Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stockton Unified presents fall I-Ready baseline; trustees press for consistent intervention practice
Summary
District staff presented fall I-Ready baseline results for reading and math and outlined professional learning and intervention layering; trustees probed diagnostic methodology, which students take the assessment, and plans to expand intervention teachers and interim assessments.
Stockton Unified curriculum director Melissa Sigers presented the district’s fall I-Ready baseline diagnostics for reading and math and described how the findings will inform targeted interventions and ongoing professional learning.
Sigers explained the assessment is an adaptive diagnostic administered at the beginning, middle and end of the year and used for progress monitoring and reclassification: “As the student answers questions correctly, it may make it more difficult. And if they maybe miss a question or so, it will bring it down to a level that matches their ability,” she said.
The presentation showed green/yellow/red proficiency bands and disaggregated subgroup results; Sigers emphasized site-level professional learning, SIPs implementation in early literacy, culturally responsive text sets, and alignment with extended-learning programs to layer supports. She said intervention teachers have been increased and described a planned cadence of monthly meetings for those teachers to group students and use data to plan instruction.
Trustees focused questions on (1) how the diagnostic differs from the I-Ready pathway and minutes-based practice, (2) why fall diagnostics often show lower proficiency than winter results, and (3) which high-school students take the test — Sigers and trustees clarified that most high-school I-Ready results represent targeted, higher-need students (for instance, English learners) rather than the whole high-school population.
Trustees urged more frequent interim assessments (every three to six weeks), common formative assessments, and a stronger “built-in practice” so intervention teachers use consistent documentation and cycles of inquiry. Sigers acknowledged variation across sites and outlined next steps to standardize intervention documentation and increase common assessment frequency and coaching.
Actionable items discussed: strengthening interim assessments and shared tools for intervention teachers, continuing SIPs in early literacy, expanding intervention staffing where needed, and aligning intersession/ELOP work to data-driven goals.
