i-Ready in 7th GradeMath ClassesA MIXED METHODS CASE STUDYWestEdSVEF-iHubStacy MarpleKarina JaquetAlana LaudoneJustin SewellKirsten LiepmannJune 2019Produced in partnership with theSilicon Valley Education Foundation andsupported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
2019 WestEd. All rights reserved.This report is based on research funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings andconclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies ofthe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Suggested citation: Marple, S., Jaquet, K., Laudone, A., Sewell, J., & Liepmann, K. (2019).i-Ready in7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.WestEd is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency that works with educationand other communities throughout the United States and abroad to promote excellence, achieve equity,and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. WestEd has more than a dozen offices nationwide,from Massachusetts, Vermont, Georgia, and Washington, DC, to Arizona and California, with headquartersin San Francisco.Silicon Valley Education Foundation (SVEF) was founded on the belief that a new kind of organization isneeded — one with a different philosophy and approach to the challenges in legacy systems. A nonprofitresource and advocate for students and educators, SVEF is dedicated to putting all students on track forcollege and careers, focusing on the critical areas of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).The Learning Innovation Hub (iHub) leverages research, practice, partnerships, and policy to advise andnetwork education stakeholders committed to raising student achievement through technology equity.Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to helpall people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s healthand giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, itseeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led byCEO Susan Desmond-Hellmann and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and MelindaGates and Warren Buffett.
TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction1Background3Impact of i-Ready on Student Achievement6i-Ready in Action: Students’ Views and Classroom Observations13Conclusion28Bibliography29Appendix A: i-Ready/Ready Product Analysis30Appendix B: Quantitative Methodology34Appendix C: Qualitative Methodology37Appendix D: Sample Field Note42List of FigureFigure 1: Weekly Minutes on i-Ready by Number of Students8List of TablesTable 1: District Demographics5Table 2: Study Sample7Table 3: Average of Total Lesson Minutes Per Achievement Level9Table 4: Impact by Weekly Time Spent on i-Ready10Table 5: Impact of 45 Minutes per Week on i-Ready10Table 6: Impact of 30 Minutes per Week on i-Ready11Table 7: Student Growth and Time on i-Ready11Table 8: Qualitative Data Collected14
INTRODUCTIONThis study of i-Ready shows on average positive, but differential, gainsfor students who use the tool for varying amounts of time. In addition, thefield-based observations we conducted clearly raise questions about thebalance between the choice of specific edtech tools and the best practicesfor implementing them in schools. The quantitative and qualitative datacollected in this study examine who is best served by the technology, inwhat ways, and under what circumstances.Our quantitative analysis showedthat by 7th grade, i-Ready was toothat students, regardless of their mathchildish for them and did not give themproficiency, who spent a minimumenough control over their learning. Theof 45 minutes a week or more on thestudents who expressed a preferencei-Ready lessons had a significantfor i-Ready often reported that it wasimprovement in their scores onbecause i-Ready was easier — indi-the Smarter Balanced Assessmentcating they might not be as confidentConsortium Math Summativein math as their peers who were moreAssessment (SBAC) over students whocritical of i-Ready. This was confirmeddid not.by our observations of classes in which1During the observations, it wasstudents could choose what math prod-noted that the product was challenginguct they used — less proficient studentsfor less proficient students to use,gravitated toward i-Ready. The studentswhich was later confirmed by ourwho preferred i-Ready (despite agreeingquantitative analysis — many studentswith many of the critiques) also used itwho used i-Ready consistently enoughthe least and received the least benefit.to see its benefits were already meetingThis indicates that perhaps the problemor exceeding standards in mathematicsof reaching struggling students is noton the SBAC.an i-Ready problem, but a systemicTo complicate matters, studentswere critical of i-Ready, even when theyproblem in edtech that bears moreinvestigation.could see its merits. Most of these cri-I-Ready aims to be a product thattiques reflected the students’ opinionssupports the learning (not just practice)of math. However, no students reported1Throughout this paper, SBAC is used to refer to the Smarter Balanced AssessmentConsortium Summative Assessment in Mathematics.1
learning new concepts from i-Ready during ourdescribed significant delays in reporting onfocus groups. They reported that their workstudent progress and diagnostic scoring.on i-Ready reinforced concepts that had beenintroduced in class. At times the product wasResolving all these contrasts is out of thescope of this opportunistic study of math edtechquite successful in this regard.Teachers in our study expressed mixedviews about the product — they described it asgood for practice, for backfilling concepts thatstudents were lacking, and for helping diagnoseclass-wide learning needs. But they all reporteda mismatch between the mathematics knowledge they observed and what i-Ready reportedfor many of their students. They were oftenfrustrated by a lack of transparency. Teachersproducts in use in 7th grade classrooms, ofwhich i-Ready was one among many. Rather,in the next pages we aim to paint a picture ofhow students and teachers engaged with andunderstood i-Ready — framed by the findingsof our comparative analysis of i-Ready’s impacton student achievement. Our hope is that fromthis description educators and product developers can glean insights into how to developand implement products that reach all studentsequitably.2i-Ready in 7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study
BACKGROUNDEarly in the summer of 2017, the Silicon Valley Education Foundation’sSTEM Innovation Hub (iHub) team reached out to WestEd for support indeveloping their staff’s evaluation capacity, to broaden their work with edtechproduct developers and schools. Together, WestEd researchers and iHub teammembers conceptualized a mixed methods study that would seek to discoverwhat edtech products were in use in 7th grade mathematics classrooms andwork to understand how teachers used these products, what students thoughtof them, and what impact they had on student achievement.Students start to accelerate in mathduring middle school to reach calculusmiddle school math data as part of theanalysis.by 12th grade. Research shows thatsuccess in advanced math courses inhigh school predicts postsecondarysuccess and careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (Adelman,1999). A 2006 report from the U.S.Department of Education showed thatstudents who completed courseworkthrough precalculus were two times aslikely to successfully complete collegecompared to students who only completed algebra 2 (Adelman, 2006).Success in high school mathematics has been correlated with collegesuccess (Adelman, 2006). Given theimportance of middle school mathematics performance for high schoolsuccess (Adelman, 1999) and theflood of edtech products (Shulman,2018), there is a need to understandhow these products are being used inmiddle school. Focusing on 7th gradeallowed the study to utilize prior-yearResearch MethodsWith a goal of starting data collection in the fall, the team reliedheavily on the Silicon Valley EducationFoundation’s (SVEF’s) long-standingrelationships with local districts toobtain research permissions and dataagreements over the summer. By theend of October 2017, four months afterthe study was conceptualized, twodistricts had signed on to participate,agreeing to share student-level SBACand product data for all their 7th gradestudents and to select teachers for participation in qualitative observations.Meanwhile, three iHub team members received training from WestEdstaff in qualitative data collection.While all were familiar with conductingrubric-driven classroom observations,the ethnographic stance necessary3
for evaluating a product in use was unknown4. How do students engage with the prod-to them. The team was introduced to the basicuct during school? What structures andtenets of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; J.features are in place to support studentCorbin & Strauss, 2008), qualitative interviewingand question-asking techniques (Seidman, 2006),and observation note taking (Emerson, Fretz, &Shaw, 2011) by WestEd research staff. With theguidance of a WestEd senior researcher, thesethree iHub team members completed the qualitative data collection.The point of the study was to understandhow products were being used in real time— during school by students while they werein class. The hope was to observe two to fourproducts in action and use those observations,as well as product data, to answer the researchquestions below. Our aim was not a comprehensive evaluation of a product and its full suiteof capacities, nor did we seek to understandwhether the product was aligned to state standards for mathematics. Rather, we opportunistically asked to observe lessons on days whenteachers would be using edtech and then chosethe most consistently used math products tofocus on for our case studies.engagement? How does the product work toengage students? Is it being used in a waythat supports personalized learning?5. What do students think about the product?What do they perceive as the product’sadvantages and disadvantages?To address questions 1 and 2, data agreements were arranged with the districts to obtainstudent-level data for all 7th grade students,including SBAC scale scores and edtech productusage. To address questions 3 and 4, we conducted 38 observations across 6 classrooms(2 periods for each of the 3 participating teachers) This yielded 79 written field notes2 whichincluded transcribed conversations betweenstudents and with observers. In addition, weconducted 9 teacher interviews, which weretranscribed and analyzed. To directly addressquestion 5, 16 focus groups of 8 to 10 studentsfrom the participating classes were conducted atthe end of the study.i-ReadyResearch QuestionsOne of the products used in the six class-1. Do we see any relationship between prod-rooms and across the two districts was i-Ready.uct use and student achievement as mea-Developed by Curriculum Associates, i-Readysured on the Smarter Balanced Assessmentis an individualized platform serving gradesConsortium Summative Assessment inK–8 that provides diagnostic testing andMathematics?scenario-based lessons in mathematics and2. What is the impact of i-Ready on studentEnglish. The diagnostic test has been shown tomath achievement as measured on thecorrelate highly with standardized test scoresSmarter Balanced Assessment Consortium(Educational Research Institute of AmericaSummative Assessment in Mathematics?3. How do teachers incorporate the productinto their instruction? What different strategies are observed? What influence, if any,does district policy have on product use?(ERIA), 2016) such the SBAC, and thus is a usefulbenchmark for students, teachers, and districts.In the participating districts, students tookthe diagnostic test three times in the year: atthe start of school, at the midpoint, and at theend of the year. Requirements for using the2 A full field note can be found in Appendix D.4i-Ready in 7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study
Table 1: District DemographicsDistrict ADistrict ADistrict BDistrict BNumber ofStudentsPercent of TotalEnrollmentNumber ofStudentsPercent of 1,33811.52,06219.9Hispanic or Latino9,15478.84,98248.1White, not Hispanic1941.71,85117.9Other7826.71,09410.6English 154.6Total EnrollmentEthnicity/RaceAfrican AmericanEnglish LearnerStatusFree and ReducedPrice Lunch StatusSource: California Department of Education.lesson portion of i-Ready varied in the districts,and had one computer available per student.schools, and classrooms we observed.During most visits we observed struggles withhardware and software glitches, and problemsSchool District Context3Districts A and B are public school districtswith connection to the internet — all of whichconsumed valuable instruction time. From thedemographic breakdown below you can see bothlocated in Silicon Valley. While the districts’districts have a majority Latino population.buildings and infrastructure are far from state-District A has a larger percentage of studentsof-the-art, the students are very aware of thewho qualify for free and reduced lunch (90 per-tech culture of the area. One indicator of this iscent versus 45 percent) and a larger percentagethat during an informal poll, students said theyof students classified as English languagewould like to have a job someday at one of thelearners (44 percent versus 29 percent).large tech corporations located in the area. Onlytwo of the three classrooms had smartboards3 All district, school, and teacher names have been obscured to preserve anonymity.Background5
IMPACT OF i-READY ONSTUDENT ACHIEVEMENTAn impact evaluation was conducted to understand if student useof i-Ready impacted student achievement as measured by the statestandardized test, the SBAC. If there was an impact, we then wanted toknow how dosage level (amount of time spent on i-Ready) factored in andif there were any differences in impact for student subgroups. Duringclassroom observations we noticed that students who were less confident orless proficient in math did not engage with i-Ready as efficiently as studentswho were more proficient in math. This observation was confirmed by ourteachers, as exemplified in the quote below. Thus, we were particularlyinterested in how proficiency level impacted student outcomes wheni-Ready was used.6Observer: Last question, andthen you have students. So, whenyou think about your groups,you have your All-Stars [highestproficiency], Veterans [middleproficiency], and Rookies [lowestproficiency]. Do you see a variationin their use of technology?to sit there and look at the screenand not explore any strategieswhere they can help themselves ina sense.Teacher C: Oh yeah, I knowAll-Stars, they will just like getthe work done. They’ll fly throughit actually, for them it’s a littlerepetitive, but they get work donefor the most part. For the Veterans,they’re a little more motivated, alittle bit more willing to use thestrategies that they have in place.With the Rookies, which is mylowest level, I think that’s the onegroup that is a little more resistantbecause sometimes they don’t feelconfident enough on the task. So,it’s very easy for them to just sitthere and watch a video and not doanything else. It’s easy for themimpact of i-Ready usage as a function of— Interview with Teacher C, District A,School 2Below we first present the overallthe amount of time students spend ini-Ready lessons per week. We furtherrefine this analysis to understand howthe use of i-Ready differs with studentgrowth along the SBAC continuum:from not meeting standards (level 1),to nearly meeting standards (level 2),meeting standards (level 3), to exceedingstandards (level 4). Finally, we explorethe variation in student growth as afunction of baseline proficiency level onthe SBAC.i-Ready in 7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study
Table 2: Study SampleStudent CharacteristicsStudy SampleNumber (n 1,759)Study 861.85Asian38021.60White, Not Hispanic18710.63Other1045.91English Learner45425.81Non–English Learner1,30574.1919911.311,56088.6921212.05Less than 45 minutes1,54787.9530 minutes or more38822.06Less than 30 minutes1,37177.9415 minutes or more87349.63Less than 15 minutes88650.37EthnicityHispanic or LatinoEnglish Learner StatusSpecial Education StatusIn Special EducationNot in Special EducationTime on i-Ready Lessons45 minutes or moreSource: Student records data collected from the two school districts in the study sampleImpact of i-Ready and Inquiryinto DosageTo understand the impact of i-Ready7th grade students. The i-Ready data includedtime on lessons and interim assessments, andscores on the interim assessments. The standardized assessment data included the SBACon student achievement, we obtained stu-math scale scores and achievement levels. Thedent-level data from the i-Ready technology demographic information included gender,tool, and from the districts standardized yearlyethnicity, English learner status, and specialassessments and demographic information alleducation status.Impact of i-Ready on Student Achievement7
Figure 1: Weekly Minutes on i-Ready byNumber of Students841286 more minutes per week in i-Ready thanstudents in achievement level 1.Using a quasi-experimental design, specifically a matching analysis, we first testedi-Ready’s claim that using the program for17688545 minutes a week would have a positiveimpact on students’ SBAC scores. Accordingto i-Ready developers, i-Ready should be usedat least 45 minutes per week to have a positive485impact on standardized assessment scores(Curriculum Associates, n.d.). Since there was adifference in time usage between the studentsLess than 1515–2945-5930–4460–plusin different achievement levels, the evaluationincluded three impact analyses, each one withdifferent time frames: 15 or more minutes, 30 orSource: Student records data collected from the twoschool districts in the study sampleThe study sample included all students withno missing data for any of the variables includedin the analysis. The study sample included atotal of 1,759 students. Latino students composed the largest ethnic group within the studysample, at 62 percent. English learner studentscomposed at 25 percent of the study sample,and students in special education composed 11percent of the study sample.Just over 50 percent or 886 students usedi-Ready for less than 15 minutes a week, whileonly 12 percent or 212 students used i-Ready for45 minutes or more, as recommended by thetechnology developers.more minutes, and 45 or more minutes perweek. The students in each of the analyses inthose time frames are called the “treated” groupthroughout the report. The students who usedi-Ready for less than those times are called the“control” group throughout the report.The matching procedure included matching“treated” students to “control” students withsimilar characteristics. The following variableswere used for the matching analysis: grade 6SBAC math assessment, first i-Ready interimassessment, English learner status, specialeducation status, gender, and ethnicity. Theethnicity categories included Latino, Asian,White, and Other. The Other ethnic categoryincluded African American, American Indian,Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and Two orStudents in the highest SBAC achievementlevel, level 4 (exceeding standards), spentmore time in the lesson activities comparedto students in the lowest achievement level,level 1 (not meeting standards). Students inachievement level 4 spent approximatelyMore Races4.Grade 7 SBAC math summative assessmentwas the outcome measure for the three impactevaluations. SBAC is administered to studentsduring the spring semester and assesses4 A baseline equivalence test was conducted on the final analytic sample for the three models using thegrade 6 SBAC math summative assessment. The standardized mean difference of 0 was found for the 45- and15-minute model. A mean difference of 1 was found for the 30-minute model. The mean difference of one orless signifies that both the treated and control groups are similar.8i-Ready in 7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study
Table 3: Average of Total Lesson Minutes Per Achievement LevelGrade 6 AchievementLevelsAdjusted Mean Minutes PerYear (Standard Error)Adjusted Mean Minutes PerWeekTotalStudents19657214832332625293561*Level 1(30.2)632Level 2(31.8)680Level 3(40.0)758*Level 4(44.4)*Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent levelSource: Student records data collected from the two school districts in the study sampleNote: The total number of weeks in school year is equal to 30 weeks. This excludes the additional weeks forwinter and spring break, and interim and summative assessment time.students against grade-level standards.5 OnceWhen examining the growth of the treatedwe determined that use of i-Ready correlatedgroup who used i-Ready for 45 minutes or morewith positive SBAC achievement, we set outand the control group, on average both theto investigate the differences in engagementtreated and control groups stayed within thebetween low- and high-proficiency studentssame achievement level (level 3). However, onthat we observed in the classroom.average the treated students’ growth increased73 percent toward achievement level 4 comparedDosage Findingsto the control group’s growth that increasedAs discussed earlier, students with higherachievement levels tended to use i-Ready more38 percent6.When examining the impact of the 30 min-often than students with lower achievementutes or more time frame, both treated andlevels. When examining the impact amongcontrol students moved from achievementstudents using i-Ready for 45 minutes or more,level 2 (standards nearly met) to achievementit was found that these students tended to scorelevel 3 (standards met). To investigate how much24 points higher than similar students who usedgrowth the 30 minutes or more treated groupi-Ready for less than 45 minutes.and the control group gained within level 3As i-Ready usage decreased, the differences between the treated and control groupsdecreased; there was a 19-point difference forthe 30-minute impact analysis and a 7-pointdifference for the 15-minute impact analysis.achievement, a separate growth analysis wasconducted. Students who used i-Ready for 30 ormore minutes progressed 35 percent in achievement level 3, compared to similar students whoused i-Ready for less than 30 minutes, who onlyprogressed 6 percent in achievement level 3,with the understanding that achieving 1005 The SBAC is a computer-adaptive test. ivefactsheet.pdf6 The calculation for percent growth toward the next achievement level is provided in Appendix A.Impact of i-Ready on Student Achievement9
Table 4: Impact by Weekly Time Spent on i-ReadyTreated GroupControl Group(standard error)(standard evelAdjustedMeanDifferenceNumber ofStudentsin 30.06045 minutes or more per weekGrade 7SBACa MathScale Score2616(104.5)25923(102.6)30 minutes or more per weekGrade 7 SBACMath ScaleScore2590(113.2)25713(114.8)15 minutes or more per weekGrade 7 SBACMath ScaleScore2549(113.6)25422(118.8)Note: 7th grade SBAC achievement level scale score ranges are Standards Not Met: 2250–2483; Standards NearlyMet: 2484–2566; Standards Met: 2567–2634; Standards Exceeded: 2635–2778**denotes statistical significance at the 1 percent level* denotes statistical significance at the 5 percent levelSource: Student records data collected from the two school districts in the study sampleTable 5: Impact of 45 Minutes per Week on i-ReadyStudentsGrade6 ScaleScoreGrade 6MeanAchievementLevelGrade7 ScaleScoreGrade 7MeanAchievementLevelPercent GrowthToward the NextAchievement Level45 ormore minutes256732616373Less than45 minutes256732592338Source: Student records data collected from the two school districts in the study sampleNote: This growth helps us understand how far the students have increased toward the next achievement level.10i-Ready in 7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study
Table 6: Impact of 30 Minutes per Week on i-ReadyStudentsGrade6 ScaleScoreGrade 6AchievementLevelGrade7 ScaleScoreGrade 7AchievementLevelPercent Growthtoward the NextAchievement Level30 ormore minutes254222590335Less than30 minutes25412257136Source: Student records data collected from the two school districts in the study sampleNote: This growth helps us understand how far the students have increased toward the next achievement level.Table 7: Student Growth and Time on i-Ready45 minutes45 minutes45 minutes30 minutes30 minutes30 minutesTotalstudentsMove tothe nextachievement levelPercentmoving tothe nextachievement levelTotalstudentsMove tothe nextachievement levelPercentmoving tothe nextachievement levelLevel 1331751.5993434.3Level 2482347.9903943.3Level 3513262.8895258.4Level 4800011000Total2127234.038812532.2Source: Student records data collected from the two school districts in the study samplepercent growth would land the student into the15-minute per week analysis, in that this studentnext achievement level.group saw the least impact from i-Ready usage.When comparing the 45- and 30-minuteimpact analyses, we note that a percentage ofstudents in all levels moved up an achievement level. However, a higher percentage ofstudents moved levels when using i-ReadyThis information is provided in Appendix A.Discussion andRecommendations45 minutes or more compared to students usingThe three impact evaluations find thatit 30 minutes or more. Also, in both analyses thei-Ready significantly improves math achieve-impact is greater for students who were higherment as measured by the grade 7 SBAC summa-achieving in 6th grade; A higher percentagetive assessment. The findings also show thatof level 3 students moved up than level 2, andthe more minutes students spend on the lessonsa higher percentage of level 2 students movedin i-Ready, the higher the differences in scaleup than level 1. Similar patterns persist for thescores compared to analytically similar studentsImpact of i-Ready on Student Achievement11
using i-Ready for fewer minutes. Specifically,light on how technology can influence a stu-in the case of students who used i-Ready fordent’s individualized learning and potentially45 minutes or more each week, students showedset a student on the right math path.35 percent more growth in their achievementThe growth on the SBAC score places theseLimitations of the QuantitativeAnalysisstudents more squarely in the achievementThis quantitative study has two types oflevel than their analytically similar peers whospent less than 45 minutes a week on i-Ready.bracket and may support them toward continu-limitations: one that deals with the impact ofally meeting standards each year.other edtech products and the other with theThis pattern of findings suggests thati-Ready is an important edtech product to beWhile visiting the classrooms, we noticedused in the classroom, but there must be anthat there were many additional edtech prod-increase in usage for students in lower achieve-ucts that were used. Some edtech productsment levels. This is supported by our findingwere selected by the teacher, while others werethat students in achievement level 1 (standardsencouraged by the school district. Additionally,not met) spend fewer minutes on i-Ready thanthere were different types of implementation ofstudents in achievement level 4 (standardsthe i-Ready lessons. Some teachers used i-Readyexceeded). A further analysis needs to be con-for homework, while others provided class timeducted to understand the reasons why students(additional information on this in the discussionin achievement level 1 spend fewer minutesof the qualitative findings). These differenton i-Ready and how they can be supported.types of implementation and additional edtechAdditionally, an impact analysis that includes allproducts might impact the analysis and wouldedtech product usage in the classroom should beneed to be investigated to understand the soleconsidered to isolate the impact of one productimpact of i-Ready.from another.Additionally, the study sample is limited toStandards in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades provide12generalizability of the results.students from two districts in Silicon Valley,a base for students to succeed in high schooland the findings may be generalizable only tomath (Adelman, 1999). This study sheds somedistricts that are similar to the study sample.i-Ready in 7th Grade Math Classes: A Mixed Methods Case Study
i-READY IN ACTION:STUDENTS’ VIEWS ANDCLASSROOM OBSERVATIONSIt is not enough to know that a product can work to support learning.To serve all students equitably we need to understand implementation —how and in what ways students and teachers engage with the product. Tounderstand implementation, we collected observational, interview, andfocal group data on the edtech products.There was no intervention nor spec-— we organized three to four observa-ified product of study around which ourtion weeks per school and conductedwork was organized. Rather we enteredtwo to three observations during thoseclassrooms with the aim of discoveringweeks. In general, we took the stance ofwhat products were in use and allowedparticipant-observer in the classroom.our observations to organize the study.This meant that we did not simply standWe chose i-R
Table 2: Study Sample 7 Table 3: Average of Total Lesson Minutes Per Achievement Level 9 Table 4: Impact by Weekly Time Spent on i-Ready 10 Table 5: Impact of 45 Minutes per Week on i-Ready 10 Table 6: Impact of 30 Minutes per Week on i-Ready 11 Table 7: Student Growth and Time on i-Ready 11 Table 8: Qualitative Data Collected 14 List of Figure
Math Course Progression 7th Grade Math 6th Grade Math 5th Grade Math 8th Grade Math Algebra I ELEMENTARY 6th Grade Year 7th Grade Year 8th Grade Year Algebra I 9 th Grade Year Honors 7th Grade Adv. Math 6th Grade Adv. Math 5th Grade Math 6th Grade Year 7th Grade Year 8th Grade Year th Grade Year ELEMENTARY Geome
Teacher of Grade 7 Maths What do you know about a student in your class? . Grade 7 Maths. University Grade 12 Grade 11 Grade 10 Grade 9 Grade 8 Grade 7 Grade 6 Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 1 Primary. University Grade 12 Grade 11 Grade 10 Grade 9 Grade 8 Grade 7 Grade 6 Grade 5 . Learning Skill
Texts of Wow Rosh Hashana II 5780 - Congregation Shearith Israel, Atlanta Georgia Wow ׳ג ׳א:׳א תישארב (א) ׃ץרֶָֽאָּהָּ תאֵֵ֥וְּ םִימִַׁ֖שַָּה תאֵֵ֥ םיקִִ֑לֹאֱ ארָָּ֣ Îָּ תישִִׁ֖ארֵ Îְּ(ב) חַורְָּ֣ו ם
ICCSD SS Reading 2014 ICCSD SS Reading 2015 Natl SS Reading. ICCSD Academic Achievement Report April 2016 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade 9th grade 10th . 7th grade 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade e Grade ICCSD and Natio
Grade 4 NJSLA-ELA were used to create the Grade 5 ELA Start Strong Assessment. Table 1 illustrates these alignments. Table 1: Grade and Content Alignment . Content Area Grade/Course in School Year 2021 – 2022 Content of the Assessment ELA Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
C. Divisions of Competition – All divisions will be Grade Based as of October 1, 2018. (2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade and 12th grade). D. Tournament Days – The National Championship
Level 7 Theory Intermediate Theory Leading-tone Diminished 7th Chords 1. Name the key and write the functional chord symbol for each diminished 7th chord. 2. Write diminished 7th chords using the key signature and accidentals. 3. Write diminished 7th chords using accidentals. 4. o7Identify each chord as diminished 7th (vii ) or dominant 7th (V7).
The dominant 7th scale that is created is also known as the mixolydian mode. There are corresponding scales for each of these 7th chords. The major 7th chord generally By lowering the 3rd and the 7th, we create a scale that corresponds to the minor 7th chord. This minor 7th scale is also known as the dorian mode .