District staff recommends renewing Curriculum Associates i‑Ready; trustees question cost and metrics

Hernando County School District staff presented a recommendation to renew Curriculum Associates’ i‑Ready diagnostic and supplemental platform for K‑8 reading and math, arguing the product meets Florida benchmarks, the science of reading, and statutory requirements for screening and progress monitoring.

Santi Sanders, the district’s director of research and accountability, told the board that i‑Ready and similar products serve as “assessments for learning” that provide diagnostics showing students’ strengths and weaknesses and guiding teachers’ next instructional steps. Tiffany Howard, director of elementary programs, said using a diagnostic and aligned interventions is required by the district’s evidence‑based reading plan and helps the district comply with state rules on screening and progress monitoring.

Staff presented comparisons of three products and said Curriculum Associates was built specifically for Florida standards and offers item types similar to state assessments (gridded responses, drag‑and‑drop, equation editors). Sanders and Howard said the platform generates instructional‑grouping reports, prerequisite‑skill reports and projections that teachers can use to target instruction and set growth goals. The presenters also cited summer reading camp data: i‑Ready diagnostic scores allowed some students to be promoted to fourth grade after summer interventions (staff said 28 percent of summer reading camp students moved to fourth grade by i‑Ready results; star reading produced a 24 percent promotion rate for the same camp cohort).

Board members pressed staff on metrics in the packet. Trustee Johnson pointed to a fidelity metric in the vendor materials that set a target of 30–45 minutes weekly and a 70 percent lesson‑pass rate, then noted that some first‑ and second‑grade pass‑rate numbers in the packet were below that 70 percent target (figures in the packet showed pass rates in the 50–65 percent range for several early grades). Staff acknowledged the difference and said fidelity was the first metric — ensuring students use the program for the target minutes and passrate — and that growth toward grade‑level measures is tracked separately (fall‑to‑spring growth and percent of students on grade level).

Trustees also discussed the program’s scale and cost. Staff presented a service and cost table showing Curriculum Associates’ estimate for district‑wide licensing and services at roughly $688,000 (the presenters said they had padded the quote to cover additional charter and private users who sometimes opt in). Several trustees said the district should consider the program’s overall value, whether the district is duplicating available tools, and whether teachers have the support and implementation fidelity necessary to realize the program’s benefits.

Several board members and district leaders reported visits to schools where i‑Ready is used and described generally positive reactions from teachers and principals about the platform’s usefulness as a diagnostic and teacher tool. Trustee Johnson said he remains skeptical about adding multiple programs and asked staff to show a clear return on investment and the specific metrics the district will use to evaluate the program’s effectiveness over time.

The workshop ended with trustees generally supportive of the idea of retaining a strong diagnostic tool but asking staff to return with clearer program evaluation metrics and assurance the district is not over‑testing students. The recommendation will be brought back to the board for action at a future meeting; this workshop was informational and no vote occurred.