Do they count iready scores now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

According to our AART, COGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores are objective factors, while HOPE ratings are subjective. We're glad we focused on helping our child with the objective factors. We're not an upper-middle-class suburban family that can afford private preschool for an early leg-up. So, we had our child do workbooks in the evenings to improve the objective factors, especially math and English, which take many months compared to the COGAT/NNAT workbooks, all of which took less than a week and cost under $30. So for us a $30 investment was affordable compared to a $30k preschool early legup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think so. I know someone kid with less than stellar Iready scores got in. My guess is the HOPE (or whatever it is called this year) is weighted more heavily

cannot correlate hope ratings to objective cogat/nnat/iready scores. hope ratings correlate to experience factors including student ethnicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

I don't know if iReady is being "considered", but I know for a fact the application package includes iready score from Fall 2023, because we have our child's application package.

If iready is included, I'd think more than likely it is being considered. So ... change my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

I don't know if iReady is being "considered", but I know for a fact the application package includes iready score from Fall 2023, because we have our child's application package.

If iready is included, I'd think more than likely it is being considered. So ... change my mind.

Hi all,

I just spoke to a teacher at my daughter's school who was part of the central office screening committee. My daughter was rejected (very strong HOPE, borderline COGAT, bad i-ready scores in the 70s). The teacher informed me that even though i-ready is listed on the application package, the screeners did not use the i-ready unless it could benefit the child (for example, a much higher i-ready winter score that the school chose to include in the packet to balance out a low fall score). According to this teacher, the i-ready is not allowed to be used in a negative way. The screeners primarily use the COGAT and the HOPE. If your child was rejected, it was likely a result of one of those two data points being lower than needed. If COGAT is low/borderline, take the WISC and see if score can improve by 5-10 points. If HOPE is low, appeal with a strongly-worded letter emphasizing your child's strengths and how the teacher got it wrong.

Of course, I see the i-ready score on my child's packet and don't understand how it can be "ignored" but this teacher really emphasized to me that it was - for what it's worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was accepted to AAP with iReady scores in the 60's. It's actually what tipped us off to their ADHD, but they were diagnosed after the packet was sent in. All other testing was high (and the WISC they gave them confirmed giftedness, but again that wasn't in the packet).

In other words, it won't sink your application.

Was she admitted this year? Because it might have sunk her application this year.

Yes, she was admitted this year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

According to our AART, COGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores are objective factors, while HOPE ratings are subjective. We're glad we focused on helping our child with the objective factors. We're not an upper-middle-class suburban family that can afford private preschool for an early leg-up. So, we had our child do workbooks in the evenings to improve the objective factors, especially math and English, which take many months compared to the COGAT/NNAT workbooks, all of which took less than a week and cost under $30. So for us a $30 investment was affordable compared to a $30k preschool early legup.

I think you’re overestimating what they learn in preschool. But glad that worked for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

According to our AART, COGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores are objective factors, while HOPE ratings are subjective. We're glad we focused on helping our child with the objective factors. We're not an upper-middle-class suburban family that can afford private preschool for an early leg-up. So, we had our child do workbooks in the evenings to improve the objective factors, especially math and English, which take many months compared to the COGAT/NNAT workbooks, all of which took less than a week and cost under $30. So for us a $30 investment was affordable compared to a $30k preschool early legup.

I think you’re overestimating what they learn in preschool. But glad that worked for you.

Compared with children who attended informal care at age 4, preschool attendees consistently performed better on achievement tests from age 5 through early adolescence,... The long-term academic advantages of preschool were, however, largely explained by their positive effects on academic skills early in formal schooling ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426150/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

According to our AART, COGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores are objective factors, while HOPE ratings are subjective. We're glad we focused on helping our child with the objective factors. We're not an upper-middle-class suburban family that can afford private preschool for an early leg-up. So, we had our child do workbooks in the evenings to improve the objective factors, especially math and English, which take many months compared to the COGAT/NNAT workbooks, all of which took less than a week and cost under $30. So for us a $30 investment was affordable compared to a $30k preschool early legup.

I think you’re overestimating what they learn in preschool. But glad that worked for you.

My kid went to a play based preschool. I don't think she learned anything academic like reading or math. She did learn social skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a first grader. I was told this was to see kids were doing and progressing. No one ever told us it would be hard to screen for AAP.

Yes, now FCPS uses iReady starting 1st. And they weighs iRead heavily in AAP admission. If your kids did well in NNAT and Cogat, but bad in iReady in iReady, they will think your kids prepped for NNAT and CogAT. They purpose of using iReady is to support equity in the classroom.

Some threads about FCPS using iReady:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/703065.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/914212.page

https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/1b8cmd8/iready_is_a_horrible_assessment_tool_and_kids/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/13qmc6f/iready_reading_virtually_no_annual_growth/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/t1f412/thoughts_on_being_denied_enrichment_due_to_iready/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

So if Cogat/NNAT have less weight and Iready only used if helps (but not used to reject), decisions are then majority based on HOPe scoring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

According to our AART, COGAT, NNAT, and iReady scores are objective factors, while HOPE ratings are subjective. We're glad we focused on helping our child with the objective factors. We're not an upper-middle-class suburban family that can afford private preschool for an early leg-up. So, we had our child do workbooks in the evenings to improve the objective factors, especially math and English, which take many months compared to the COGAT/NNAT workbooks, all of which took less than a week and cost under $30. So for us a $30 investment was affordable compared to a $30k preschool early legup.

I think you’re overestimating what they learn in preschool. But glad that worked for you.

My kid went to a play based preschool. I don't think she learned anything academic like reading or math. She did learn social skills.

Preschools provide access to manipulatives for pattern recognition, sorting, categorization, teach rhymes, puzzles, provide early readers, math toys, science oriented pretend toys, etc... all which contribute towards higher cogat and nnat scores, .... a learning environment that low income parents cannot afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

So if Cogat/NNAT have less weight and Iready only used if helps (but not used to reject), decisions are then majority based on HOPe scoring?

Which matches what the 2020 outside analysis of AAP admissions showed, so why wouldn't that be the case?

I actually think parent write-ups have more of an impact than people give them credit for. Our AART strongly encourages parents to fill everything out, and she seems to know her stuff.

[Anonymous]

Do we have another iready in Jan/Feb 2024? On my kid's test history on parentvue it only shows Fall 2023 scores, and I expect there is one for winter and spring this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we have another iready in Jan/Feb 2024? On my kid's test history on parentvue it only shows Fall 2023 scores, and I expect there is one for winter and spring this year?

They don't have to do a winter one for kids who scored high enough. Some schools/teachers/grades do it anyway, but it is optional. The score for my 1 kid whose class took one section of it in winter have been in SIS for about a month now.

[Anonymous]

My DS went from 98th percentile in both fall iReady to 90th/91st percentile in winter iReady. Luckily, he got in already. Just sharing this to underscore the unreliability of this tool.