Lack of research demonstrating efficacy

Jared Cooney Horvath, PhD, i-Ready: 13 Million Students, Zero Meaningful Evidence 

• ZERO randomized controlled trials

• ZERO top-tier (Q1 or Q2) peer-reviewed journal articles

• TWO lower-tier (Q3) journal articles

  • One article suggests i-Ready diagnostics are less predictive than traditional end-of-year state assessments

  • One article measures improvements only within i-Ready itself — not beyond the tool

• TWO unlisted journal articles

  • One article finds no difference between users and non-users

  • One article does not include any form of a control group

• A LARGE VOLUME of gray literature

  • Dissertations, vendor reports, conference posters, and white papers.

​

Meredith Devennie, PhD, I’m Ready to Talk about i-Ready Part 2. Down the rabbit hole of what it calls evidence

​​​

• A cited dissertation undercuts the product's own marketing - A 2018 doctoral dissertation Curriculum Associates hosted and cited as evidence showed math scores for special-education students actually went down after using i-Ready, yet the dissertation's own conclusion claimed the program benefited that group. Curriculum Associates recently scrubbed this dissertation from its public site.

• Circular evidence problem - Most of the ~20 studies i-Ready submitted to NCII (including 16 company-commissioned studies) measure "learning gains" using i-Ready's own Diagnostic assessment, the same tool students practiced on, rather than independent measures like state tests.

• Effect sizes likely reflect interface familiarity, not learning - Effect sizes shrink from kindergarten (0.31) to 5th grade (0.11), which is better explained by younger kids gaining familiarity with the testing interface than by genuine learning gains.

• The one study using an independent measure (state test) had major caveats - Only 12% of students in a Gates-funded study hit the recommended usage "dosage," and the heaviest users were already the highest achievers.

​

Kayla V. Campaña, et al., Classification Accuracy of i-Ready and Prior Year State Exams on Year-End Outcomes

“when compared to the previous year’s end-of-year state test, i-Ready was generally not more successful, and sometimes worse, with lower accuracy and AUC values.” “...CATs may be time-consuming, expensive, and are often advertised as serving an essential role as a screener.”​​​

​

The Curriculum Insight Project, We're Ready to Break Up With iReady​

“If schools are placing students in iReady’s supplemental/intervention products for core reading instruction, they have a big problem: the students who are below grade level will be ‘tracked’ into working with texts below their grade level. Research shows this to be the opposite of what readers need to grow…Quality curriculum is designed around grade level text work for all students. iReady cannot be considered a good use of ELA instructional time, over this issue alone.”​​

NBC News, The revolt against i-Ready: Private equity-backed software faces parent, teacher and student fury

"Curriculum Associates has not done a randomized controlled trial — considered the gold standard of scientific research — to prove i-Ready’s effectiveness. It would be too expensive and would rely on a school district volunteering as a test case, company leaders said, so they don’t plan to do one."