Kershaw County schools to replace MAP testing with i‑Ready, roll out "visible learning" framework

Kershaw County School District officials told the Board of Trustees they will stop districtwide MAP (NWEA) testing and switch to i‑Ready as the district's single formative assessment tool, and begin a phased rollout of a "visible learning" instructional model based on the research of John Hattie.

The district presentation, given to the board during the May meeting, said i‑Ready has been used with intervention students and is already aligned to the district's K–5 math adoption; continuing with i‑Ready for universal formative assessment will eliminate duplicate testing and, the district estimated, save a minimum of 10 days of instruction per year. The presentation also said the district will stop using DreamBox (no longer state funded), Exact Path and Study Island as part of the consolidation.

District staff framed the change as part of a broader effort to improve Tier 1 instruction by building a shared language between teachers and administrators. Visible learning, the staff said, emphasizes four core practices including teacher clarity (clear learning intentions and success criteria), frequent formative checks for understanding, timely actionable feedback, and collaborative professional learning community (PLC) work.

Presenters described a phased implementation that began with a district team this summer and will continue with professional development and coaching cycles in the fall. The district said it purchased eight consultant days to support rollout; the initial schedule calls for separate elementary and secondary days in September and follow‑up coaching during the school year. The district said funds for the consultant days and some rollout activities were identified from teacher recruitment and retention allocations.

Board members asked how the changes would affect teacher workload and whether administrators and teachers across the district had been consulted. Several trustees said they were concerned visible learning could be perceived as "one more initiative" layered on existing programs. District staff responded that the rollout is intended to be "soft" and not to monopolize planning or instructional time, and to align with existing PLC and MTSS structures rather than replace local classroom autonomy.

The presentation also cited summer reading camp results the district described as positive when the program used more hands‑on instruction and limited computerized practice to four machines per classroom. Board members raised broader questions about screen time and district device use; staff said the district has already removed mandated computer minutes for some elementary grades and eliminated several vendor products this year.

The district described visible learning as a multi‑year, mindset shift rather than a short program: the presenters recommended a three‑to‑five year horizon for sustaining the work and training instructional coaches and lead teachers to support implementation at the school level.

Board discussion touched on alignment with other locally used programs, including Leader in Me, Ron Clark Academy approaches and AVID. Staff said visible learning is compatible with those models and intended to create one common language for discussing instruction across schools. Specific operational details the board was given included the consultant days, use of district PLC templates and an expectation that instructional coaches will model clarity routines and support teachers in lesson design and checks for understanding.

District staff did not present changes to policy or request board approval for the assessment switch at the meeting; trustees asked for continued updates and expressed interest in seeing early evidence of impact when fall implementation begins.