in comparison. The grade level standard is, instead, comparing your child's performance in relation to the grade level goals (broadly defined, as discussed above).

So, the two metrics combined tell you that your child is doing fine in terms of grade level goals, and better than most other test takers, many of whom are not doing fine in relation to grade level goals

Thanks. I do understand that. I guess my point is more that it's surprising that the standards are out of reach for so many in the nation, even kids at the 99th percentile. And DC is doing work well beyond grade level in math so it's unexpected that DC tested as being on grade level for math and not advanced in any area. The reading results make a bit more sense. Was very advanced in some areas that were expected and not so in others.

Are there data indicating that the I-Ready is accurately capturing how well students are doing relative to Common Core or Virginia Standards? I suspect the testing situation is suboptimal at best. DC said kids were sounding off "alarms" by clicking through to get to the end and that the classroom noise and particular kids make it difficult to concentrate. One disruptive kid doesn't have working headphones so everyone has to listen to his loud audio.

I also think kids could use more coaching on how to approach such tests. DC is used to being able to do things over after making a mistake (in Beast Academy, ST Math, chess, etc), which I think results in a more casual approach that backfires in a real testing situation.

The grade level standards aren't out of reach for 99th percentile kids. What's out of reach are standards for the next grade level up that haven't necessarily been taught. Even a 99th percentile kid isn't going to magically know how to divide fractions or what a box and whisker plot is if they haven't been taught the material. The score means that your kid has full mastery of the grade level material, but they apparently have some gaps in the above grade level material that they haven't formally been taught. Even if your kid is working well beyond grade level in math by using things like Beast Academy, there are some fringe topics included in the common core grade level standards that aren't touched upon in BA.

Sorry, I'm confused. I'm looking at my child's report and they are 99th percentile in math but showing gaps on standards for the grade level. Unless I'm misinterpreting? For example, this standard:

"MG.1.9.a (measurement and geometry): The student will investigate the passage of time and tell time to the hour and half- hour, using analog and digital clocks".

DC got an 'X' here, indicating "The student likely does not have sufficient understanding of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard". And for several other first grade standards got a non-filled (rather than green) checkmark indicating "The student only understands some of the i‐Ready skills aligned to the standard, or the aligned i‐Ready skill is only partially related to the standard, so claims can only be made conservatively."

This to me suggests DC has not achieved first grade standards in several areas (yet is scoring at the 99th percentile...). So doesn't this mean that there are likely many kids who are doing exceptionally (top 1%) but are still not meeting their grade-level standards?

Curious to know what fringe topics are in Common Core or Virginia Standards that are not covered in BA.

The test only knows what your child answered correctly and what they answered incorrectly. It can't tell the difference between a kid who gets the concepts but makes a careless mistake and one who has no clue how to even approach the question. So, your kid has some wrong answers on telling time. Your kid likely had some other wrong answers. Maybe they don't fully understand the standard being tested. Maybe they got distracted. Maybe they reached a point where the test was too long for them and they were just done with it all. Maybe they have a high conceptual understanding, but a lower executive function. In K and 1st, they're not looking for kids to flag for enrichment, but they're instead flagging below grade level kids for interventions.

You seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that iready doesn't think your kid is above grade level. Don't overthink iready, and don't take the grade levels too seriously. Your kid had some wrong answers for one of the first grade standards, but apparently did quite well overall. By iready standards, your kid doesn't currently belong in a 2nd or 3rd grade classroom for math, so it doesn't view your kid as "above grade level." For what it's worth, had your kid taken the 2nd or 3rd grade iready, it would have considered your kid "on grade level" for 2nd and 3rd grade, respectively. Iready leveling is weird, and there's a lot of overlap in the on grade level bands. It's not saying that your kid isn't smart or isn't advanced. Most of the kids in AAP or in advanced math are not considered "above grade level" by iready.

I'm not taking umbrage at anything. Just trying to understand. I know my kid to be above grade level in math so I'm trying to understand why the test says otherwise. Also, I'm an educator and academic, so I don't dismiss testing as readily as others do (I create cognitive measures myself and I'm sure a lot of care went into creating and testing the I-Ready).

It's funny you mention executive function--when kids are sick their EF definitely is not at its best, and certainly if a child isn't savvy about approaching tests they aren't engaging whatever EF they have to respond as best they can.

But re: not looking to flag for enrichment, that doesn't sound correct to me. Teacher said they are going to be making recommendations for level 2 next year and this is part of the data they rely on.

The percentile matters. How far above the 99th percentile cutoff the child is matters. The sections in which iready identifies a possible deficit merit a closer look, but they might be a one-off.
Any lower than expected score might also be a one-off, since any kid can have a bad day. The specific above or on grade level label isn't particularly important. Just accept that iready has weird definitions of on and above grade level. Also, accept that it is an adaptive test, meaning that kids absolutely cannot go back to fix mistakes on previous problems. If a kid is hasty or impulsive, the kid will likely underperform. Iready most likely has not told the teacher anything about your child that the teacher didn't already know. Teachers will take iready results with a huge grain of salt, because they know that kids can have bad days, get distracted, rush through the test to get to the games, etc.

Your kid scored in the 99th percentile. Since telling time was identified as a possible deficit, look into that. If your kid knows the standard, don't worry about it. If not, teach it to him. They will undoubtedly be flagged for LII with a 99th percentile score, even if iready hasn't labeled him as "above grade level."

FWIW, let's say your child hypothetically scored a 470 in math, placing them at the top of the on grade level band for 1st grade. The same score is toward the top of the mid "on grade level" band for 2nd grade. And it's solidly in the middle of the "on grade level" band for 3rd grade. And it's even solidly in the "early on grade level" band for 4th grade. One way to look at this is that iready thinks your child would be extremely average if they dropped your child into a 3rd grade classroom right now. But iready and FCPS would rather view your child as a "top of the class" 1st grader than an average 3rd grader. A child won't be labeled in iready as "above grade level" unless they're at the top of the on grade level band for a higher grade.

https://www.rcboe.org/cms/lib/GA01903614/Centricity/Domain/20337/iReady%20Scale%20Score%20Placement%20Results.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grade level estimates are tied to common core standards - which are generally lower grade levels than in Virginia (but not for all topics). You want to see the full report for your student aligned to Virginia standards. The teacher can print that out for you. You won’t see the text of the question but you can see which standards were answered incorrectly.

Thank you! So the print out will show it aligned to Virginia standards?

Even so, it still surprises me, but this is helpful to know, thanks.

How can it be that a child can score 99th percentile but be completely average (at grade level, give or take) by common core standards?

The “for families” report that others have referenced is fine info. But to see exactly what standards your child got wrong ask for the Virginia standards report covering K through the grade above your child’s grade.

The 99th percentile would mean that your child scored better than 99 percent of students at DCs grade level nationally. So, probably not many gaps.

I don’t look at the percentiles but I do look at the standards report. Unless a kiddo had an off day, it seems to track pretty well with what I see in class. And it helps me to fill in gaps that aren’t part of the current grade level standards. Or fill gaps before we arrive at a corresponding unit.

Sorry for the blank post above. The teacher said that there isn't a way to get the I-Ready report aligned to Virginia standards and also did not send the Lexia report with Virginia standards. Is there some additional guidance I could provide the teacher with?

OP here. Got the reports with Virginia standards. These are very informative and a good complement to the usual report that is given--thanks to posters who suggested we ask for this. Also really interesting to have more detailed Lexia reports. I was surprised to see the specific standards that DC seemed to struggle with. Possibly was not being careful in selecting responses, given limited experience with such tests and being under the weather. (This was DC's first I-Ready due to starting in FCPS only recently.)

I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards.

On grade level/above grade level ranges make very little sense at the lower grades. Iready considers ‘on-grade’ for 2nd grade math up to a 506 score. 506 is so high that it’s also considered ‘on grade level’ for early grade 6, and is 52nd percentile for 7th grade 🤯 and yes, you can compare scores across grade levels for iready diagnostic tests.

https://www.rcboe.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=73993&dataid=76158&FileName=iReady%20Growth%20Expectations%202016%202017.pdf

https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7539/urlt/iready-norms-tables-K-8-2020.pdf


The on grade/above grade ranges make much more sense as you get to upper elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grade level estimates are tied to common core standards - which are generally lower grade levels than in Virginia (but not for all topics). You want to see the full report for your student aligned to Virginia standards. The teacher can print that out for you. You won’t see the text of the question but you can see which standards were answered incorrectly.

Thank you! So the print out will show it aligned to Virginia standards?

Even so, it still surprises me, but this is helpful to know, thanks.

How can it be that a child can score 99th percentile but be completely average (at grade level, give or take) by common core standards?

The “for families” report that others have referenced is fine info. But to see exactly what standards your child got wrong ask for the Virginia standards report covering K through the grade above your child’s grade.

The 99th percentile would mean that your child scored better than 99 percent of students at DCs grade level nationally. So, probably not many gaps.

I don’t look at the percentiles but I do look at the standards report. Unless a kiddo had an off day, it seems to track pretty well with what I see in class. And it helps me to fill in gaps that aren’t part of the current grade level standards. Or fill gaps before we arrive at a corresponding unit.

Sorry for the blank post above. The teacher said that there isn't a way to get the I-Ready report aligned to Virginia standards and also did not send the Lexia report with Virginia standards. Is there some additional guidance I could provide the teacher with?

OP here. Got the reports with Virginia standards. These are very informative and a good complement to the usual report that is given--thanks to posters who suggested we ask for this. Also really interesting to have more detailed Lexia reports. I was surprised to see the specific standards that DC seemed to struggle with. Possibly was not being careful in selecting responses, given limited experience with such tests and being under the weather. (This was DC's first I-Ready due to starting in FCPS only recently.)

I'm nevertheless still perplexed as to how a child can be 99th percentile (475Q) in math on I-Ready and be indicated as on grade level and not meeting or having incomplete knowledge of several standards.

On grade level/above grade level ranges make very little sense at the lower grades. Iready considers ‘on-grade’ for 2nd grade math up to a 506 score. 506 is so high that it’s also considered ‘on grade level’ for early grade 6, and is 52nd percentile for 7th grade 🤯 and yes, you can compare scores across grade levels for iready diagnostic tests.

https://www.rcboe.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=73993&dataid=76158&FileName=iReady%20Growth%20Expectations%202016%202017.pdf

https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7539/urlt/iready-norms-tables-K-8-2020.pdf


The on grade/above grade ranges make much more sense as you get to upper elementary.

Thank you! I really appreciate the perspective you are offering in this post (and presumably the one above as well). This helps me understand better.

So if DC was listed as 3rd grade level and maximum score on some aspects of the reading portion of I-Ready does that mean they need LII even if their overall percentile for that portion was 91?

For math it was 475Q, so it's good to know that even with a grain of salt maybe there'll be more differentiation in DC's future, which they appear to need/want.