Board debates I‑Ready vs. STAR and how to turn fall benchmarks into interventions
Loading...
Summary
District coaches reviewed fall I‑Ready and STAR benchmark results and explained how diagnostics and MTSS/PLCs drive targeted intervention. Board members pressed on assessment time cost, intervention capacity, and whether retention or additional sections are appropriate for students two years behind grade level.
At the Nov. 19 work session, the board received a detailed review of fall benchmark testing, including I‑Ready (adaptive) and STAR assessments, and a discussion about using those diagnostics to shape interventions.
Lead coach Sean Davidson explained I‑Ready’s adaptive nature and how the platform produces individualized "MyPath" lessons that drive supplemental instruction. He and other presenters said elementary teachers receive detailed diagnostic data they can act on, and that the district uses results to guide MTSS, PLCs and "20%" intervention meetings. "This is currently what's driving our MTSS process," a presenter said, noting the tools help teams determine which students need additional math or reading workshop supports.
Board members raised concerns about instructional time lost to lengthy assessments and asked whether the I‑Ready benefit justifies the time compared with STAR 360. Presenters said I‑Ready provides more actionable student-level information at elementary grades and that both assessments are administered three times a year (fall, winter in January, and spring). "We do think it's worth it," one board member said in support; secondary staff cautioned the time cost can be higher for older students.
Discussion also focused on how the district will use benchmark data to prioritize supports. Presenters described processes for pulling small groups and tracking targeted skill gains (for example, moving from addition to subtraction to multiplication in sequence at the middle-school level). The board debated retention and resource allocation for students measured two years behind on fall diagnostics; presenters emphasized that retention alone is not sufficient and that targeted interventions and curricular adjustments are necessary.
The board asked staff to present winter benchmark comparisons in January and requested additional year‑over‑year reporting and clearer numeric counts alongside percentages to make intervention needs more tangible to trustees and the public.