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"...

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 know this may sound crass, but if your child is at all enriched, he or she should be scoring at the 99th percentile in both math and reading. In a way, if they are enriched, but they don't get that score, you might want to rethink your child's abilitiesand/your approach to their academic welfare.

Teachers know that they don't have classrooms full of kids scoring 40 points above the 99th percentile, much to the chagrin of the status seekers.

My aap kid was given i-ready three times a year in 4th (school was closed), 5th and 6th

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IReady is surprisingly using the same reading passages. This is a shame bc the DC feels like they just remember it and guess through the answers. Rather than reading something new to them and applying it.

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?!?

That isn’t a question for teachers. They don’t know, they probably agree with you and have no say. TBH my AAP kid had a harder time in Iready in grades 1,2 because he took it very seriously and got questions beyond his grade level that he would sit there and do. For example, he would do repeated addition because he hadn’t been taught multiplication and then answer the question correctly, so be put into the next level. The poor kid had to go back to finish during specials time and recess the day he took it.

As he matured, he realized it meant nothing and stopped giving it the time of day. It is just stupid all around, but I think it was the dyslexia lobbying who wanted a universal screener and pushed for it in VA that actually is the reason why it is being used.

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?!?

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.

I have heard that the Iready scores are starting to be weighed more in AAP admissions. But I had heard it was going from “no weight at all” to “can tip a borderline kid into getting into AAP” basically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only 39,000 fifth graders in the entire country are scoring above 524 in math, and only 78,000 score above 520, do you not see how it is statistically impossible for 100 Fairfax kids to have a 564?

Tigermoms roam everywhere. If using SD, back of the envelope calculation says there would be fewer than 1,000 kids scoring above a 536 in the ENTIRE country. Yet Fairfax has 100 scoring 24 points HIGHER.

Egads. Stop. Stop. Stop.

First, the distribution of Iready scores is likely not normal and probably has a long, lumpy right tail, so you can't extrapolate the counts in the right tail using normal z-scores.

Second, FCPS has a lot of high-achieving kids compared to the rest of the country. As an example, out of 1.5 million seniors, 16,000 were national merit semifinalists. 238 of these semifinalists were from FCPS. If you apply the same ratio to the 39,000 figure above, you might estimate that 580 fifth graders are scoring above 524.

I'm on your side, but using National Merit SF is a horrible example. Every state takes the top 0.5% of scorers in their state, and every state has a different cutoff. FCPS does have an abnormally large share of kids above the national merit commended cutoff, which is the same for all states.

DP: You can look at the state cut-off for NMSF and the distribution within a state to see the same story that the NM commended scores show. Both show that there are a very unusually high number of scorers in the top percentiles for FCPS (and the DMV in particular). The highest state cutoffs are DC, NJ, MD, VA, and MA (221-223). The lowest state cut-offs for NMSF are quite a bit lower: Montana, Alaska, New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming are all below 210.