Do they count iready scores now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kids' scores have dropped many times. I've decided it's because my summer supplementation is just that good

[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 only have to take iready in the winter if their fall scores weren't good. One of my kids had to take both winter iready tests, the other one only had to take reading in the winter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

98th percentile in math on Fall iReady to 93 percentile in math on Winter iReady (seems to be administered to all the kids). Teacher probably ignored him because he was already good enough.

[Anonymous]

My child's score percentile dropped 20 pts in one subject. I'm seriously debating arguing that's proof needs aren't being met in the GE classroom on the appeal.

[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?

I wouldn’t say the process relies mostly on HOPE. It seems the committee aims to evaluate a comprehensive package, considering the overall profile rather than just single data points or test results. This means the parent questionnaire and work samples play crucial roles and shouldn’t be overlooked. It's been noted by many parents that teacher-provided samples may not always meet the necessary standard to showcase a child's performance comprehensively (not blaming the teachers-- the child simply may not perform on demand).

In the case of my child, the decision seemed to hinge on the provided work samples. These samples illustrated a superior understanding of concepts and problem-solving abilities that would challenge even adults. While the scores were supportive, I believe it was the compelling evidence of everyday observations at home that truly made the difference.

[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.

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?

I wouldn’t say the process relies mostly on HOPE. It seems the committee aims to evaluate a comprehensive package, considering the overall profile rather than just single data points or test results. This means the parent questionnaire and work samples play crucial roles and shouldn’t be overlooked. It's been noted by many parents that teacher-provided samples may not always meet the necessary standard to showcase a child's performance comprehensively (not blaming the teachers-- the child simply may not perform on demand).

In the case of my child, the decision seemed to hinge on the provided work samples. These samples illustrated a superior understanding of concepts and problem-solving abilities that would challenge even adults. While the scores were supportive, I believe it was the compelling evidence of everyday observations at home that truly made the difference.

For years on this board parents have been shouting that the committee ignores things from home, but I think you are right. Our AART has always encouraged sending in as much as possible from home with the packet, while also saying if you can't she'll do her best to represent your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

98th percentile in math on Fall iReady to 93 percentile in math on Winter iReady (seems to be administered to all the kids). Teacher probably ignored him because he was already good enough.

Dude, that is likely a difference of one or two questions. It is not a big deal. The teachers on the committees are well acquainted with the strengths and limitations of iReady, which is why it’s one data point among many.

It certainly doesn’t mean the teacher just somehow neglected to teach your child for a semester.

[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.

Out of three components, two of them NNAT/Cogat and iReady can be improved by student with parent support. Third component, HOPE is a secret process that no one knows except the One eyed raven.
So, better to focus on first two.