MAP winter score

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who uploads these scores and the documents into ParentVue? I assumed it should be an automated process but that does not explain why some schools have scores uploaded before the others. My child's teacher does not seem to be the one doing the uploads. Any teachers/staff here know who does this?

It's in the test scores section.

Yes, thats where it should be but is not yet uploaded for my child. Which is why I was wondering how these get uploaded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader scored 99th percentile in fall and improved by 3 pts. She’s learning absolutely nothing from her teacher this year so I’m not surprised.

That’s the expected growth for a 5th grader, so she’s right on target?

She’s supposed to be learning 5th and 6th grade math this yr so I would’ve expected more.

But you said she’s learning nothing, so it sounds like she already knew most of the content coming in. If that’s the case, it’s going to be tough to show much growth.

Do these tests not measure growth for AAP students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader scored 99th percentile in fall and improved by 3 pts. She’s learning absolutely nothing from her teacher this year so I’m not surprised.

That’s the expected growth for a 5th grader, so she’s right on target?

She’s supposed to be learning 5th and 6th grade math this yr so I would’ve expected more.

But you said she’s learning nothing, so it sounds like she already knew most of the content coming in. If that’s the case, it’s going to be tough to show much growth.

Do these tests not measure growth for AAP students?

AAP students should be near the top percentile so measured growth will be limited. There are structural limits, so a 4th grader working at 6th grade level would be near the ceiling showing little growth. After grade 6, the ceiling is higher which explains why higher grades post scores in the 300s.

[Anonymous]

Found the answer to my own question. Grade level norms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader scored 99th percentile in fall and improved by 3 pts. She’s learning absolutely nothing from her teacher this year so I’m not surprised.

That’s the expected growth for a 5th grader, so she’s right on target?

She’s supposed to be learning 5th and 6th grade math this yr so I would’ve expected more.

But you said she’s learning nothing, so it sounds like she already knew most of the content coming in. If that’s the case, it’s going to be tough to show much growth.

Do these tests not measure growth for AAP students?

Several issues (a limited test ceiling, etc.) have been mentioned.

Here's what I run into: I teach 5th grade advanced math (6th grade content). Some of my kids come in with outside prep already having had the 6th grade material. I have a lot of parents who have their kids complete the Khan Academy VA 6th grade course or do tutoring for the 6th grade content during the summer. Maybe they don't have the best or deepest mastery of it, but they've had a lot of exposure, and it's typically very recent exposure if they crammed over the summer. So these particular kids do quite well on the fall tests. The curriculum I am required to teach is the the 6th grade material, and I have many kids who the content is completely new to. I enrich where I can, but kids with a lot of outside prep are just not going to show a ton of growth, especially in the first half of the year.

Very bright kids who just love math but who haven't done outside prep usually show quite a bit of growth (not always due to bad days, standard error of measurement, etc.) No matter how smart you are, you aren't going to know what an exponent is, for example, unless someone has taught you or you've looked it up. The kids who are just sponges for math really get the new content deeply and quickly once they're taught. So lots of growth because they didn't get questions right on the fall test that they ace on the winter test.

I will say this is mostly based on iReady. We haven't had MAP long enough for me to see if these generalizations hold up with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader scored 99th percentile in fall and improved by 3 pts. She’s learning absolutely nothing from her teacher this year so I’m not surprised.

That’s the expected growth for a 5th grader, so she’s right on target?

She’s supposed to be learning 5th and 6th grade math this yr so I would’ve expected more.

But you said she’s learning nothing, so it sounds like she already knew most of the content coming in. If that’s the case, it’s going to be tough to show much growth.

Do these tests not measure growth for AAP students?

Several issues (a limited test ceiling, etc.) have been mentioned.

Here's what I run into: I teach 5th grade advanced math (6th grade content). Some of my kids come in with outside prep already having had the 6th grade material. I have a lot of parents who have their kids complete the Khan Academy VA 6th grade course or do tutoring for the 6th grade content during the summer. Maybe they don't have the best or deepest mastery of it, but they've had a lot of exposure, and it's typically very recent exposure if they crammed over the summer. So these particular kids do quite well on the fall tests. The curriculum I am required to teach is the the 6th grade material, and I have many kids who the content is completely new to. I enrich where I can, but kids with a lot of outside prep are just not going to show a ton of growth, especially in the first half of the year.

Very bright kids who just love math but who haven't done outside prep usually show quite a bit of growth (not always due to bad days, standard error of measurement, etc.) No matter how smart you are, you aren't going to know what an exponent is, for example, unless someone has taught you or you've looked it up. The kids who are just sponges for math really get the new content deeply and quickly once they're taught. So lots of growth because they didn't get questions right on the fall test that they ace on the winter test.

I will say this is mostly based on iReady. We haven't had MAP long enough for me to see if these generalizations hold up with it.

I have a kid who I believe is in your second group. We don't really do math enrichment at home. His score jumped 30+ points from fall to winter. The fall score wasn't bad, but the winter score is excellent. The same was true when he did Iready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 5th grader scored 99th percentile in fall and improved by 3 pts. She’s learning absolutely nothing from her teacher this year so I’m not surprised.

That’s the expected growth for a 5th grader, so she’s right on target?

She’s supposed to be learning 5th and 6th grade math this yr so I would’ve expected more.

But you said she’s learning nothing, so it sounds like she already knew most of the content coming in. If that’s the case, it’s going to be tough to show much growth.

Do these tests not measure growth for AAP students?

They do, DS was in Advanced math, we deferred AAP. He always had growth even though his initial scores were above grade level. He did do outside enrichment, he asked for harder math. He ended up starting math competitions in 4th grade because he wanted to try harder math.

[Anonymous]

IReady always showed growth even at 99th percentile for every test DC took in the last few years. This is the first year with MAP but it seems that it’s not any better, if not worse, at measuring growth, which I thought was the main reason for the change. With MAP he was 99th percentile again but showed no growth vs the fall test. He’s a sponge for math and has tackled a lot of new problems on his own, so in theory that should have been more growth. I’ve concluded this is more a school and FCPS-level assessment of growth performance rather than a tool to provide a meaningful signal for kids that are a little more advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, however that document is not yet available for Winter MAP math, while the score is already posted in the test history section for a week now.

There is another poster that posted the MAP norms link to help eager parents to look at the percentile before FCPS uploads the official doc.

You can look up National norms on the NWEA website. It compares students in each test window to students nationally, with margins of +/- SD error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, however that document is not yet available for Winter MAP math, while the score is already posted in the test history section for a week now.

There is another poster that posted the MAP norms link to help eager parents to look at the percentile before FCPS uploads the official doc.

You can look up National norms on the NWEA website. It compares students in each test window to students nationally, with margins of +/- SD error.

Yes the MAP link I mentioned was from the NWEA website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IReady always showed growth even at 99th percentile for every test DC took in the last few years. This is the first year with MAP but it seems that it’s not any better, if not worse, at measuring growth, which I thought was the main reason for the change. With MAP he was 99th percentile again but showed no growth vs the fall test. He’s a sponge for math and has tackled a lot of new problems on his own, so in theory that should have been more growth. I’ve concluded this is more a school and FCPS-level assessment of growth performance rather than a tool to provide a meaningful signal for kids that are a little more advanced.

MAP is one of the most highly-regarded tests out there. IReady is quite silly as its attached to curriculum (not all schools/districts purchase that component). Their reports look nice for families but not great for instructional purposes . MAP is pretty much the gold standard for any real standardized computer adaptive test out there. The teacher-facing reports are amazing (for math) if teachers know how to use them.

[Anonymous]

My DC tested higher in math but one point lower in reading. There is a margin of error that means that your child could score slightly lower and higher just due to the test variability. Was it a huge change or a small one?