i-Ready is a widely used ed tech product in K-12, especially in elementary and middle grades. According to Curriculum Estimates, the product “serves” about 17 million K-8 students, 1 million educators, and thousands of districts nationwide. It’s probably the most widely used product in K-8 in US.

It touts itself as “Evidence-Based Curriculum You Can Trust.”

(Note to myself: “How Evidence-Based is it?”)

i-Ready in the News

NBC New recently ran the following segment “Widely used educational software that makes kids ‘miserable’ faces backlash.” (See embedded video below). Most kids seem to hate it, despite “gamification” and cutesy stuff throughout the lessons. A major reason for the backlash is growing skepticism about “screen time”. I am sympathetic to the backlash.

Curriculum Associates is private-equity backed. CA by Permira, Berkshire Partners, and Hellman & Friedman.

(Thought to myself: Private Equity seems to be everywhere these days.)

Efficacy

On the Curriculum Associates website, i-Ready efficacy is described as:

i-Ready Personalized Instruction has been rigorously studied at scale (emphasis mine). The evidence base includes large quasi-experimental studies, longitudinal studies, third-party research, and independent external review. Across those studies, the pattern is consistent:

(Note to myself: If the claim is indeed true, why does no one in the research community know anything about it.)

Studies I will be Examining

I will be examining the following studies listed as a “showcase” sample of “our extensive evidence base.”

• ”Across 1,500 schools and more than 120,000 students nationwide, a third-party study found that striving learners (defined as students who place two or more grade levels below their chronological grade) in Grades 2–5 who used i-Ready outperformed non-users in reading, with effect sizes from .12 to .14.ⁱⁱⁱ The study was reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

• Across 1,000 districts and more than 100,000 students in Texas, researchers found that students in Grades 4–8 using i-Ready as recommended outperformed non-users on the state assessment in reading and mathematics, with effects described as moderate to large depending on grade and subject.

• Across six districts and more than 1,500 students in Massachusetts, researchers found that Grade 5 students using i-Ready outperformed non-users on the state assessment, with effect sizes of .23 in mathematics and .12 in reading. The study was reviewed by Evidence for ESSA .

• Across 10 states, 13 districts, and more than 9,000 students, a longitudinal third-party study by the Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) found that students using i-Ready as recommended from Grades 3–5 scored .24 standard deviations higher on state mathematics assessments by Grade 5.

• Across 27 states, more than 400 districts, and over 964,000 students, researchers found that students using i-Ready as recommended scored higher on state tests, with differences ranging from .14 to .24 standard deviations.”
  

Curriculum Associates also note that the research has been independently validated: “Third-party research from respected, national research organizations such as HumRRO, Johns Hopkins University Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE), and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, as well as reviews by Evidence for ESSA and What Works Clearinghouse.”

(Note to myself: What Works Clearinghouse is a “leading federal source of evidence-based information about eduction programs, policies, and interventions that show promise for improving student outcomes.” WWC is also affiliated with the prestigious AIR (American Institutes for Research.)

My Approach

It takes me at least several full days to read a research paper thoroughly. I don’t have that kind of time for this effort. I wouldn’t do it even if someone paid me. Most research is poorly written and I would have to wade through obfuscation and machismo to get to the main points. My approach, therefore, will be to skim through the papers and ask the basic questions. I will also use AI (primarily Claude Opus 4.7) to confirm my reading. I will walk you through my process so you will see my train of thought, not just the results.

Stock charts have been rattling around in my head the past few weeks.

A Tale of Four Companies

D2L, which runs course management software for universities, is down 58% over the past year. McGraw Hill, the textbook and digital learning giant that went public in July 2025, is down about 23% over the past year. Apollo Global Management — one of the kings of private equity and private credit — also down 23%. And Blackboard, once the dominant force in university course management, just emerged from bankruptcy with a new private equity owner.

These are not the same company, not the same business, not even the same problem. But they rhyme.

Desire2Learn (D2L)

Start with D2L. It’s actually a solid, well-run company — Canadian, founder-led, not weighed down by private equity. And it’s still down 58%. That tells you something about the headwinds facing educational technology broadly. D2L is getting caught in that current despite doing most things right.

Now add private equity into the mix, and the problem compounds.

McGraw Hill

McGraw Hill is majority-owned by Platinum Equity, which paid $4.7 billion for it in 2021. Platinum remains its largest shareholder after the IPO in July 2025. The company’s balance sheet is heavily levered, with a debt-to-equity at 348% as of March 20, 2026. The cash flow is real — over $500 million in levered free cash flow — but a significant chunk of that is spoken for. Platinum needs an exit. The clock is running.

That creates a specific kind of problem. The companies best positioned to navigate AI will need to make patient, long-term bets — rebuilding platforms, rethinking content, investing in what actually works. PE ownership, by its nature, is not structured for patience. The incentives point toward extracting value, cleaning up the balance sheet, and finding a buyer. D2L faces a stiff headwind. McGraw Hill faces that same headwind, plus the weight of leverage and a private equity clock ticking in the background.

Blackboard

We already have a cautionary tale. Blackboard, once the dominant force in course management, spent years under private equity ownership, underinvested, and gradually lost ground to Canvas and D2L. It was folded into Anthology, which filed for Chapter 11 earlier this year, and has now emerged under new owners: Nexus Capital Management, a private equity firm, and Oaktree Capital Management, a broader alternatives manager with private equity exposure. Same movie, second reel. There won’t be much to work with, and the competitive window isn’t getting any wider.

Apollo Global Management

Apollo’s decline is a different thread — macro sentiment on alternative assets, rising rate pressures on private credit. But it connects. The PE and private credit model that funded so many of these education companies is itself under pressure.

Wrap-Up

I’m not arguing these companies are headed to zero. McGraw Hill, for example, has real revenue, real customers, and trades at around 9x forward earnings — cheap, if you believe the cash flows hold. But cheap and investable are different things.

D2L has superb employees and solid leadership, and in the current global environment, being a Canadian brand might actually count for something —I wouldn’t count them out, but they have one tough road ahead.

The deeper question for us: in a moment when education technology genuinely needs reinvention, who has both the incentive and the financial freedom to do it?