Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
I‑Ready benchmarks show K–2 gains but prompt board concern over middle/high school results
Summary
District assessment staff reported I‑Ready spring benchmarks with strong gains in K–2 but limited or negative growth in several middle and high‑school grades; board members pressed for accelerated interventions and clearer links between coaching programs and student achievement.
The district’s I‑Ready benchmark presentation on June 10 showed gains in early grades while middle‑ and high‑school results lagged, prompting extended board questions about intervention strategy.
Assessment coordinator Anthony Taylor summarized fall, winter and spring diagnostic results: kindergarten through second grade made the largest improvements, with kindergarten showing a large increase in students testing at grade level; many students in upper elementary and middle school clustered one grade level below (the presentation flagged them as close to grade level and prioritized for targeted interventions). However, the high school — particularly 10th grade — showed little to no growth or negative movement on the diagnostics.
Board members asked staff to clarify how I‑Ready pathways correlate with state accountability measures and how the PLC/coach model (Solution Tree) translates into student outcomes. Administrators said coaches and principals work with common assessments and I‑Ready projections to set typical and stretch goals, that collaborative teams form small groups and action plans, and that charts of student progress are used to guide interventions. Several trustees urged more aggressive, accelerated‑learning tactics for students multiple grade levels behind and requested clearer evaluation of program effectiveness.
District staff acknowledged more work is needed to test more students within diagnostic windows and to improve building‑level testing coordination; they committed to provide deeper analyses tying diagnostic participation, absences and bench‑mark outcomes together to allocate supports where they are most needed.
What happens next: Administration and instructional leadership will follow up with disaggregated testing and program‑effectiveness data, consider accelerated‑learning options for middle and high school, and coordinate with Solution Tree coaches on progress monitoring.
