Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Weird Scores

kcab,
This was under the Illinois NWEA MAP Frequently Asked Questions. https://illinoisnwea.wikispaces.com/FAQ+MAP

I hadn't realized there were different versions of the test:

What is the difference between the 2-5 version and the 6+ version of the tests?
- Math 2-5: has no items including computation with decimals, fractions, percents, etc.
- Math 6+: includes those computation items listed above, also ratio and proportion and other more difficult skills
- Reading 2-5: passage length cannot exceed 100 words
- Reading 6 +: passage length can go up to 600 words
NOTE: This does not effect how high the student can score on the test. A student who takes a 2-5 test can score just as high as a student on a 6+ test, but the content is limited.

What are the parameters for the Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer testing seasons?
NWEA's default test window dates are:
- Fall: 8/15 - 11/30
- Winter : 12/1 � 2/28
- Spring: 3/1 � 6/15
- Summer: 6/16 - 8/14

How do I explain it when students show no growth or negative growth?
Below is a list of questions to think through when faced with this situation...
� Is this a Spring to Fall issue?
� How much data do we have? Is this one or two data points?
� Did the student top out of the test? For the majority of the kids this will not be true.
� How does the data match other data you have about the child?
� What might be some reasons for the student�s performance at a given point in time? Upset? Test Anxiety?�
� Are there things that you know about the situation that could account for the lack of growth?
� Is this a pattern that you see in other subject areas?
� As you look at the student�s performance in this area, what do you see in the goal data?
� Is this a particular student�s pattern or did it show up in other kids?
� Are we challenging these kids appropriately? Is instruction differentiated enough?
� Is it a curriculum issue?

To figure out growth, you have to look at what your school is using as grade level competency levels and not the RIT score, in isolation.

I have some old proficiency charts using NWEA testing. From these it is clear that they test expects more growth per year in the early years than the late ones. So for math the proficiency score is
2nd 185
3rd 196
4th 205
5th 213
6th 219
7th 225
8th 233
9th 240
10th 242

So in 2nd grade, a year's growth is 11pts, but by 9th, it is only 2pts. So when DS was getting scores in the 150's and only made 2 pts growth, we were all happy because it still represented a year of growth at the high end of the test even while his elementary classmates were picking up 10 pts to get their year of growth.

This was surprising too:

We should also keep in mind that, even in the best schools, many children do not succeed in
achieving their growth index target. In the top 10% of schools about 60 to 70% of the students
reach their RIT point growth norm target in reading, while about 65 to 75% of students meet this
target in mathematics. When setting targets using this statistic, educators should remember that a
school in which more than 70% of the students meet or exceed their growth index norm is
exemplary.

http://illinoisnwea.wikispaces.com/file/view/SchoolGrowthNormStudy2006-Final.040407.pdf

Yep, I did!

I think each state does use their own criteria, scores, and questions. Our state used to use NWEA, but doesn't any more. I found their website not very helpful and at one point resorted to calling them directly with a question my district couldn't answer.

I just viewed the MAP for Primary Grades Warmup. This prepares the kids to take the test.

http://audio.nwea.org/WarmUp/index.html

Thanks for the information. I've learned quite a bit about the MAP test today and it will help me be better prepared when I talk to the folks at school.

kcab,
I found this about MAP and state standards:

"First, the NAEP examinations are not designed to directly align
with the content standards of any one state"

http://www.nwea.org/assets/research/national/State%20of%20State%20standards%20-%20exec%20summary.pdf

Thanks for clarifying. My acronyms were blurring together late last night. This was the link for the full report that the quote came from:
http://www.nwea.org/assets/research...%20standards%20-%20complete%20report.pdf

I think I found the MAP data I needed. It's 2005 Placement Guidelines and shows RIT values for gifted (they use 95%)at each grade level. For 2nd grade they have Gifted RIT value of 198 for Fall Math and 201 for Fall Reading. Unfortunately they don't have the 2008 Placement Guidelines available yet with 1st grade scores. I think this will be enough to show that there's something off with the percentile the teacher told me for my daughter and the RIT values she gave me for the 1st grade gifted program.

http://www.nwea.org/assets/downloads/981/Placement%20Guidelines1.pdf

This site has information for putting the RIT value to use:
http://www.wwgschools.org/Northwest%20Evaluation%20Association.htm

For example:

RIT scores between 181 and 190
Whole Numbers
Subtract a 2-digit number from a 3-digit number with a single regrouping
Identify the division facts related to a multiplication fact with one factor as 1,2,3,4,5 and the other factor 0-9


I think this will be useful in advocating for specific differentiated instruction.

Well, it should be useful in advocating ...

... but my ds's school wasn't inclined to use his MAP scores to differentiate. Maybe your dc's school will be more open to the idea. I was aghast at how my ds-then-5's teacher and administrators had his info sitting in front of them (RIT 186 in January, 192 in April as a Ker, not to mention his 3SD+ IQ score AND his >99.9 percentile WIAT achievement scores), and still refused to do anything about it.

Don't mean to sound all gloom-and-doom -- I hope your school is more receptive than my ds's was. Just know that what seems pretty cut-and-dry to you may not take shape as you hope, so be prepared for a -- I don't want to say "battle," but at least a push back from the school. I thought my ds's scores screamed for some differentiation at the very least, and preferably acceleration since his reading scores were almost equally high, but it didn't end up that way -- "social concerns," "organizational concerns" and all.

Can you tell we had a pretty bad experience and I'm just a *snitch* disillusioned?

Would someone be so kind as to explain to me what RIT scores are? I am gathering all my data for the p/t conference on Friday, have all the MAP data but cannot discover, exactly, what RIT means.

Thanks!