Iready

[Anonymous]

Not wondering “what if” my point is he turned out fine without AAP math even though he could have been there based on scores. So parents don’t get hung up on AAP classes, there’s many more opportunities for your student in MS and HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iready is a valid test. Those whose children score poorly on it will naturally discount it. The kid didn't try, wanted to go to recess, etc. You'll see the excuses come out for the non-motivated students. That provides insight into the academic and emotional iq of that child. Some children are bright, very few are exceptional. Like very few.

Teacher here. It is not a valid test for above average kids. With kids with severe gaps then yes. It is meant to be a screener. Which is why I don’t understand why they need to take it more than once.

+1 at my kids’ school it seems to be only used to identify those kids who are below grade level and need extra help, especially in terms of pull-outs for reading. If the kid scores within average range or even high it doesn’t change anything.

Another teacher here. It's also used for AAP (the files all contain references to the i-ready).

I HATE the test but the county pushed it in order to stop having teachers spend time doing individual assessments like the DRA that take a long time to do but are MASSIVELY more useful. It's a central decision and they spent a lot of money on licensing, so we're stuck until the next good idea bubbles out of the gatehouse.

A question for teachers - WHY do kids in AAP, who have demonstrated time and time again that they are advanced and doing just fine academically, have to take iReady two times every year?!?

Kids in AAP have not "demonstrated time and time again"... they demonstrated once in the year prior to their first year in AAP. FCPS does not kick kids out of AAP. Someone who may be "above and beyond" in second grade may regress in the years the follow.

My above reply doesn't mean I'm for I-ready testing - it's equally as goood and/or bad for genEd as for AAP. But FCPS loves standardized testing, so that's why we have it.

True, but if they're only looking for kids who are below grade level and intend to do nothing with high scores, there's no need to administer iready to any kids who scored pass advanced or a high pass proficient on the previous year's SOL test. It would just be a waste of everyone's time.

You know that kids in AAP still fail the SOL, right? And many kids score in the low 400s.

Yep. Gen Ed and AAP kids alike who demonstrated in the SOL that they’re at or above grade level shouldn’t need to waste time on a test used only to flag below grade level kids. AAP kids who score lower than 450 on the SOL should be removed from the program unless they have some relevant SN accommodation.

Disagree with this as an AAP teacher. I have had kids who failed the 6th grade SOL and passed Adv the 7th. Sometimes kids need different teaching styles and the SOL shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iready is a valid test. Those whose children score poorly on it will naturally discount it. The kid didn't try, wanted to go to recess, etc. You'll see the excuses come out for the non-motivated students. That provides insight into the academic and emotional iq of that child. Some children are bright, very few are exceptional. Like very few.

Teacher here. It is not a valid test for above average kids. With kids with severe gaps then yes. It is meant to be a screener. Which is why I don’t understand why they need to take it more than once.

+1 at my kids’ school it seems to be only used to identify those kids who are below grade level and need extra help, especially in terms of pull-outs for reading. If the kid scores within average range or even high it doesn’t change anything.

Another teacher here. It's also used for AAP (the files all contain references to the i-ready).

I HATE the test but the county pushed it in order to stop having teachers spend time doing individual assessments like the DRA that take a long time to do but are MASSIVELY more useful. It's a central decision and they spent a lot of money on licensing, so we're stuck until the next good idea bubbles out of the gatehouse.

A question for teachers - WHY do kids in AAP, who have demonstrated time and time again that they are advanced and doing just fine academically, have to take iReady two times every year?!?

Kids in AAP have not "demonstrated time and time again"... they demonstrated once in the year prior to their first year in AAP. FCPS does not kick kids out of AAP. Someone who may be "above and beyond" in second grade may regress in the years the follow.

My above reply doesn't mean I'm for I-ready testing - it's equally as goood and/or bad for genEd as for AAP. But FCPS loves standardized testing, so that's why we have it.

Teacher here. Any student scoring 75 percentile or higher should not be forced to take the test again in the spring. It is dumb.

I am guessing that they don’t do that because then the kids taking the exam will feel that they are different from the kids not taking the exam and that is not equitable. It drives me crazy that my kid takes the iReady 3 times a year and the VGA and the SOL. It is too much time spent testing and then they don’t explain the results well to anyone and then people get upset if you ask about the results and what it means.

We need some sort of assessment, I get that, but 3 different assessments with no explanations is a waste of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My gen ed kid always scored 99% on math on iready and advanced passed on sol and was never offered AAP math. I don’t think anyone even looked at his scores. He went on to MS and HS to take honors and AP and did very well.

I don't mean to offend, but it sounds like your gen ed kid's teachers and/or parents were remiss for not placing him on at least Level III AAP for math. If he turned out "very well", then that maybe all's well that ends well, but we can't but wonder "what if"...

It does go to show you that the AAP process is biased in elementary school because there are a lot of other kids like this who are never offered a spot in AAP or even any math pull-outs.

[Anonymous]

I don't know that Fairfax County is doing it, but I know that other school districts are increasingly using I-ready as a gate to advanced classes, especially in fifth grade. Get a certain grade in pre-algebra and certain score on I[ready and you can get into Alg 1 in 7th grade kind of thing.

I really hope that isn't the case and I-ready fades away. It is so much testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iready is a valid test. Those whose children score poorly on it will naturally discount it. The kid didn't try, wanted to go to recess, etc. You'll see the excuses come out for the non-motivated students. That provides insight into the academic and emotional iq of that child. Some children are bright, very few are exceptional. Like very few.

Teacher here. It is not a valid test for above average kids. With kids with severe gaps then yes. It is meant to be a screener. Which is why I don’t understand why they need to take it more than once.

+1 at my kids’ school it seems to be only used to identify those kids who are below grade level and need extra help, especially in terms of pull-outs for reading. If the kid scores within average range or even high it doesn’t change anything.

Another teacher here. It's also used for AAP (the files all contain references to the i-ready).

I HATE the test but the county pushed it in order to stop having teachers spend time doing individual assessments like the DRA that take a long time to do but are MASSIVELY more useful. It's a central decision and they spent a lot of money on licensing, so we're stuck until the next good idea bubbles out of the gatehouse.

A question for teachers - WHY do kids in AAP, who have demonstrated time and time again that they are advanced and doing just fine academically, have to take iReady two times every year?!?

Kids in AAP have not "demonstrated time and time again"... they demonstrated once in the year prior to their first year in AAP. FCPS does not kick kids out of AAP. Someone who may be "above and beyond" in second grade may regress in the years the follow.

My above reply doesn't mean I'm for I-ready testing - it's equally as goood and/or bad for genEd as for AAP. But FCPS loves standardized testing, so that's why we have it.

Teacher here. Any student scoring 75 percentile or higher should not be forced to take the test again in the spring. It is dumb.

I am guessing that they don’t do that because then the kids taking the exam will feel that they are different from the kids not taking the exam and that is not equitable. It drives me crazy that my kid takes the iReady 3 times a year and the VGA and the SOL. It is too much time spent testing and then they don’t explain the results well to anyone and then people get upset if you ask about the results and what it means.

We need some sort of assessment, I get that, but 3 different assessments with no explanations is a waste of time and money.

I agree. I'm ok with assessment, but when iReady is used as a screener, and my kid takes it and does well in the fall, she shouldn't have to take it again in the spring. It seems like a huge waste of time and resources. It's so.much.testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know that Fairfax County is doing it, but I know that other school districts are increasingly using I-ready as a gate to advanced classes, especially in fifth grade. Get a certain grade in pre-algebra and certain score on I[ready and you can get into Alg 1 in 7th grade kind of thing.

I really hope that isn't the case and I-ready fades away. It is so much testing.

If that's the case, there should be some parent communication. What if we don't particularly want to go that route with Alg 1? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the parent first if they want to do the iReady for that purpose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iready is a valid test. Those whose children score poorly on it will naturally discount it. The kid didn't try, wanted to go to recess, etc. You'll see the excuses come out for the non-motivated students. That provides insight into the academic and emotional iq of that child. Some children are bright, very few are exceptional. Like very few.

Teacher here. It is not a valid test for above average kids. With kids with severe gaps then yes. It is meant to be a screener. Which is why I don’t understand why they need to take it more than once.

+1 at my kids’ school it seems to be only used to identify those kids who are below grade level and need extra help, especially in terms of pull-outs for reading. If the kid scores within average range or even high it doesn’t change anything.

Another teacher here. It's also used for AAP (the files all contain references to the i-ready).

I HATE the test but the county pushed it in order to stop having teachers spend time doing individual assessments like the DRA that take a long time to do but are MASSIVELY more useful. It's a central decision and they spent a lot of money on licensing, so we're stuck until the next good idea bubbles out of the gatehouse.

A question for teachers - WHY do kids in AAP, who have demonstrated time and time again that they are advanced and doing just fine academically, have to take iReady two times every year?!?

Kids in AAP have not "demonstrated time and time again"... they demonstrated once in the year prior to their first year in AAP. FCPS does not kick kids out of AAP. Someone who may be "above and beyond" in second grade may regress in the years the follow.

My above reply doesn't mean I'm for I-ready testing - it's equally as goood and/or bad for genEd as for AAP. But FCPS loves standardized testing, so that's why we have it.

True, but if they're only looking for kids who are below grade level and intend to do nothing with high scores, there's no need to administer iready to any kids who scored pass advanced or a high pass proficient on the previous year's SOL test. It would just be a waste of everyone's time.

You know that kids in AAP still fail the SOL, right? And many kids score in the low 400s.

Yep. Gen Ed and AAP kids alike who demonstrated in the SOL that they’re at or above grade level shouldn’t need to waste time on a test used only to flag below grade level kids. AAP kids who score lower than 450 on the SOL should be removed from the program unless they have some relevant SN accommodation.

SOLs are more about content and are really more a reflection on the teacher--sometimes high aptitude kids score lower because their teacher skipped or rushed through particular content that happens to figure largely on the test in a particular year. AAP kids are often tested on content that they learned in an earlier year if they are accelerated or that wasn't as focused on in their curriculum--so it might not be as in the front of their minds as kids who were just taught and received a lot of repetition on. The iready is more diagnostically focused on sub-skills and is a more cognitive-oriented test--it can flag gaps in learning that aren't as tied to specific content. A really bright academically advanced kid might have a sub-skill that they are missing or that they struggle with but mask. But the reality is that FCPS like most public school systems often isn't going to really use this information to inform instruction unless its creating a delay or problem for the kid because the resources to do so are already spread too thin. Maybe parents can pick up on things though--ask for the full iready report and if a sub-scale is consistently a lot lower than other areas, research how to target it with supplementation. A school isn't going to be able to do this kind of individualization for 30 kids in a class, but a parent could likely do it without a ton of effort.

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid that there is a definite trend towards using Iready to guide children's placement. We've already heard that it is a factor in AAP. Hopefully this is eventually sorted out and replaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm afraid that there is a definite trend towards using Iready to guide children's placement. We've already heard that it is a factor in AAP. Hopefully this is eventually sorted out and replaced.

But maybe it should be a factor. They can’t/won’t just go by the CogAt and other standardized tests anymore because people prep for them or get private testing and it favors the people who have the time and money to do so. The GBRS and teacher recommendations /work samples are biased toward certain types of students, not necessarily the most gifted. The Iready could just be an additional factor to take into account. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm afraid that there is a definite trend towards using Iready to guide children's placement. We've already heard that it is a factor in AAP. Hopefully this is eventually sorted out and replaced.

But maybe it should be a factor. They can’t/won’t just go by the CogAt and other standardized tests anymore because people prep for them or get private testing and it favors the people who have the time and money to do so. The GBRS and teacher recommendations /work samples are biased toward certain types of students, not necessarily the most gifted. The Iready could just be an additional factor to take into account. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing.

People prep for the iReady. They really do. And if it is being used for AAP then there will be even more people prepping for the iReady.

Parents can choose to have their kids take 7th Honors for math even if the kid qualifies for Algebra in 7th grade. A decent number of people make that choice.

[Anonymous]

This could all be solved by eliminating Iready and have the teachers be in charge of teacher-prepared tests. How hard can that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This could all be solved by eliminating Iready and have the teachers be in charge of teacher-prepared tests. How hard can that be?

Iready is a diagnostic screener on cognitive skills that has research validity. Teachers don't have any expertise in developing that kind of test. They test on the content they teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This could all be solved by eliminating Iready and have the teachers be in charge of teacher-prepared tests. How hard can that be?

Hard.

Teachers are already overtasked and now we want them to create a good, comprehensive, aptitude test to give their students in the first weeks of school?

I understand the need for assessments. Just choose one and be done with it. They shouldn’t need the iReady and the VGA. They shouldn’t give the iReady 3 times a year. Kids who did poorly on it at the beginning of the year should be retested sometime in the middle of the second quarter. Then let the SOL stand for the end of the year assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm afraid that there is a definite trend towards using Iready to guide children's placement. We've already heard that it is a factor in AAP. Hopefully this is eventually sorted out and replaced.

I don't think it's unreasonable to include an achievement test metric in the AAP packet. For kids scoring in the mildly advanced to advanced range, it shouldn't have much of an effect. For kids who typically have low scores, iready perhaps should tip the scales in favor of not including the kid in AAP or advanced math. Similarly, it should tip the scales in favor of admission to AAP or advanced math if the kid typically has very high scores. It is absurd that kids who are below grade level or who are failing SOLs are being included in AAP. It is likewise absurd that kids who are above grade level in all subjects are being excluded from AAP.