Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bay Shore staff present iReady cohort results; board questions projection accuracy amid high opt-outs
Summary
District staff showed cohort comparisons of iReady diagnostics and projected state-test outcomes, highlighting 'typical' and 'stretch' growth scenarios. Board members pressed whether projections are valid given many students opt out of state 3–8 exams; staff said student-by-student checks would be required.
District staff presented a cohort analysis of reading and math using iReady diagnostics and linked projections to state 3–8 examinations, telling the Board that iReady produces criterion-referenced placements and separate norm-referenced percentiles for comparison to national samples. "The number that you see at the bottom, which is the 194 students, that is simply because the same student took the assessment at the beginning of the year, the middle of the year, and the end of the year," a staff presenter said during the board's work session.
Staff walked the board through three projection scenarios: no additional growth, typical growth and an "ambitious but achievable stretch growth" that would substantially raise projected proficiency percentages on state tests. They cautioned that projections are not predictions but projections that rely on which students take both iReady and state exams.
Board members asked pointed questions about accuracy. One member asked, "Are we able to know whether those projections are accurate?" Staff replied that verifying accuracy would require a student-by-student comparison of iReady results with the subset of students who took the 3–8 state exams. Staff also noted participation gaps: "with the 60 percent opt out rate there will not be as many as we are able to see when it comes to the I Ready diagnostic," a presenter said, arguing that opt-outs skew the sample used to validate projections.
Several trustees urged clearer communication for families, stressing that timely results and explanations could increase participation. The board asked staff to provide material that could "showcase" program results for parents and to run analyses matching students who took both assessments so the district can estimate projection accuracy.
The presentation closed with staff restating the district's interventions—diagnostics, targeted instruction and math fluency work—and saying that incremental improvements remain the primary aim as cohorts advance through grades 3–8.
The board took no formal action on the analyses during the meeting but requested follow-up information and additional, student-level comparisons to assess projection reliability.
