For schools, academies and university programmes
What this does for a class, and what it does not do for an institution
Reach120 is TOEFL practice software a teacher can put in front of a class today. It is not an institutional platform, and this is written so you can work out which one you need before anyone books a call.
What follows is the build as it stands: what a teacher can do this afternoon, and the list of things institutions routinely require that this product does not have. The second list is longer than the first.
The 2026 test, in the published wording
Each statement below is quoted from the claims record behind this site, which names the source it was read from. Nothing here is our summary of the specification.
The scale your paperwork refers to
The reporting change is the part that reaches an institution first, because it lands in documents written long before anybody looked at a practice tool.
For TOEFL tests taken on or after January 21, 2026, official score reports use a 1–6 scale in half-band increments.
A requirement your programme publishes in the old numbers now describes a report your applicants no longer receive.
Claims record E-001 · source
During ETS's transition through January 2028, reports also include a comparable overall estimate on the previous 0–120 scale.
For the length of the transition an applicant may hand you a report carrying both, so a reader who knows only one of them can still misread it.
Claims record E-002
Before January 21, 2026, TOEFL iBT reported scores as ‘Reading (0-30) Listening (0-30) Speaking (0-30) Writing (0-30) Total (0-120).’
The wording most existing admissions pages and course handbooks still use, kept here so you can find the sentences that need rewriting.
Claims record E-023 · source
What the test contains
Enough of the specification to plan a course against, rather than to plan a course against a memory of the previous one.
The current Writing section lists 12 items: 10 Build a Sentence items, one Write an Email task, and one Academic Discussion task.
The count matters for pacing: most of the writing section is the short task teachers tend to spend the least class time on.
Claims record E-003 · source
The 2026 specification lists the Writing section at 12 items and 20 maximum raw points.
What a whole writing section is worth in raw points, which is the figure to teach against rather than a converted band.
Claims record E-015
Per the 2026 specification, the maximum points per Build a Sentence item is 1.
Each of those items is worth the same whether it is easy or hard for the student in front of you.
Claims record E-016
Build a Sentence represents 10 of the 20 listed maximum raw points in the Writing specification.
Half the writing section sits in the task type that is quickest to drill, which is where a short course buys back the most.
Claims record E-004
The 2026 Reading and Listening sections use multistage adaptive designs; Speaking and Writing are linear.
Reading and listening adapt as the student works, so students sitting side by side can be answering different item sets, and the habit of comparing raw answers afterwards stops working.
Claims record E-005 · source
The 2026 specification lists the Reading section at 50 items and 35 raw points, with task types Complete the Words, Read in Daily Life, and Read an Academic Passage.
What a reading section costs in class time, and the task names to set homework by.
Claims record E-009 · source
The 2026 specification lists the Listening section at 47 items and 35 raw points, with task types Listen and Choose a Response, Listen to a Conversation, Listen to an Announcement, and Listen to an Academic Talk.
The same for listening, where the task names changed more than the skills did.
Claims record E-010
The 2026 specification lists the Speaking section at 11 items and 55 raw points, with task types Listen and Repeat (7 items) and Take an Interview (4 items).
The same for speaking, which is the section most prep courses under-serve.
Claims record E-011
The 2026 specification lists 120 total items, 145 total raw points, and an estimated total test time between 1 hour 23 minutes and 1 hour 29 minutes.
The whole test is shorter than the timetable slot many programmes still reserve for it.
Claims record E-012
The 2026 specification lists estimated section times of 18–21 min router plus a 9 min module (Reading), an 18 min router plus a 7 or 11 min module (Listening), 23 min (Writing), and 8 min (Speaking), in a two-stage router-plus-module adaptive design for Reading and Listening.
Section timings, for anyone building a mock schedule that matches the current test rather than the retired one.
Claims record E-014
How responses are marked
The distinction to teach before a student argues with any practice result, including one produced here.
Reading and Listening items are machine-scored selected responses; the Write an Email, Write for an Academic Discussion, and all Speaking tasks are AI-scored constructed responses, per the specification's item-type notes.
Which parts of the test are marked against a key and which are marked against a rubric. A class that treats the second kind as arithmetic will argue with every mark it gets.
Claims record E-013
ETS states that its mock-test scores come from a system it calls TOEFL AI Lite — ‘built for speed and immediate feedback, helping you identify strengths and weaknesses in real-time’ — and that ‘when you take the real test, it is scored by a different system called TOEFL AI Deep’, which ‘takes a more comprehensive approach’ and ‘integrates with advanced security protocols with a human in the loop, to ensure your official score is accurate, fair, and recognized by institutions worldwide.’ ETS also states: ‘You might see some small differences between your mock test scores and your real test scores, and that's totally normal.’
Worth reading in full before any practice tool, this one included, is treated by a programme as a predictor of a real result.
Claims record E-030 · source
What a teacher can do today
Classes a teacher creates without waiting on us
A teacher makes a class in the workspace and students join it themselves — by a private invite link, by a class code they type on their dashboard, or by scanning the code from a projected slide. There is no roster to send us and nothing for your IT team to install.
Assignments that follow your syllabus, not ours
The teacher picks the task type, writes the instructions and sets the due date. There is no fixed course a cohort has to be marched through, so this fits alongside a programme you already run rather than replacing it.
The response behind every score
A teacher opens any submission and reads the response itself, the rubric reasoning, the line-level corrections, and what the feedback does not cover. A moderator checking a colleague’s judgement gets the same view.
A per-student record a teacher can open mid-term
Assigned, completed and outstanding work sits in one class queue, with each student’s history behind their name. It answers the question a programme lead asks in week six, which is who has stopped working.
A consent screen the student reads before anything is shared
Whatever route a student arrives by, they see the same screen naming exactly what their teacher will and will not see, and accepting it is the only way into the class. They can leave from their own settings, and the teacher can remove them.
Practice that matches the 2026 test rather than the old one
Every task type across the reading, listening, speaking and writing sections follows the current format, and the map behind it links to the ETS specification with the date it was read. Retired formats are labelled as retired instead of quietly left in.
A feedback report that leaves the platform
Any scored response exports as a PDF the student keeps and the teacher can attach to a tutorial record. Nothing a learner has produced is locked to an account that stops being paid for.
What this product does not have
These are the requirements institutions bring, and the status of each one in the build as it stands. None of them is on a promised date, because none has been scheduled.
Single sign-on with our identity provider
Not builtStudents and teachers sign in with their own email address or a Google account. There is no SAML or OIDC connection to a university directory, so accounts are not provisioned or deprovisioned by your systems.
An LMS integration (Moodle, Canvas, Blackboard)
Not builtNothing here is an LTI tool and no grade passes back to a gradebook. A teacher shares the class code from wherever they already talk to the cohort, and carries results across by hand or by the exported report.
Bulk enrolment from a student information system
Not builtThere is no roster upload and no CSV import. Every student joins by their own action, which is also what makes the consent screen meaningful — an account created for somebody has not agreed to anything.
An administrator account over several teachers
Not builtThere is one teacher role and it sees its own classes. A department head cannot look across colleagues, and no cross-class or cohort-level analytics view exists.
An invoice, a purchase order, or seats bought centrally
Individual plans onlyAccess is sold as the same self-serve plans an individual learner buys, paid by card. There is no seat pool, no site licence, no invoicing and no procurement paperwork. If that is a blocker, say so in the first message rather than the last.
A signed DPA, or a compliance certification
Not builtNo certification is claimed — not FERPA, not GDPR certification, not COPPA, and no SOC audit report. What is actually true about data handling is written in the privacy policy, and a data-protection question goes to the privacy mailbox where it is answered rather than badged.
Supervised or proctored testing for placement
Not builtThis is practice software. Nothing here supervises a test-taker, verifies who is typing, or produces a result an admissions office should treat as an assessment.
What this page does not claim
- No customer list, and no logos. Naming a school implies a reference we have not asked permission for, and a logo wall on a page like this is usually a list of trials.
- No write-up of a school that piloted this, and no count of institutions. Neither has been run and measured, so there is nothing to report — a page describing one would be describing something that did not happen.
- No quoted teacher, programme lead or student, and no star badge. Nothing published here is a person’s words unless that person agreed to it for this surface, and nobody has.
- No score-gain figure and no improvement claim, for your students or anyone else’s. None has been evidenced, so none appears anywhere on this site.
- No comparison to an official rater. Reach120 produces a practice estimate. It is not examiner-level, ETS-trained or ETS-calibrated, and how the scoring works is written up rather than asserted.
- No compliance badge. Certifications are listed above as things this product does not have, which is the honest place for them.
The Reach120 guide for institutions
The current test in the wording of the published specification, then what a teacher can do with this software today and the list of institutional requirements it does not meet. The same material as this page, in one file you can forward to whoever signs.
Email me the Reach120 guide for institutions and occasional notes for teachers and programme leads. My address is not sold or shared, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe link.
Prefer not to give an address? Every sentence in the guide is already on this page. The file is the portable copy, for forwarding to whoever else has to read it.
How to reach a person
Reach120 is one person, so support is not outsourced to anyone else. We have not answered enough messages to measure a reply time, so we do not state one. Write to partnerships@reach120.com, or use the contact form, which has a field for your organisation. Data-protection questions go to privacy@reach120.com.