Ames CSD reports strong first-year results after K–8 i‑Ready math rollout; board asks for disaggregated data

The Ames Community School District on Thursday reported what district staff called encouraging early results from the first year of a K–8 math curriculum rollout using i‑Ready assessments.

Associate Superintendent Dr. Hawkins told the board the district’s midyear i‑Ready dataset included 2,866 students and showed that “the number of students at mid or above grade level far exceeds both the national and state average.” Hawkins said students one or more grade levels below the benchmark were “significantly less” than state and national norms and that many grade-domain comparisons exceeded national norms by five percentage points or more.

Hawkins said the district’s data also show growth above national norms in many grade levels and domains. “When the achievement of a particular grade against a particular domain is significantly above the national norm, it’s shaded in dark blue,” Hawkins said while explaining the report visuals.

Board members pressed for more detail on several points. One board member asked whether a slide showing “0% growth” for eighth‑grade students who started mid or above grade level reflected an assessment ceiling or another data quirk. Hawkins replied that the attendee had read that slide correctly and that staff would investigate and follow up: “Rather than hazarding a guess, I’ll look into that. And, again, I’ll follow up and get you some answers.”

Another board member asked whether i‑Ready is producing culturally responsive results for underrepresented groups; Hawkins said staff will include disaggregated end‑of‑year results in a future report.

District staff described the rollout supports and next steps. Hawkins said the district provided training in June, additional trainers in October and February, classroom walkthroughs and focused professional development. Next year’s PD plan will emphasize “strong mathematical conversations” and use diagnostic assessments to guide intervention. The district will continue to use i‑Ready as its math screener and to inform the district’s intervention log.

Missy Carlson, identified in the meeting as a teaching and learning coordinator, and other staff described positive teacher feedback about implementation fidelity and collaboration, while acknowledging continued need for time and coaching to refine use of materials.

Board members and staff noted the challenge of comparing a single implementation year to longer historical trends but regarded the instructional changes and early data as promising. Hawkins said the district will present end‑of‑year data, including disaggregated results and clarifications on anomalous growth figures, at a July meeting.

The board did not take formal action on the math presentation during the meeting; the presentation functioned as an information update and planning input for next year’s professional development and assessment cycle.

Less critical details: staff emphasized that kindergarten–8 teachers were encouraged to use curriculum materials as the primary resource in year one, with planned summer curriculum team work to refine scope and sequence and common formative assessments.