Go guardian is also really useful at the elementary level you can push our one website with a push of a button to every single computer instead of having to go around and help each kid individually. I don't use it all the time but when I am using it it's extremely useful.

Anonymous wrote:So my 4th grade DC took MAP M today. Everyone in his class had big jumps in their scores. Like from 201(fall) to 234(winter), 211 (fall) to 238 (winter), etc. Their entire compact math class had huge jumps. Is this normal?

What I read into this is perhaps the original testing environment was not ideal. Maybe they had to take it on a day with other interruptions or there were some spontaneous distractions that affected the whole class, and in addition to learning, the second set of scores is more accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s terrific! It would make sense that going through content faster in the 4/5 class would move them up a significant percentile.

Unfortunately the content doesn’t move that much faster. The compacted math kids in 4th grade are maybe 3/4 of a module ahead.

It's anecdotal. Looks at the MAP growth numbers for projections based on actual data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Do you really think that all compacted math kids are 99th percentile? They are not. There is a range of kids in the compacted math class. If everyone was in 230’s that would make everyone in the 90th ish percentile. Which is why such huge jumps for everyone seem suspicious.

DP. 230, which the PP posited as being appropriate for Winter MAP-M for those in Math 4/5, would be between 94th and 95th %ile for 4th graders nationally and between 83rd and 84th %ile for 5th graders.

Given the criteria for placement in the elementary accelerated Math classes and the blend of 4th- & 5th-grade curricula in those, I don't think something close to 230 as an average expected for such a class is particularly far fetched. The hypothesis as to the cause for the lower fall scores being that the students in the class weren't studying over the summer and caught up quickly in the fall also isn't far fetched, though alternate hypotheses may make sense if presented. We probably can't get certainty beyond that level of conjecture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Why should we be comparing to a year ago? The teacher herself was comparing their fall scores to the winter ones.

The teacher may be focused on the impact feom her own class, and Fall to Winter or Spring to Winter, while it is not as high-fidelity a comparison as Winter to Winter, may be how she chooses to isolate her contributions from the prior-grade teacher's. It's not invalid, just not as reliable an indicator of a student's individual growth.

As another poster pointed out, MAP RIT scores, themselves, are reported with a confidence interval (which I'm guessing provides a 95% chance of the student's properly reflective RIT falling within that range). Over many tests, a picture of the student's learning becomes more clear. Ditto across many students. Single scores for tests of this type, while also not invalid, are less reliable.

Maybe we have entered an era of ‘ MAP score’ inflation. Lol

I doubt OP is accurately assessing what "everyone" is doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Why should we be comparing to a year ago? The teacher herself was comparing their fall scores to the winter ones.

Look at a MAP report. The error bars on a score are are +/-7

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Do you really think that all compacted math kids are 99th percentile? They are not. There is a range of kids in the compacted math class. If everyone was in 230’s that would make everyone in the 90th ish percentile. Which is why such huge jumps for everyone seem suspicious.

Are you implying the teacher helped them cheat? That seems very unlikely. Maybe they had a not so great teacher last year and a great one this year, and learned something.

I am not implying the teacher helped them cheat. I am not sure what happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Do you really think that all compacted math kids are 99th percentile? They are not. There is a range of kids in the compacted math class. If everyone was in 230’s that would make everyone in the 90th ish percentile. Which is why such huge jumps for everyone seem suspicious.

Are you implying the teacher helped them cheat? That seems very unlikely. Maybe they had a not so great teacher last year and a great one this year, and learned something.

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Do you really think that all compacted math kids are 99th percentile? They are not. There is a range of kids in the compacted math class. If everyone was in 230’s that would make everyone in the 90th ish percentile. Which is why such huge jumps for everyone seem suspicious.

Anonymous wrote:You should compare to 1 year ago, not to one season ago. 230ish is what 4th grade compacted should be.
So if those scores are accurate, it shows kids who weren't accelerating at home before this year, maybe had summer learning loss, but caught up quickly in the fall.

Why should we be comparing to a year ago? The teacher herself was comparing their fall scores to the winter ones.

Anonymous wrote:That’s terrific! It would make sense that going through content faster in the 4/5 class would move them up a significant percentile.

Unfortunately the content doesn’t move that much faster. The compacted math kids in 4th grade are maybe 3/4 of a module ahead.

OP asked if the 20-30 point jump in scores between fall and winter is common..or is it weird that most students had that big of a jump in scores?
I think it’s uncommon and I would be suspicious too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's an average MAP-M score for compacted Math in winter of 5th grade?

It varies a lot based on schools and how much outside enrichment/exposure to topics that children have received. In my 5th grade class at a Title 1 school, the average is around 235. Within the class, there are a couple of students who score as low as the low 220's (which very much matches who should absolutely not be in the class) up to my highest student scoring 250.

I know from people on this site that this is not comprable to kids in the higher SES schools, but I'm quite proud of my students. They don't get extra support at home and work so hard and their scores reflect that!

Your average is 235 at a Title 1? Something isnt adding up here for sure.

Do you think that is high or low?

In a Compacted 5-6 class, for kids who are actually ready for 5-6 and also not doing Math 8 Prealgebra at home, that's a normal average.

An average (nearly drowning) 5th grader scores 218, so CM kids should be scoring 1-2 years higher due to compaction (exposure) and to generally being better more able math students than average.

Bright kids who are studying enrichment at home / AOPS / RSM are getting up to 255 for "grade level enriched", or higher if they are already long been on an accelerated track and are now doing prealgebra or algebra(!) classes at home.

Don’t the CM 5th graders take a different test? My CM 4th grader reported multiple scores in the 240s in her class. But I am assuming those are higher than what you are saying about 5th because it’s not the same test?

Yes the CM-5 students take the 6th grade Math-M.

They take the 6th grade MAP in the Spring. Fall and winter is the grade 3-5 MAP.

No, 5th grade compacted students are taking the 6+ version all year. It was only last year that the solely took it in the spring.

Last year it wasn't uniform. At some schools, those in 5/6 in took the MAP-M 6+ in the Fall of 2022.

When a prior poster noted that MAP is built for continuity, they applied that to the wrong thing. There's a bunch on the NWEA site (NWEA produces MAP) that says the standard is to compare season over year, rather than season to season (i.e., compare Fall to the prior Fall, not to the Spring). It's not totally invalid to compare Winter to Fall, it's just a more reliable indicator when compared to the prior Winter.

NWEA talks about MAP-M 6+ being built for continuity with MAP-M 3-5. But that doesn't always hold on an individual basis. It's more of a law-of-large-numbers-based continuity (whole classes or schools), and that's among the reasons that MCPS decided to tweak their algorithm for the middle school Math magnet lottery pool to consider either the 5th-grade Fall MAP-M or the 4th-grade Spring MAP-M