So am I understanding this correctly?

For a 5th grader in 5/6 math who took the MAP M this fall, they have to use the 4th grade MAP score because they never took the 5th grade MAP right?

FAQ’s updated this week:

My student is in math 5/6, and will be taking a MAP M test aligned with this class which is different from the MAP M for math 5 students. What is the impact of this on the central review process for my student? To ensure the most optimum outcome for local norming for students who are taking a new MAP M this year, students will have the best local normed score of either their Grade 4 MAP M or Grade 5 MAP M considered for central review. In other words, a review of Grade 4 and Grade 5 MAP M will be conducted, and the higher local norm of the two will be used for the central review process.

Anonymous wrote:So for 5th graders taking MAP 6+ in the fall, are the RIT scores on the same scale as MAP 2-5? Do you look at the 5th grade row for percentile or 6th grade row?

Yes.

5th grade.

So for 5th graders taking MAP 6+ in the fall, are the RIT scores on the same scale as MAP 2-5? Do you look at the 5th grade row for percentile or 6th grade row?

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of you are making a big deal out of nothing. The percentiles for the Map 2-5 and 6+ are based on the RIT score. The RIT is supposed to show growth, the tests have overlap, one just goes lower and the other extends higher.

Here is how NWEA defines the RIT score:

What are the characteristics of the RIT scales?

These RIT scales are stable, equal interval scales that use individual item difficulty values to measure student achievement independent of grade level (that is, across grades). "Equal interval" means that the difference between scores is the same regardless of whether a student is at the top, bottom, or middle of the RIT scale. "Stable" means that the scores on the same scale from different students, or from the same students at different times, can be directly compared, even though different sets of test items are administered. A RIT score also has the same meaning regardless of the grade or age of the student.

In summary, the RIT scale is:
An achievement scale
Accurate
Equal interval
Useful for measuring growth over time
The same regardless of the grade or age of the student

source: https://connection.nwea.org/s/article/What-is-the-RIT-scale?language=en_US#:~:text=A%20RIT%20score%20measures%20a,calibrated%20at%20that%20RIT%20level.

I think a lot of people are making a big deal of MAP 6+ when there’s very little in formation on what results actually mean and what content is being tested. For example I could never find if MAP is testing precalculus (what topics exactly).

Often parents post their middle school students scores in the 99 percentile for 12 graders, but it’s really obvious there are are very few students capable of this feat. I have some serious doubts on accuracy and grade and age independence of the test, as used by the district.

I get most people care about MAP for math placement, but I find it odd that the placement doesn’t even follow the NWEA guidelines for Algebra readiness.

Other tests used for placement like IAAT or MDTP are much more transparent with the contents and interpretation of the results.

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of you are making a big deal out of nothing. The percentiles for the Map 2-5 and 6+ are based on the RIT score. The RIT is supposed to show growth, the tests have overlap, one just goes lower and the other extends higher.

Here is how NWEA defines the RIT score:

What are the characteristics of the RIT scales?

These RIT scales are stable, equal interval scales that use individual item difficulty values to measure student achievement independent of grade level (that is, across grades). "Equal interval" means that the difference between scores is the same regardless of whether a student is at the top, bottom, or middle of the RIT scale. "Stable" means that the scores on the same scale from different students, or from the same students at different times, can be directly compared, even though different sets of test items are administered. A RIT score also has the same meaning regardless of the grade or age of the student.

In summary, the RIT scale is:
An achievement scale
Accurate
Equal interval
Useful for measuring growth over time
The same regardless of the grade or age of the student

source: https://connection.nwea.org/s/article/What-is-the-RIT-scale?language=en_US#:~:text=A%20RIT%20score%20measures%20a,calibrated%20at%20that%20RIT%20level.

I think you are being dismissive of reasonable critiques. MAP is a pretty good test when used as intended -- evaluation of school/system efficacy across large populations and multiple longitudinal data points (where stochastic analysis is more valid), and as a guide for individual teaching plans when considered with other student-specific factors. (Those don't have to be other test scores, but might include close teacher observation, etc.)

MAP has too much uncertainty, certainly with any single-test data point, to play a gate-keeping role for enriched and accelerated programs, given the aims of those programs to meet need, which is as much ability-related (MAP doesn't test for that) as it might be achievement-related (MAP generally tests for this, which is highly correlated to exposure, which not all highly-able students may have). If used in a robust heuristic with other standardized tests and across multiple data points, it may well help to identify readiness/need, but MCPS simply doesn't use it the right way.

The individual variability issues with the shift to the 6+ test have been well noted. It's very poor judgement for MCPS to have that differential introduced for some, but not others, at the exact point that they use scores under their current paradigm to place students in next year's criteria-based magnet lottery (which also serves as the guarantee of more advanced local placement).

Borrowing from your post, in summary, the RIT scale is:

An achievement scale (sure, but that isn't the whole point)
Accurate (across larger data sets, but not necessarily on an individual basis, especially at a single point in time)
Equal interval (yes)
Useful for measuring growth over time (across multiple data points and with other student-specific observations, given the uncertainty inherent in the single-point-in-time score for an individual student)
The same regardless of the grade or age of the student (again, with reasonable certainty on average across larger data sets, but without that certainty for individuals at single points, and with greater individual uncertainty with a shift from the elementary version to the 6+ version)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Algebra readiness on the 6+ test is 235.

Read the above: "Readiness and MAP score aren't exactly aligned."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Algebra readiness on the 6+ test is 235.

That's policy in some school districts but I haven't seen that used in MCPS for placement. That's for average (non A-grade earning) kids, but a kid performing at average Algebra-ready level shouldn't be taking Algebra a year early.

I think a lot of you are making a big deal out of nothing. The percentiles for the Map 2-5 and 6+ are based on the RIT score. The RIT is supposed to show growth, the tests have overlap, one just goes lower and the other extends higher.

Here is how NWEA defines the RIT score:

What are the characteristics of the RIT scales?

These RIT scales are stable, equal interval scales that use individual item difficulty values to measure student achievement independent of grade level (that is, across grades). "Equal interval" means that the difference between scores is the same regardless of whether a student is at the top, bottom, or middle of the RIT scale. "Stable" means that the scores on the same scale from different students, or from the same students at different times, can be directly compared, even though different sets of test items are administered. A RIT score also has the same meaning regardless of the grade or age of the student.

In summary, the RIT scale is:
An achievement scale
Accurate
Equal interval
Useful for measuring growth over time
The same regardless of the grade or age of the student

source: https://connection.nwea.org/s/article/What-is-the-RIT-scale?language=en_US#:~:text=A%20RIT%20score%20measures%20a,calibrated%20at%20that%20RIT%20level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Algebra readiness on the 6+ test is 235.

Anonymous wrote:MAP has 4 subscores.

Geometry is where there is a big drop in score from 3-5 to 6+, because even very smart young kids don't magically know fancy geometry.


Also, MAP 2-5 to 6+ switches from Data and Measure to Probability and Statistics, so unless your kid studies that at home, they are likely to see new concepts and words, and see rheir score drop.

The other two categories, Operations and Algebraic Thinking, and Number System, are likely to not show a drop for kids not already far beyond 99%ile.
The kids can solve hard but familiar looking arithmetic and algebra problems.


I'd hope that MCPS uses the minimum subscore, not the average, when evaluating scores, to avoid the effect of fluke questions.

MCPS doesn't. They use the overall score to determine magnet lottery placement, from kids who took 2 different tests. SMH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Seems about right. Your kid did AIM 2 years previous to that, so probably had about 250s back then. For the same class, the cutoff for a younger student should be higher than for a older student, because there are more risk that the younger student is closer to their personal limit of growth rate.

Now we take personal growth rate into account for math placement? This is just silly. Algebra readiness is 235. Geometry readiness is 245.

Readiness and MAP score aren't exactly aligned. A kid with a high adaptive test score for their grade may have everything covered, but may also have been exposed to some higher concepts in addition to some, but not all, Algebra prep, leaving a few deficits (with the score settling where a certain percentage of questions at that overall level are answered correctly). Meanwhile, a kid of high ability and limited exposure, having their MAP score limited by the latter, might quickly get up to speed and absorb the Algebra material as well or better than the high MAP scorers.

Certainly, there is going to be a good correlation between readiness and high MAP score, and I don't disagree with the general guideline from NWEA when considered within a more holistic algorithm. I also wouldn't want to keep a high scorer out if they wanted to pursue Algebra that early, but MAP score not the right tool, as the sole standardized test criterion, for identification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Seems about right. Your kid did AIM 2 years previous to that, so probably had about 250s back then. For the same class, the cutoff for a younger student should be higher than for a older student, because there are more risk that the younger student is closer to their personal limit of growth rate.

Agree the PP wasn't credible. Most of the WPES that accelerate 6th graders into Algebra use 250 as cutoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Seems about right. Your kid did AIM 2 years previous to that, so probably had about 250s back then. For the same class, the cutoff for a younger student should be higher than for a older student, because there are more risk that the younger student is closer to their personal limit of growth rate.

Now we take personal growth rate into account for math placement? This is just silly. Algebra readiness is 235. Geometry readiness is 245.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tea on Fall MAP 6+ scores for advanced students in 5th/6th grade, from the future TMZ writers in my neighborhood

230-260 for kids in Compacted 5/6
250-280 for kids in AMP 7+ / AIM
270-290+ for kids in Algebra

Advanced Students tend to score higher than higher-grade-level students enrolled in the same course level.
This is likely an artefact of MCPS being conservative in accelerating/advancing students.

The 5th graders did not report falling off their growth curve compared to past years' MAP-M 3-5 score trends

It’s obvious these MAP 6+ scores are inflated compared to national norms. 290+ is in the 99 percentile of 12th graders and indicates mastery way beyond Algebra.

My kid got low 270s at the start of geometry and that was enough to get him into the Blair magnet. It should not be a cut off for algebra readiness.

Seems about right. Your kid did AIM 2 years previous to that, so probably had about 250s back then. For the same class, the cutoff for a younger student should be higher than for a older student, because there are more risk that the younger student is closer to their personal limit of growth rate.