Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment I Ready topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 5 board weighs switching formative assessment to i‑Ready amid teacher concerns
Summary
District 5 administrators proposed replacing MAP with the i‑Ready formative assessment to give teachers standards‑aligned diagnostics and lesson toolkits. Teachers expressed support and worry about training and Chromebook time; administration said Title II funds would pay professional development and a pilot is under way.
The school board heard a detailed presentation on a proposed shift from the district’s current norm‑referenced MAP assessment to i‑Ready, a criterion‑referenced diagnostic the administration says will align teachers more closely to state standards.
Miss Walters, the district’s secondary director, told the board i‑Ready provides both a standards‑based diagnostic and a teacher toolbox of lesson plans tied to specific standards that can be used for small‑group instruction. "It allows teachers to see which standards students have mastered and gives ready‑made lessons for small groups," she said.
The change matters because state law requires districts to administer three formative assessments annually. The administration said it selected i‑Ready after a committee review and teacher input; more than 580 K–8 math and ELA teachers responded to a survey, with about 35–40% enthusiastic or cautiously optimistic and roughly 20–25% concerned, mainly about training.
Board members pressed on rollout details. Miss McCascal, who introduced the topic, said professional development trainers would conduct sessions during August professional development days and follow up during PLC time, and that Title II funds would cover the PD costs. The district will keep the diagnostic time comparable to existing programs and intends to phase out some current software (DreamBox) rather than add more student screen time.
Questions from trustees focused on evidence and pilots. Miss Huddle and others asked for comparative research and whether a school‑level pilot had been run; presenters said K–3 and 5 sites are already using both MAP and i‑Ready this year and spring data will be available. Miss Walters said 80% of South Carolina districts use i‑Ready and that special education accommodations are built into the product.
Dr. Ross framed the proposal in accountability terms: "We must measure the students in the red and give teachers actionable information to close gaps," he said, arguing that i‑Ready maps specific standards to lessons and parent reports.
The presentation closed as a discussion item; the board was informed that a vote would be scheduled at a future meeting after the administration provides additional pilot results and training plans. The district recommended training in August and school‑level PLC followup, said most diagnostic costs would be covered by the accountability budget, and noted some state reimbursement historically offsets part of diagnostic costs.
