Many schools are considering running the Readiness Math Assessment (RMA) twice—once as a pretest and again as a posttest. The intention is understandable: we want evidence of improvement.
But the RMA works best when we use it for what it was designed to do: screen readiness and guide support and scaffolding. It should not replace two different assessments that serve different purposes:
- an Learning Competecny (LC) -aligned diagnostic pretest (to pinpoint competency gaps and misconceptions), and
- an Learning Competency (LC) -aligned achievement posttest/performance task (to document what learners learned after instruction)
Why? Because readiness is not the same as mastery. If we treat readiness items as both the “diagnostic” and the “achievement” measure, we risk making the wrong instructional decisions—and reporting gains that may reflect test familiarity rather than genuine learning.
A balanced approach is more defensible and more useful:
- Use RMA to identify who needs support and what prerequisites may require scaffolding.
- Use a short LC-aligned diagnostic to identify misconceptions and competency-level needs.
- Use an LC-aligned posttest/performance task to measure learning outcomes.
Here’s a quick reference table to understand what these three assessment practice:
Readiness vs PreTest vs Posttest
| RMA (Readiness Math Assessment) | Diagnostic Pretest (LC-aligned) | Achievement Posttest / Performance Task (LC-aligned) | |
| Main purpose | Screen readiness; flag prerequisite vulnerabilities | Diagnose learning needs for the specific LCs to be taught | Evaluate learning of the taught LCs (mastery + depth) |
| Core question | “Are learners ready to engage?” | “What exactly do learners not yet understand—and why?” | “Did learners learn what we taught?” |
| Best timing | Before instruction (and optional readiness monitoring) | Before instruction / start of unit | After instruction / end of unit |
| What it measures | Prerequisite foundations (broad indicators) | Competency-level understanding + misconceptions | Mastery + reasoning/problem solving/communication |
| What it supports | Scaffolding, pacing, grouping, interventions | Targeted teaching decisions per LC | Reteaching/enrichment; documenting outcomes |
| What it should NOT replace | Not a substitute for diagnostic pretest or achievement posttest | Not a substitute for readiness screening or achievement reporting | Not a substitute for readiness screening; not “repeat RMA to claim gains” |
Bottom line: We should encourage teachers to use the RMA—as a readiness screener that supports teaching—while protecting instructional quality and credibility by using LC-aligned diagnostic and achievement measures for what the school truly needs to know.