**Subject:** Math**Grade Level(s):** K – 3**Measures Growth:** Yes**Visit Website**

mClass Math is an early math assessment software, aligned to the Common Core State Standards and measuring student progress in grades K-3. The software combines universal screening, progress monitoring and guided diagnostic interviews with reporting and analysis, and meets Response to Intervention program requirements for math intervention.

2.5 stars (4 reviews)

3.5 stars (4 reviews)

- Aligned to the standards I teach2 votes
- Takes students a reasonable amount of time to complete2 votes
- Assesses higher-order thinking1 vote
- Assesses a range of students, including those from far below to far above grade level1 vote

- Does not assess higher-order thinking3 votes
- Misses growth of some students, such as those far below and/or far above grade level2 votes
- Takes students too long to complete2 votes
- Not aligned to the standards I teach1 vote

3.5 stars (4 reviews)

- Easy to administer3 votes
- Results returned quickly3 votes
- Helps me track my students' learning gains over the course of the school year2 votes
- Data is presented clearly2 votes
- Data I receive helps me understand where I am teaching well and where I need to improve1 vote

- Is not helpful to my professional growth as a teacher3 votes
- Doesn't help me track my students' learning gains over time2 votes
- It is hard to use the data2 votes
- Difficult to administer1 vote

1 star

**Cons:** Not aligned to the standards I teach • Does not assess higher-order thinking • Misses growth of some students, such as those far below and/or far above grade level • Takes students too long to complete

**Pros:** Results returned quickly**Cons:** Difficult to administer • Doesn't help me track my students' learning gains over time • It is hard to use the data • Is not helpful to my professional growth as a teacher

I have 30 students in my room and it takes almost 15 minutes per child (by the time you count travel time for him to and from your desk). It is unreasonable to have to spend that much time testing each child individually (with no assistance from aides or subs I might add). Also, I think it's physically impossible for a first grader to count up to 118 in one minute. I tried to do it myself and there was no way to finish without slurring my words together. The students are asked to speak too fast on many of the assessments not just the counting. Overall, I don't find it developmentally appropriate.

**Submitted by Joy in New York on June 10, 2013**

3 stars

2 stars

**Pros:** Takes students a reasonable amount of time to complete**Cons:** Does not assess higher-order thinking

2 stars

**Pros:** Easy to administer • Helps me track my students' learning gains over the course of the school year • Data is presented clearly**Cons:** Is not helpful to my professional growth as a teacher

mClass math is helpful to my second graders to check their progress on basic addition and subtraction. It does help, to some extent,with numerical patterning. One of the subtests, however, should be eliminated- quantity discrimination. This is a 50/50 test an not reliable. Because these tests are so limited in content, they are not a good overall assessment of my students.However, it is the primary assessment tool used by my school district to measure math growth.

**Submitted by Abby in Ohio on April 13, 2013**

1 star

**Pros:** Aligned to the standards I teach**Cons:** Does not assess higher-order thinking • Misses growth of some students, such as those far below and/or far above grade level • Takes students too long to complete

**Pros:** Easy to administer • Results returned quickly**Cons:** Doesn't help me track my students' learning gains over time • It is hard to use the data • Is not helpful to my professional growth as a teacher

I was initially excited about my district's adoption of an individualized math assessment, however, after using mclass math, I was incredibly disappointed. Unfortunately, my feelings have only grown worse since. Reasons for my distaste are perhaps equally shared between weakness of the test itself and the nonsensical way my district forces me to use the tests (I must individually test all students 3 times or more per year, approximately 10-12 minutes per student, even when a student clearly demonstrates mastery of skills tested at the beginning of the year, which is the case for many of my students and an obvious waste of instructional time). District issues aside, what follows are a sampling of my concerns with the tests themselves.

Perhaps, the most illustrative joke of mclass math is the counting test. First graders must count to 118 in one minute in order to be branded an established counter at the end of the year. Try it yourself and see how you do but keep in mind there is no prompt to inform students that they should be counting as quickly as they can. In 3 years of using this test, I've only had two students who made it to 118. As for the rest, their inability to do so had nothing to do with their ability to count fluently. Most 6-7 year-olds I have worked with who are fluent counters get to between 70 and 85 in a minute; this allows them a natural speaking rate and a few pauses to breathe, swallow or clear their throat. Those who score better tend to keep counting on the inhale. As with the DIBELS assessments, it seems that scores better reflect rate of speaking than counting fluency.

Another disappointment I immediately recognized is that the tests' scores themselves do not tell me specific information about a student’s errors, what he/she needs to work on within a particular skill, or even if he/she needs to work on that skill at all. For example, on the counting test, a student who counts without error for a minute but at a reasonable speaking rate (as opposed to super-speed counting) will score similar to a student who counted faster but made multiple errors. Similarly, students who make errors on the other tests will often score nearly the same as students who make no errors at all. The fact that number of correct responses in a minute makes up the score and not percentage of correct responses is puzzling to me. While I understand that automaticity for these skills is important, it shouldn’t count over accuracy. The fact that it does confuses the data and makes it difficult to use. It is also frustrating that the ipod we use allows no way to record actual errors so that the teacher can analyze error patterns later. This is an important missing piece if I am to form efficiently targeted intervention groups.

The final concern I will share is concerning the number facts test. This test is not appropriate at the first grade level and is contrary to sound curriculum which emphasizes proper development of part-part-whole relationships before memorization of facts. It also misses in providing important information that the teacher needs to know regarding the development of the part-part-whole relationship, which is arguably the single most important understanding in early mathematics. I would love the opportunity to observe how students solve basic addition and subtraction facts with a well-crafted individual assessment. However, with the number facts test, students are unable to show what they might know because the problem is given to them only verbally and without the use of materials such as counters and number lines. With more tools at their disposal, I would be able to observe what understandings they actually have and don’t have so that I can plan instruction to push them to the next level—which will eventually lead to automatic fact recognition with solid conceptual understandings. I find more value using this test at the end of year, however, another fault of the program is the randomization of the facts beginning presented. Scores fluctuate regardless of actual student skill because sometimes there is a higher percentage of easy facts asked at the beginning (which students get to within a minute's time) and other times more difficult facts seem to dominate the test's beginning. Ironically, the easier lead facts are at the end of the year assessment which gives the appearance of great progress but doesn't tell me anything valid about a student's actual growth. And, again, there is no way to record patterns of error or types of facts or strategies a student may have in order to target instruction.

I am told that these tests are only to identify students who potentially need more support and require a follow-up test to identify the information I am seeking. That's certainly true. The trouble is it identifies nearly everyone (mostly in error) and takes so much time for the screenings that I don't know how I'd ever have time for the longer diagnostics. Furthermore, though I've never administered the diagnostics, I have looked at them and am not impressed. I have my own more efficient and targeted ways to assess students and guide my instruction. I only wish I could be trusted as a professional make my own assessment choices and thus save my students' valuable learning time. If that day should ever come, mclass math will be the first to go.

**Submitted by Melissa in Ohio on April 9, 2013**

5 stars

5 stars

**Pros:** Aligned to the standards I teach • Assesses higher-order thinking • Assesses a range of students, including those from far below to far above grade level • Takes students a reasonable amount of time to complete

5 stars

**Pros:** Easy to administer • Results returned quickly • Helps me track my students' learning gains over the course of the school year • Data is presented clearly • Data I receive helps me understand where I am teaching well and where I need to improve

I have really seen an improvement in my students. I love the diagnostic interviews. I just wish the website reports were more like the reading.

**Submitted by Becky in Arkansas on April 9, 2013**

Copyright © 2012–2014 Assessment Advisor. All Rights Reserved.