Note from Emily: Recently, my fellow first fish and ally Jodi Carreon of Schools Beyond Screens reached out to share about some of the amazing work being done by the D.C. branch of Schools Beyond Screens. In what seemed like a potentially positive shift, D.C. school district leadership had initially paused renewing their iReady contract— only to ultimately move forward with it because an alternative had not been identified. How frustrating. So in order to continue to help make the case against iReady and highlight available alternatives, the D.C. Schools Beyond Screens group wrote the following.
Scrutiny of EdTech products is growing and districts may feel a need to find “replacements” before making changes. However, district leaders may not realize that alternatives to these deeply problematic platforms already exist.
Across the country, parents, children, and journalists are speaking out about an expensive platform that lacks any independent, peer-reviewed evidence of meaningful educational change. That platform is iReady, and it’s one I’ve been concerned about for years as my own children took its so-called “diagnostic” tests in reading and math and spent time tapping the screen by themselves at school. Districts spend millions of dollars annually on the assessments and interventions provided through the iReady platform, which is owned by a company called Curriculum Associates, which is owned by private equity firm Berkshire Partners. Note: NBC News recently covered many of the problematic aspects of iReady. Also’s SBS DC’s first open letter on i-Ready summarizes the lack of evidence supporting the platform’s widespread deployment.
The Dilemma
Over and over, when Schools Beyond Screens members--all parent volunteers--asked districts to stop paying for iReady, we kept hearing the same question: What would replace iReady?
We believe that is the wrong question to ask. But to know what the right questions are, we should understand what iReady does and the ways that iReady has changed classroom practice over the past few years.
What does iReady do?
iReady is an assessment and a “blended learning” platform for both reading and math.
Assessment
iReady offers assessments three times per year in both subjects. These assessments are marketed as “adaptive,” meaning that the platform increases or decreases the challenge of the questions based on students’ responses. These assessments are also general measures of reading and math. In other words, they evaluate general outcomes, or overall learning, in math and reading, not the content the students have just been taught, and not necessarily using the same terminology or instructional procedures that students are familiar with from their teacher’s instruction or their school’s curriculum. The assessments are also multiple choice, so students do not have to produce the correct answer orally or in writing. They only have to select the correct answer from a list of choices.
All students who score in a grade range for a domain start at the same lessons. For example, one second grader may score at the kindergarten level in Measurement and Data because they do not know English words for units of measurement (or understand the question). Another may receive the same kindergarten-level score because they cannot interpret graphs (understandably, since they have not been taught how to do so). Despite these very different learning needs, both students are assigned the same starting lesson: comparing length and height. A human teacher would know that these students need different support and could provide the appropriate instruction with hands-on materials and immediate feedback, all the while aware of what students will learn through the curriculum in the course of the year.
Importantly, teachers cannot see students’ assessment results or lessons. These assessments provide educators with only a composite score and a score for each broad domain within a subject area—not the questions students answered, their responses, the strategies they employed, or even the time they spent on each item. Given these constraints, the assessments provide little actionable information to inform instructional planning. Yet, one of the stated purposes of the iReady assessments is exactly that—refinement of instructional planning.
Parents are similarly left in the dark, as on their children’s report cards, they receive only a number and a grade-level estimate (for example, 622 and “On Grade Level”). If their school provides a full report, they gain access to more information. Yet, even the iReady reports list broad categories (for example, “algebraic thinking” or “geometry” for math, or “phonics” or “Comprehension: Literature” for reading), but no specifics on how to help the child progress.
Instructional Platform
iReady is also a “blended learning” platform. It claims to provide personalized, adaptive instruction to students “at their level” in both reading and math. Yet again, the instruction may not match what students are learning in their classes at school.
The platform can be frustrating for students. If a student does not score high enough on a lesson, they have to repeat the entire lesson, even if they only misunderstood part of the concept or made a small mistake. If they answer a question incorrectly, the platform offers a generic prompt. If they answer incorrectly again, the platform offers the same generic prompt. If they answer incorrectly three times, the platform provides the answer.
How has iReady changed classroom practice?
First, iReady displaces teacher-led instruction. The iReady assessments, given three times per year, consume at least six days of classroom instruction in reading and math throughout the year. This testing time is in addition to the time allocated for state test preparation for students in grades 3 and up. In addition to the time spent testing, students spend time on the platform each week completing reading and math lessons and playing games. In the past, iReady has recommended that students spend 45 minutes on reading and on math each week, for a total of 90 minutes per week. In the past few months, as parents and journalists have questioned iReady’s efficacy, iReady is now telling districts that students should spend 30-49 minutes per subject on the platform each week.
Second, iReady distorts the purpose of learning and teaching. The pervasive use of the student-facing iReady platform and the sleek administrator-facing database narrows the focus of classroom teaching and student learning to the acquisition of skills that can be measured only by swiping or pressing virtual buttons. When students are truly learning, when they can generalize skills and transfer their understanding of content to different contexts, they demonstrate that learning through expression and activity--speaking, writing, creating--not simply recall or passive recognition.
Third, iReady keeps children occupied, regardless of whether it’s best for them. The availability of iReady in all elementary classrooms (K-5) means that students often spend time on the platform for the purpose of keeping them occupied so that the teacher can work with a smaller group of students. Before iReady, students would work in stations or centers with each other, read books, or engage in other types of cooperative learning activities. Sometimes, iReady can displace teachers’ responsive instruction. For example, a teacher might have wanted to spend more time with a student to show them what they didn’t quite understand during a lesson, but due to the pressure to use iReady, they may send the student to a device instead.
Last, iReady data creates perverse incentives. In some jurisdictions, teachers’ performance evaluations are based, in part, on their students’ iReady growth. As a result, teachers are incentivized to have their lower-performing students spend more time on iReady in the hopes that more time on iReady will result in higher scores on the end-of-year iReady assessment.
Here are the questions we should be asking instead.
Assessment
1. What valid, reliable assessments should be given to help inform instruction and determine which students are at risk of reading or math difficulties?
2. What access should teachers have to the questions and results of assessments?
3. What should the assessments measure?
4. How frequently should these assessments occur?
Instruction
1. How should schools determine which students need more support in reading and math?
2. How should schools support students who are not meeting grade-level expectations in reading and math?
Assessments
Assessments are used for a variety of purposes, including screening for disabilities and learning difficulties, measuring progress, measuring outcomes, and evaluating schools.
As part of regular instruction, students take periodic assessments that are embedded in the curriculum. In the early elementary grades, students may take spelling tests, phonics quizzes, or short math tests. In the upper elementary grades, students may write essays or take math tests, for example. These assessments, which are closely tied to curriculum and instruction, help teachers understand what students have learned and how to modify their instruction in the upcoming weeks or months. Because these assessments measure what students have learned from their teachers, they provide valuable information for teachers, school leaders, and families.
What is legally required?
Reading Screening: In states that have enacted legislation related to dyslexia or universal screening for reading difficulties, students typically participate in brief screening measures several times per year in grades Kindergarten through two. In DC and many other jurisdictions, the DIBELS-8 battery is used as a dyslexia screener and for regular reporting of reading progress.
Annual Assessment: In the United States, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires annual assessments in reading and math for students in grades 3-8, and once during high school.
No additional assessments are required. In other words, there is no requirement to test every student on a general measure in reading and math three times per year.
For students receiving intervention or special education services, more frequent progress monitoring of taught skills is essential. However, for the vast majority of students, there is no reason to administer additional assessments on top of the ones given as part of the curriculum.
Instruction
For students who are not meeting grade-level expectations in reading and math, more support can be provided in the areas in which students need help. A tool that does not target a student’s individual weaknesses and needs, and that cannot consider their personality and overall learning profile, is unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes.
Instead of relying on i-Ready as an academic intervention, schools can ensure that additional support is provided to students through various mechanisms:
differentiated instruction in the general education setting, which happens when a teacher adapts the content, product, or process through which a student learns new content;
supplemental intervention outside the classroom, provided as part of a school’s multi-tiered system of support; or,
504 and IEP Plans for students who need accommodations and specialized instruction, respectively.
Interventions should be selected with the student’s needs in mind and should be evidence-based, meaning that it has been shown to produce meaningful educational change in multiple high-quality studies.
It is not clear how iReady “personalized” instruction can meet these criteria as an intervention. It does not know why a student doesn’t understand a new concept, or if a student needs to hear a concept presented differently, or when a student needs a hug or a high-five. It can’t provide targeted feedback, nor can it offer opportunities for students to use manipulatives to understand math concepts, or magnetic letters for students to read and spell new words. It can’t even ask students to produce an answer--only to select the correct one from a list.
Evaluating Educational Programs and Technology Applications
There are several clearinghouses for educational programs and curricular materials that states and districts can use to evaluate products they may purchase. These clearinghouses include:
Yet, there is no clearinghouse for educational technology applications. As a recent lawsuit noted, “There is no FDA for educational technology—no federal labeling regime, no efficacy review, and no regulator standing between a vendor’s marketing and a classroom full of children.”
While some educational technology applications share research in support of their use, this research is often funded by the companies that own these technologies. In some cases, the applications are compared to no instruction at all, and in other cases, the outcome measure--the way that the app is determined to be effective--is also made by the technology company. Even a short-term, methodologically rigorous research on a program cannot necessarily provide actionable information about its efficacy over existing methods, its cost-effectiveness, and its long-term effects on teachers and students.
To determine whether a technology tool should be used in a particular situation, we should require multiple high-quality, independently funded studies that compare the product to its analog alternative and that consider the experiences and perspectives of the teachers and students who use the product.
Recommendations
We urge districts to resist seeking the next iteration of platformized instruction in the form of a sleeker, less infantilizing platform that is marketed as more adaptive to the response patterns of students, particularly those with unmet needs. Instead, districts should reflect on 1) the importance of contingent responses and immediate feedback in learning a difficult concept or skill, 2) the effective implementation of existing practices and interventions that are supported by multiple, high-quality studies, and 3) the expertise of the educators they employ.
It is through interaction with responsive, caring, and knowledgeable educators that students gain the social and academic skills to be truly ready for whatever future lives and careers they choose.
About the Author: Annie is currently a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Maryland, College Park, where she studies reading acquisition, interventions for students with reading difficulties and disabilities, and how multi-tiered systems of support can best support the growth of all students. A former teacher, she has also tutored students with reading difficulties, coached teachers, and developed and taught undergraduate courses in special education and reading. In addition, she has collaborated with schools and districts on both state and federal grants to support the widespread implementation of evidence-based practices.
Thank you Annie. The "Can't get rid of iReady" argument is similar to the "Can't get rid of school smoking sections" argument. Years of "We can't do anything" can be quickly replaced by action if enough people stand up for kids rather than doing what's easy.