Indiana's two headline K–8 assessments measure different constructs, are built differently, and carry different stakes. This briefing assembles what is documented about each instrument, the trend data through 2025, and the design changes that bear on how the 2026 release should be compared with prior years.
IREAD-3 statewide pass rate, 2013–2025
Percent of third graders counted as passing. The reported rate is cumulative — it includes summer retakes and, since 2025, students who passed as second graders. 2020 was cancelled.
The 2025 rate of 87.3% equals the 2019 pre-pandemic rate and remains 4.1 points below the 2013 peak of 91.4%. It represents a return to 2019 levels, measured under a testing regime that changed in four documented ways during the same window. Those changes are set out under Building the pass rate.
ILEARN statewide proficiency, grades 3–8
Percent At or Above Proficiency. 2020 cancelled; IDOE treats 2021 as the working baseline. Math has climbed steadily since 2021; ELA has not moved.
In the same year, on the same children, Indiana reported 87.3% passing IREAD-3 and roughly 40% proficient on ILEARN grade 3 English/language arts. Both are comprehension-weighted reading tests — the state's own alignment study codes 76.9% of IREAD items as comprehension. A 47-point difference between two comprehension-weighted tests of the same population turns primarily on where each cut score was placed rather than on what each test covers. We did not locate a state document addressing the comparison.
The three new Checkpoints are formative only. IDOE's own Test Administrator's Manual says they "do not contribute to accountability calculations," and districts tell families they "do not count towards your child's final ILEARN score." The spring summative alone still produces the accountability number. Indiana added up to six state testing sittings per student per year and removed one math performance task.
A 2024 IDOE blueprint document states: "In order to support comparability of test scores across years and avoid multiple years of score delays, IDOE will not engage in standard setting activities until the new through-year design is operational." That deferral has now come due, which places the break in comparability in 2026.
IDOE's published methodology counts, in the numerator, students who pass in spring or summer plus second graders who passed the prior spring. Only 65.4% of the students who actually sat the spring 2025 grade-3 test passed it, against a headline of 87.3%.
Across four posted IREAD technical reports, the year, method, and panel that produced the grade-3 passing score of 446 could not be located. The reports defer to volumes that are not posted. The number that decides whether an eight-year-old repeats a grade is not publicly auditable.
A redesigned ILEARN, standards cut ~25%, freshly set cut scores approved the same day results are announced, and the first A–F school grades in five years. Isolating how much of any 2026 movement reflects school performance will be difficult.
Evidence on Indiana's literacy strategy points in both directions. The Harvard/Stanford Education Recovery Scorecard ranks Indiana 6th of 35 states in reading recovery; at the same time, several figures the public record would need to evaluate the results have not been published. Both sides of each question are set out in The evidence, with sources, so readers can weigh them directly.
What each test actually is: who takes it, how it is built, what it measures, where the line sits, and what happens to a student who falls below it.
Indiana legislated a five-component definition of the science of reading at IC 20-18-2-17.5: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension. IDOE commissioned EdMetric, LLC to test whether IREAD-3 aligns to it. EdMetric coded 65 unique items across two forms.
IREAD-3 item composition by science-of-reading component
EdMetric alignment study, September 2023, filed with the Indiana General Assembly, as stated in its executive summary. Two of the five statutory components are measured by zero items.
check this The report is internally inconsistent. Its executive summary and Section 6 state 76.9% comprehension / 12.8% phonics / 10.3% vocabulary. Table 13 of the same report gives, for the combined 65-item sample, 78.5% comprehension / 12.3% vocabulary / 9.2% phonics — reversing the phonics and vocabulary ranks. The figures charted above are the narrative ones. The 0% phonemic awareness and 0% fluency findings hold either way, and they are the load-bearing part.
EdMetric rated IREAD-3 "strongly aligned" overall, rated Reading: Literature only moderately aligned with "weak alignment for Depth of Knowledge and Balance of Representation," recommended IDOE establish "defensible rationales for why comprehension dominates while fluency remains unmeasured," and suggested a complementary fluency assessment. Separately, IDOE materials and press coverage describe IREAD as assessing "phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension" — a description broader than the item composition supports.
The same finding cuts against the common framing that IREAD is a "basic mechanics" test and ILEARN the "real" reading test. IREAD is 77% comprehension items. Two comprehension-weighted tests of the same students returning 87% and 41% proficiency differ mainly in where the cut scores were placed, not in what they measure.
IREAD-3's 2024–25 technical report reports a grade-3 standard error of measurement of 28.35 scale points (marginal reliability 0.878). The pass/fail boundary is a single point: 446.
One standard error around the IREAD-3 grade 3 cut score
Scale 200–650. A student scoring 446 passes; a student scoring 420 is retained. On the state's own reported SEM those two scores are not statistically distinguishable.
The technical reports contain tables for conditional SEM at the cut and for classification accuracy and consistency — the tables that would quantify how many of the 3,040 retained students are measurement error rather than non-readers. Those values are in volumes that are not posted publicly. IDOE's parent-facing score guide concedes the underlying point ("Scores are an estimation of your child's ability"), but individual student reports display no confidence band. Ask IDOE for IREAD-3 Technical Report Volume 4 (reliability and classification accuracy) and Volume 6 (standard setting).
Approved by the State Board July 25, 2019 and unchanged through 2025. New cut scores for the redesigned assessment are being set in summer 2026 — these are the values the 2026 numbers will not be on.
| Grade | ELA · Approaching | ELA · At | ELA · Above | Math · Approaching | Math · At | Math · Above |
|---|
ELA scale runs roughly 5060–5920 and math 6080–6950, varying by grade. Science was quietly re-scaled in 2024 from a ~7350–7650 scale to a ~0–600 scale, with no lowest/highest obtainable scale scores published on the new scale — an unflagged science trend break we found no reporting on.
Indiana did something unusual: it wrote a definition of reading science into statute, then built licensure, coaching, curriculum and retention policy on top of that definition. Understanding the 2026 numbers means understanding what the statute actually says — and what the tests do and do not measure against it.
The 95%-by-2027 goal against the actual trajectory
The dashed segment is the path required from 2025 to hit 95% in 2027 — not a forecast. It needs +3.85 points per year, twice, against a pre-2025 record of under one point per year.
The 2025 gain of +4.8 points was the largest in the test's history and it still leaves 7.7 points to close. Reaching the goal on the original timeline requires roughly 1.6× that record gain, repeated across both remaining years. Whether IDOE restates, revises, or stops referencing the goal on August 11 is worth noting.
IC 20-18-2-17.5, added in 2023, defines the science of reading in three parts. The distinction between them is doing more work than it appears.
The statute requires the "explicit, systematic inclusion" of exactly five things: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension. This is the National Reading Panel's list, verbatim, from 2000.
Requires the body of research to inform how proficient reading and writing develop, why some students struggle, and how to assess and teach effectively "to improve outcomes for all students."
Adds two things absent from part (1): oral language skills and writing and spelling. So the statute's outcome list is broader than its instructional requirement list — and neither mentions background or content knowledge.
The statute names seven competency areas as outcomes but mandates explicit instruction in only five of them. Oral language and writing are things Indiana says the science of reading should produce, but not things it requires schools to systematically teach — and, per the state's own alignment study, not things IREAD-3 measures at all. Nothing in the definition mentions background knowledge or content knowledge, which the Albert Shanker Institute identifies as the genuine gap across all 400+ state literacy laws it reviewed, and which the comprehension research treats as central.
Indiana simultaneously cut grade 3 ELA standards from 62 to 34. If comprehension depends substantially on domain knowledge, narrowing the standards while gating promotion on a 77%-comprehension test works against the state's own goal. That is an inference, not a documented finding — but it is a testable one, and grade 7 ELA falling 3.2 points below its 2021 baseline is the kind of evidence that would show up first.
| Statutory component | Share of IREAD-3 items | Measured by ILEARN? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phonemic awareness | 0% | No | Cannot be assessed by multiple-choice items in this format. |
| Phonics | 12.8% | Grade 3 only, via the Reading Foundations reporting category | Four phonics items were historically read aloud by the administrator. |
| Fluency | 0% | No | EdMetric recommended Indiana add a complementary fluency assessment. We found no evidence one was added. |
| Vocabulary | 10.3% | Yes, within Key Ideas and Textual Support | — |
| Comprehension | 76.9% | Yes — the dominant construct | Split across Nonfiction and Literature; Literature rated only "moderately aligned." |
| Oral language outcome only | — | Speaking & Listening, 6–9% of the ELA blueprint | Not a required instructional component under part (1). |
| Writing and spelling outcome only | 0% | Yes — 34–42% of the grade 6 ELA blueprint | IREAD has no constructed response of any kind. This is the largest single divergence between the two tests. |
| Background / content knowledge absent from statute | — | Implicitly, through passage topics | Not named anywhere in IC 20-18-2-17.5. |
IREAD item shares are from the EdMetric executive summary; see the caveat on The instruments tab. ILEARN column is from the published grade-level test blueprints.
Two rollouts that shape the numbers
Left: schools in the Indiana Literacy Cadre, the state's embedded coaching program. Right: schools administering IREAD in grade 2, which feeds the grade-3 pass rate.
The Literacy Cadre is the most frequently cited evidence that Indiana's approach is working, and the state's own materials report two different effect sizes for the same year. IDOE's "Transforming K-12" document and Secretary Jenner's op-ed say Cadre schools gained 7 points in 2025, "nearly double" non-Cadre schools. The State Board's own August 2025 IREAD deck says Cadre +2.5, non-Cadre +0.2. The two are not reconcilable as stated, and the difference is large.
More fundamentally: Cadre participation is by cohort application, not random assignment. Schools that volunteer for intensive coaching differ systematically in leadership capacity, staff stability and grant-writing ability. Absent a matched comparison with pre-trend checks, a Cadre-versus-non-Cadre gap is selection, not effect. The program's public impact page cites external evaluators but discloses no sample sizes, methodology, selection criteria or limitations.
No state runs randomized trials on its own coaching programs, and absence of an RCT is not evidence of no effect. The Cadre scaled from 41 schools to 564 across exactly the period in which Indiana posted the largest one-year IREAD gain in the test's history. Independently, the Harvard/Stanford Education Recovery Scorecard — analyzing 35 million students across 2022–2025 with no Indiana involvement — ranked Indiana 6th of 35 states in reading recovery and credited phonics-focused reform in Indiana and seven other states, noting that states rejecting phonics instruction saw no gains.
The same report's caveats cut both ways: Indiana reading is +0.09 grade equivalents above 2022 but still −0.31 below 2019, and Indiana math ranks 29th of 38. Its authors cautioned that evidence-based reading reform "may be a necessary but insufficient path to improvement."
| Approved professional development | 80 hours |
| Licensure exam | Praxis 5205 |
| New PK–5 / special education licensees | after June 30, 2025 |
| Instructional coaches at schools under 70% IREAD | from July 1, 2025 |
| Existing licensees, at renewal | on or after July 1, 2027 |
| Administrators (HEA 1499) | by July 1, 2027 |
The 2024 fiscal note assumed roughly 2,700 Indiana teachers already held a literacy endorsement, estimated acquisition cost at about $7,500 per teacher, and projected no increase in total state summer-school expenditure.
ISTA president Keith Gambill, April 2024: the rollout "has just been kind of the last straw for many of our teachers." The specific complaints were about scope and compensation rather than content — confusion over who is covered (a high school math teacher swept in because he holds a special education license), 80 hours plus a written exam without adequate compensation, and a teacher describing full days spent learning "a skill that he has no plans to ever teach."
Then-candidate Jennifer McCormick said the rollout "creates frustration and confusion." At the time of that reporting no waiver existed in law; IC 20-28-5-19.8 subsequently created a narrow one.
December 1, 2026. IDOE must file a report with the Legislative Council covering progress toward the endorsement requirements, student literacy goals, remaining barriers, and whether waiver authority is still necessary. It is the only document in the entire policy stack where the state is statutorily obliged to assess its own mandate — and it lands seven months before the renewal cliff.
Everything here is the last fully published year. Use it as the baseline against which to read whatever is announced on August 11.
ILEARN mathematics proficiency by grade
Every grade is above its 2021 baseline, and the gains are largest in the upper grades. Grade 3 is the only grade that declined in 2025.
ILEARN English/language arts, change since the 2021 baseline, by grade
The signature 2025 finding. Grades 7 and 8 are the only grades below where they started. Grade 7 ELA is 37.8% — the lowest of any grade — down 3.9 points year over year.
IDOE and board members attribute the middle-school ELA decline to pandemic disruption for that cohort. Grade 7 math for the same students rose 5.4 points over the same period. A cohort-disruption explanation would need to account for why the effect appears in one subject and not the other.
ILEARN 2024 proficiency by student group
The most recent year with a complete, cross-verified subgroup table. 2025 subgroup levels were largely not published — IDOE released changes only.
Narrowing gaps reflect movement at both ends. On ILEARN ELA, the paid-meals group fell from 54.0% (2021) to 52.6% (2024) while the free/reduced group rose from 25.9% to 28.0%. On math, paid meals peaked at 54.1% in 2023 and fell to 52.8% in 2024. Convergence produced partly by decline at the top describes a different situation than convergence produced entirely by gains at the bottom, and the two are worth distinguishing.
Note a reporting practice worth flagging: IDOE's State Board decks report "Black and Hispanic students" as a single combined category against White students. Asian, American Indian, multiracial, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students do not appear on those slides at all.
| Group | 2024 pass rate | 2025 change | 2025 (derived) |
|---|
"Derived" = 2024 level plus IDOE's published 2025 change. IDOE published subgroup changes for 2025 but not levels. The Black/Hispanic combined 2025 figure of 76.1% and White figure of 92.3% come from Purdue authors citing SBOE 2025 materials, and reconcile exactly with the 2024 baseline plus the published delta.
The usual critique of state tests — that states set a low bar and call it proficiency — does not fit Indiana well. Indiana's ILEARN proficiency rates sit close to NAEP's, which is unusual.
Percent at or above Proficient: Indiana NAEP 2024 vs. national public
Indiana outperformed the national public average on all four NAEP measures in 2024, and Indiana reading rose while national reading fell.
| Measure | Indiana NAEP 2024, proficient+ | Nearest ILEARN figure |
|---|---|---|
| Grade 4 reading | 34% | ELA statewide ~41% |
| Grade 8 reading | 33% | ELA statewide ~41% |
| Grade 4 math | 43% | 48.0% (grade 4, 2024) |
| Grade 8 math | 31% | 31.4% (grade 8, 2024) |
NAEP figures are the published State Snapshot percentages, which NCES reports rounded to whole numbers. The 2026 NAEP was administered January–March 2026; results are not scheduled until early 2027.
Grade 8 math is nearly identical: 31% on NAEP, 31.4% on ILEARN. Indiana set its proficiency bar close to NAEP's, which is uncommon among states. The consequence is that roughly 60% of Indiana students are reported as non-proficient in any given year. Whether that is a strength (an honest standard) or a problem (a bar so high the measure stops being actionable, and one the state did not attach consequences to for five years after 2019) is a policy judgment the data alone does not settle.
Federal mapping studies reach the same place from the other direction: NCES maps most states' reading proficiency standards to NAEP Basic, not NAEP Proficient. Whichever framing you prefer, "proficient" is a policy choice, not a natural fact about children.
The reported IREAD pass rate is a cumulative figure, not a first-attempt rate, and it is not measured on a single cohort in a single sitting. This section sets out how IDOE constructs it.
| Numerator | Grade 3 students who pass in spring OR summer administration, plus grade 2 students who passed during the prior spring window. |
|---|---|
| Denominator | All grade 3 students eligible in the spring window — including students with good-cause exemptions, undetermined or invalidated scores, and non-participants. |
| Excluded | Grade 4/5 retesters; third graders with significant cognitive disabilities; students not enrolled during the spring window. |
Source: IDOE, "IREAD-3 Results & Pass Percentage Calculations." IDOE has never published a first-attempt-only figure.
Where the 2025 headline of 87.3% actually comes from
Of ~84,163 third graders in the denominator, roughly a third never sat a grade-3 IREAD at all — they had already passed as second graders and are exempt from retaking.
| Component | Students | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Third graders in the reported denominator | 84,163 | SBOE Reading Update, Nov. 5 2025 |
| Actually sat the spring 2025 grade-3 test | 55,491 | 2024–25 IREAD technical report, Table 7 |
| Never sat a grade-3 test (passed in grade 2) | ~28,672 | derived: 84,163 − 55,491 |
| Passed the spring grade-3 test | ~36,313 | derived: 55,491 × 65.44% |
| Passed a grade-3 summer retake | ~7,567 | derived: 23,558 × 32.12% |
| Total counted as passing | ~73,500 | IDOE press release, Aug. 13 2025 |
The technical report itself publishes a fourth figure: 77.42% for grade 3 once second-grade passers are folded in but before summer retakes. Three defensible "grade 3 pass rates" for the same year — 65.4%, 77.4%, and 87.3% — exist in the state's own documents. Only the largest one is in the press release.
Each of these took effect during the same period as the 4.8-point gain, and each can raise the measured rate independent of any change in reading ability. All four are defensible policy choices; all four are also confounds for year-over-year comparison.
We did not locate any source quantifying how much of the gain is attributable to these changes versus to instruction. It should be treated as an unquantified confound rather than a measured effect. 2026 is the first year in which all four are fully in place simultaneously.
2025: the first enforced year of the retention law
10,663 third graders finished grade 3 without passing IREAD-3. Roughly 69% of them were promoted anyway under good-cause exemptions.
| Special education | ~75% (~5,200) |
| English learners with <2 years of services | ~24% (~1,667) |
| Grade 3 math proficiency or prior retention | ~1% |
The five statutory good-cause exemptions are at IC 20-32-8.5-2. There is no exemption for test anxiety or poor test-taking, and neither classroom data, progress monitoring, nor parent election can override a failing score.
| Retained, 2023 (rule unenforced) | 412 |
| Retained, 2025 (first enforced year) | 3,040 |
| Legislative fiscal note projection, FY2026 | ~6,350 |
| Public forecasts at the time | 7,000–10,000 |
Between 2012 and 2023, roughly 96% of students who failed IREAD-3 advanced to fourth grade anyway. Secretary Jenner cited the gap between projection and outcome as evidence the law is working. The gap is also arithmetically accounted for by the 6,950 exemptions and the added retake opportunities; the published data does not separate these explanations.
Indiana retained roughly 3,000 third graders in 2025 and has not published the racial or socioeconomic composition of that group. Because about 69% of non-passers were exempted — predominantly students with IEPs or recent EL status — retention applies mainly to general-education students without a disability designation. Given that free/reduced-meal students pass IREAD at rates roughly 12 points below the paid-meal group, that population is likely to be disproportionately low-income, but the composition cannot be confirmed without a published breakdown.
Four things changed at once beneath the ILEARN figure. IDOE documented its decision to defer standard setting until the redesign was operational, which concentrates the resulting break in comparability into a single year. We did not locate any public statement from IDOE or SBOE on how 2026 should be compared to prior years.
"In order to support comparability of test scores across years and avoid multiple years of score delays, IDOE will not engage in standard setting activities until the new through-year design is operational."
— IDOE, Spring 2025 Test Blueprint Explanation Document
The State Board approved the new "student-centered" accountability model unanimously on March 4, 2026; Gov. Braun and AG Rokita completed adoption May 1. Its defining feature is that points are assigned student-by-student and then averaged — "N size is 1" — across 18 success indicators in four grade bands. IREAD passage is the K–3 academic-mastery gate; ILEARN across core subjects covers grades 4–8. For grade 12, diploma seals, credentials and work-based learning are 80% of the rating.
Rokita's "few D/F schools despite 33% dual proficiency" and EdTrust's "pick-any-three menu" arrive from opposite directions but describe the same mechanism: a menu-of-indicators design with N=1 scoring tends toward compressed grade distributions, because most students earn points on some indicator. That is a testable prediction, and when Year Zero grades publish in December 2026 the grade distribution will test it. Also worth tracking: whether ≥25% of schools earn an A, which triggers a 2.5-point ratchet in the scale.
The State Board's rebuttal: for K–8, 11 of 14 metrics are objective, test-based indicators — "nearly 80%" — and the final rule guarantees a school "will never generate more points for a student who has not achieved proficiency compared to a student who has achieved proficiency."
The research on nearly every element of Indiana's approach is mixed, and the two columns below are meant to be read together rather than separately. Left: the strongest documented criticism. Right: the strongest documented response. Sources for both are in the final tab.
Every credible causal estimate above is a regression discontinuity at the cut score — it identifies the effect on students who fell just barely below the line. Indiana retained 3,040 students in 2025, many of them nowhere near the margin. The literature has essentially nothing to say about the effect of retention on a student scoring far below the cut, which is exactly the population a mandatory gate captures. Özek's 2026 synthesis names this gap explicitly.
A second caveat: Florida's positive results came bundled with a mandated 90-minute reading block, a highly qualified reading teacher, and mandatory summer reading camps. Indiana's SEA 1 fiscal note states no additional state expenditure for summer school — the existing $18.36M appropriation was reprioritized. Importing Florida's gate without Florida's treatment is not importing Florida's policy.
Questions to put to the numbers — and, where relevant, to IDOE — as the August 11 results are presented. Tick them off as they are answered. Progress is saved only in this browser tab.
Every figure on this page traces to a public source. These are the places where the public record is thin, internally inconsistent, or simply absent — which is itself part of the finding.
| Item | The conflict | What this page uses |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 "both subjects" | 31.2% (Chalkbeat, Indiana Capital Chronicle, reporting off the July 2025 release) vs 33% (WFYI, August 2026) | 31.2% — consistent with the 30.2 → 30.6 → 30.8 trajectory. Note IDOE's own release contains no combined figure at all. |
| Literacy Cadre effect, 2025 | IDOE and Jenner's op-ed: Cadre schools +7 points, "nearly double" non-Cadre. SBOE's own August 2025 deck: Cadre +2.5, non-Cadre +0.2. | Both, flagged. These cannot both be the headline effect for the same year. Ask for the definition before treating "Cadre works" as established. |
| IREAD launch year | 2012 (technical reports, StateImpact) vs 2013 (IDOE press materials, Purdue) | Spring 2012 first administration; 2013 is the first year in IDOE's own longitudinal chart. |
| IREAD item count | 40 at launch (2012) · 37 (2020–21 report) · 38 (2021–23 reports) | ~38, noting the drift. |
| IREAD testing time | "90 minutes of working time" (2023–24 FAQ) vs untimed (2025–26 FAQ and current IDOE page) | Untimed, ~90 minutes of work, across at least two days. |
| Retention arithmetic, 2025 | 3,040 retained + 6,950 exempted = 9,990, against ~10,663 who did not pass — roughly 670 students unaccounted for in any source. | Both figures shown; ~673 attributed to students who left the state or moved to homeschooling. |
| Purdue's $105.6M retention cost | $105.6M ÷ $13,200 = exactly 8,000 students, but the same article reports 3,040 retained (≈$40.1M). | Flagged, not used. The figure appears to use a projected or exemption-inclusive population. |
| Schools meeting the 95% goal | 241 (2023) per IDOE vs 261 per Indiana Public Media; 284 + 179 = 463, not the reported 456. | IDOE's series: 241 → 284 → 456, with the inconsistency noted. |
| EdMetric item composition | Executive summary and Section 6: 76.9% comprehension / 12.8% phonics / 10.3% vocabulary. Table 13 of the same report: 78.5% comprehension / 12.3% vocabulary / 9.2% phonics — phonics and vocabulary ranks reversed. | The narrative figures, flagged on the chart. The 0% phonemic awareness and 0% fluency findings are identical in both. |
| Schools at 95%, 2025 | The SBOE deck reports 456 schools and describes it as "an increase of 179 from last year," which implies a 2024 base of 277, not the 284 IDOE published. | IDOE's press-release series (241 → 284 → 456), with the deck's delta noted as the outlier. |
| NAEP decimals | NCES publishes state snapshot percentages rounded to whole numbers; unrounded values from the NAEP Data Service differ by up to half a point at the rounding boundary. | The published rounded figures. |
| Number of school corporations | 291 school corporations (2022) vs 444 operating LEAs including charters (2023–24) | Both, as distinct definitions — they are not interchangeable. |
Marked as derived wherever they appear. 2021 statewide ILEARN ELA of ~40.5% is not directly published — it is reconstructed two independent ways that agree exactly (IDOE's stated +0.1 from 2021 to 2025's 40.6%, and Chalkbeat's +0.5 from 2021 to 2024's 41.0%). The IREAD 2025 funnel components (36,313 spring passers; 7,567 summer passers; 28,672 never tested in grade 3) are our arithmetic from the technical report's Table 7 and the SBOE totals; they reconstruct the published 73,500 / 87.3% to within about one point. 2025 IREAD subgroup levels are 2024 levels plus IDOE's published deltas.