Since its implementation little over a year ago students and teachers alike have had to endure I-Ready. Deeply unpopular with students, it is not uncommon to hear groans and some angry sounding phrases under the breath of your class when it is announced that another diagnostic is approaching on the schedule. But what is I-Ready, is this district testing tool worth the hassle, and should we continue testing?
What is I-Ready
According to its own website (I-Readycentral.com), the districts new tool is “an online program for reading and/or mathematics” with the sole purpose of “[determining] student’s needs, personalizing their learning, and monitoring progress throughout the school year”. Since its implementation in September of 2023 it has been used to do exactly that. By having students take diagnostics at three different points of the year (beginning, middle, and end) students’ skills are evaluated on their english or math skills. Based on those skills they are assigned lesson plans which are to be completed on Tuesdays, when dismissal is 2:32 PM.
What’s the Issue
All of what has been described is good. A system where students are given the opportunity to improve upon their educational weak spots with practice. According to Edsource, 56.94% of LAUSD students did not meet standards in English, while 67.17% did not meet standards in math on the “Smarter Balanced” test. This seems like an effective counter, so what’s wrong with a little practice? While the idea is good in theory and could be a tool for progress it could be implemented better. In Some cases class planning has to be shifted around to accommodate for the goals set by the I-Ready diagnostic and the diagnostic itself, which can take well over an hour of class time. This is not just in general education classes however, but AP classes as well where students need an abundance of time in class to prepare for their exams in May. “Teachers have not had a lot of time to look at the content of I-Ready, the style of questions, even the specific standards, the information is available to us but the time to review it is not really there” Mr. Mangione stated in an Interview. It also appears that the connection between the standards there is a huge disconnect between the standards students are encouraged to meet and I-Ready’s use. “How it fits into the curriculum is unclear; it’s kind of just thrown in there…disconnected from the other things we’re trying to accomplish” the history teacher stated. However there is no example of this disconnect more striking than I-Ready’s lesson system, which only goes up to eighth grade. How can we possibly expect to improve the skills of high school students when the lessons are of middle school level?
Conclusion
It is my understanding that testing such as I-Ready is not an effective method for promoting and tracking progress. Why? As someone who has taken the I-Ready Diagnostic myself, I can tell you that my scores have improved, but not because my skills in English or math have spiked, it is because of the exposure. I can say with confidence that I can remember each article in the English diagnostics. My score has not improved because of the skills, it is because this would be my 2nd or 3rd time reading the same passage with the same questions and I suspect it is a similar situation for other students as well. This leads us Into the larger issue that comes with standardized testing, the students are tested on a very similar test to every diagnostic, essentially taught to “beat” the test, giving the illusion of an improvement overall. It’s clear that its time for an improvement in the way we teach and assess students, something more than the I-Ready band-aid over the educational wound of the pandemic.
