MAP-R

[Anonymous]

Do you think MAP-R reflects kid's reading ability pretty accurately? It seems to me that it measures some aspects, but may not tell the whole story.

Some kids scored 245-255 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were Q and their grades in reading were a C/D. Some kids scored 210-220 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were U/V and their grades were an A.

If there were a group of kids who have similar reading ability, what kind of kids tend to do better with MAP-R, and what kind of kids tend to do worse with MAP-R?

In other words, why some kids unexpectedly (yet consistently) score high or low in MAP-R? Did anybody experience a large gap between the MAP-R score and other inputs/observations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think MAP-R reflects kid's reading ability pretty accurately? It seems to me that it measures some aspects, but may not tell the whole story.

Some kids scored 245-255 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were Q and their grades in reading were a C/D. Some kids scored 210-220 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were U/V and their grades were an A.

If there were a group of kids who have similar reading ability, what kind of kids tend to do better with MAP-R, and what kind of kids tend to do worse with MAP-R?

In other words, why some kids unexpectedly (yet consistently) score high or low in MAP-R? Did anybody experience a large gap between the MAP-R score and other inputs/observations?

THe map score and reading level both correlate to a Lexile number so they should be aligned within reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think MAP-R reflects kid's reading ability pretty accurately? It seems to me that it measures some aspects, but may not tell the whole story.

Some kids scored 245-255 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were Q and their grades in reading were a C/D. Some kids scored 210-220 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were U/V and their grades were an A.

If there were a group of kids who have similar reading ability, what kind of kids tend to do better with MAP-R, and what kind of kids tend to do worse with MAP-R?

In other words, why some kids unexpectedly (yet consistently) score high or low in MAP-R? Did anybody experience a large gap between the MAP-R score and other inputs/observations?

THe map score and reading level both correlate to a Lexile number so they should be aligned within reason.

I mentioned this to DC's teacher when they were in 3rd grade and she agreed and moved them to the appropriate group. A few months later the kid went from S to Z anyway and reading groups ceased to matter.

[Anonymous]

In upper elementary grades, a student’s reading level isn’t determined just by their MAP-R score. Teachers place students into reading groups by their ability — but then all of the kids in a reading group are receiving instruction at the same level, so their reading level is “S” or whatever because that’s their instructional level, but that doesn’t mean they all have identical abilities. In both of my twins’ third grade classes, there were 4 reading groups: above grade level, grade level, below grade level, and not really reading independently. Every kid who read above grade level was in the same reading group, so they all had the same instructional level, whether they read 1, 2 or 3 grade levels ahead, and therefore were considered to be at the same reading level. Different classes moved at different paces, so my twin with the lower MAP-R scores had a higher reading level than my twin in the other class, who had the higher MAP-R.

[Anonymous]

Also, their writing has to match their reading level. They may be able to read at a higher level, but until they can write and analyze at the same level, they won’t move up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, their writing has to match their reading level. They may be able to read at a higher level, but until they can write and analyze at the same level, they won’t move up.

This system caused no amount of anxiety for my kid. They were reading several grade levels ahead of their peers but was kept in a lower reading group (reading basically picture books) because their writing lagged. Turns out they had dysgraphia.

I mention this to say: if your kid is bored or not challenged in their reading group, push for a higher reading level and try to get support for the writing issues. My kid eventually was allowed to do voice to text and/or have a scribe.

Also know that writing instruction is pretty poor within MCPS. We had to go elsewhere and now that they've gotten explicit writing instruction, my kid is above grade level in that area as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In upper elementary grades, a student’s reading level isn’t determined just by their MAP-R score. Teachers place students into reading groups by their ability — but then all of the kids in a reading group are receiving instruction at the same level, so their reading level is “S” or whatever because that’s their instructional level, but that doesn’t mean they all have identical abilities. In both of my twins’ third grade classes, there were 4 reading groups: above grade level, grade level, below grade level, and not really reading independently. Every kid who read above grade level was in the same reading group, so they all had the same instructional level, whether they read 1, 2 or 3 grade levels ahead, and therefore were considered to be at the same reading level. Different classes moved at different paces, so my twin with the lower MAP-R scores had a higher reading level than my twin in the other class, who had the higher MAP-R.

At least one year the teacher put DC in a group because their previous teacher had tested them. I suggested it wasn't accurate but they told me I didn't know what I was talking about. At the end of the year when a different teacher-tested DC it turns out they were reading 12 levels above the group, they had been assigned to. My point is teachers have a lot of students to test and limited time. This isn't always accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think MAP-R reflects kid's reading ability pretty accurately? It seems to me that it measures some aspects, but may not tell the whole story.

Some kids scored 245-255 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were Q and their grades in reading were a C/D. Some kids scored 210-220 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were U/V and their grades were an A.

If there were a group of kids who have similar reading ability, what kind of kids tend to do better with MAP-R, and what kind of kids tend to do worse with MAP-R?

In other words, why some kids unexpectedly (yet consistently) score high or low in MAP-R? Did anybody experience a large gap between the MAP-R score and other inputs/observations?

I think MAP-R is more accurate than subjective teacher assessment which skew against kids with behavior and learning disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think MAP-R reflects kid's reading ability pretty accurately? It seems to me that it measures some aspects, but may not tell the whole story.

Some kids scored 245-255 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were Q and their grades in reading were a C/D. Some kids scored 210-220 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were U/V and their grades were an A.

If there were a group of kids who have similar reading ability, what kind of kids tend to do better with MAP-R, and what kind of kids tend to do worse with MAP-R?

In other words, why some kids unexpectedly (yet consistently) score high or low in MAP-R? Did anybody experience a large gap between the MAP-R score and other inputs/observations?

I think MAP-R is more accurate than subjective teacher assessment which skew against kids with behavior and learning disabilities.

Yes I prefer external measures also. Many teachers seem to have their preferences and biases. Thankfully mcps seems to be aware of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think MAP-R reflects kid's reading ability pretty accurately? It seems to me that it measures some aspects, but may not tell the whole story.

Some kids scored 245-255 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were Q and their grades in reading were a C/D. Some kids scored 210-220 with MAP-Reading, but the teacher said their reading levels were U/V and their grades were an A.

If there were a group of kids who have similar reading ability, what kind of kids tend to do better with MAP-R, and what kind of kids tend to do worse with MAP-R?

In other words, why some kids unexpectedly (yet consistently) score high or low in MAP-R? Did anybody experience a large gap between the MAP-R score and other inputs/observations?

I think MAP-R is more accurate than subjective teacher assessment which skew against kids with behavior and learning disabilities.

Yes I prefer external measures also. Many teachers seem to have their preferences and biases. Thankfully mcps seems to be aware of this.

I agree. I think standardized tests can identify a student who might be overlooked in class, but you will never have a good in-person student moved down because of a standardized test. It's a good tool as long as it's used properly.

[Anonymous]

When dc was in fifth grade, dc was assigned to a lower reading group. 3/4 of the way through the school year, when dc’s teacher found out dc was invited to a MS humanities magnet (this was before it was a lottery), teacher moved dc to the highest reading group and casually mentioned to me that s/he had never looked at dc’s MAP-R when assigning reading groups. I was stunned by the candor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When dc was in fifth grade, dc was assigned to a lower reading group. 3/4 of the way through the school year, when dc’s teacher found out dc was invited to a MS humanities magnet (this was before it was a lottery), teacher moved dc to the highest reading group and casually mentioned to me that s/he had never looked at dc’s MAP-R when assigning reading groups. I was stunned by the candor.

Similar experience here. Teacher told my son and I that she was "surprised" my son was selected. He would also score high on MAP-R but she apparently never looked at it. He was in the lowest group with the ESOL students prior. True story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When dc was in fifth grade, dc was assigned to a lower reading group. 3/4 of the way through the school year, when dc’s teacher found out dc was invited to a MS humanities magnet (this was before it was a lottery), teacher moved dc to the highest reading group and casually mentioned to me that s/he had never looked at dc’s MAP-R when assigning reading groups. I was stunned by the candor.

Similar experience here. Teacher told my son and I that she was "surprised" my son was selected. He would also score high on MAP-R but she apparently never looked at it. He was in the lowest group with the ESOL students prior. True story.

Do you think this was a situation where race played a role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When dc was in fifth grade, dc was assigned to a lower reading group. 3/4 of the way through the school year, when dc’s teacher found out dc was invited to a MS humanities magnet (this was before it was a lottery), teacher moved dc to the highest reading group and casually mentioned to me that s/he had never looked at dc’s MAP-R when assigning reading groups. I was stunned by the candor.

Similar experience here. Teacher told my son and I that she was "surprised" my son was selected. He would also score high on MAP-R but she apparently never looked at it. He was in the lowest group with the ESOL students prior. True story.

Do you think this was a situation where race played a role?

No. But a learning disability did.

[Anonymous]

Separately from reading level, grades can diverge from MAP-R scores for a number of reasons. Sometimes there's some disability or neurodivergence that means the kid can read very well, but isn't as good at writing or even answering some kinds of questions about reading. Other times the kid just... doesn't do their work. The teacher could be biased. Etc etc