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

Since they gave me those numbers and I questioned them, they've backed away saying MAP is not designed to determine placement in any sort of school program. They said if MAP results based on the 2005 Placement Guidelines were used roughly 80% of students would be �gifted.�

In addition to details about how they renormed the percentiles, I'm thinking I should ask:
1) Was the district involved in or informed of this process?
2) How will the information about the renormed percentiles be shared with other parents so they understand they do not have nationally normed data?

Any other suggestions?

What DO they use for placement?

That's a good one I've already asked but they haven't answered yet.

Thanks for the suggestions and keep 'em coming! The school said their experience w/ MAP was that the test skews the scores much higher than what they actually see based on their own classroom formative & summative assessments.

I'll be away for the next few days but will check back before I meet with the school. I appreciate the feedback and feel much more prepared now.

We met with the Principal and VP yesterday. The weird percentiles they had were from some handout called MAP for Primary Grades Preliminary Norms that they got at a workshop. It has PRELIMINARY stamped over the data with no date or further explanation. The principal and VP don't know what the data means or what it's normed for and they're trying to contact NWEA. They confirmed her percentiles on her individual report from NWEA are 99% reading and 97% math.

We asked if the 81% they'd given us previously meant there are 19 students at the school with higher RIT scores in reading but they wouldn't give a direct answer. They said DD was in the top 15 but they didn't want to rank order young children. We let it drop but it was less than helpful in understanding whether that meant there are 14 with higher scores or none.

Afterwards we tried to find the PRELIMINARY data on the NWEA website. We couldn't find it but we did download the RIT Scale Norms for Early and Primary Grades dated Nov 29, 2007 (I had to upgrade my version of Adobe in order to view it). This data matched DD's 99% and 97% scores. In fact, she is 10 points over the RIT for reading 99%.

http://www.nwea.org/support/details.aspx?content=1261

My overall sense was they were trying to downplay any data that indicated DD was gifted while playing up anything that could indicate she's not. We restated our request that DD be given work that is at the appropriate level for her.

We're planning to write a follow up letter which includes the RIT Scale Norms for Early and Primary Grades and ask them to clarify with NWEA which norms are correct. DD is supposed to be assessed with the Gifted teacher so hopefully those results will help in getting DD's needs met at school.

Right now I'm a big fan of Mark Twain's quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Makes me mad at my school district!! My second grader scored 99%(207) in Math and 94%(203) reading comprehension. These are her MAP scores. They told me this did not qualify for GT. Anger is boiling over here!

Just needded to vent! Thanks all.

KLH

Yes, that just seems ridiculous. Is it that the scores would qualify, but they have limited space? Do they use some other test instead of MAP? Or do those scores truly not qualify because they're too low?

Well, her scores wsic are fsiq 126. VCI 140 PRI 140, GAI 151. The school district has a firm cut off of 130. They have no clue about GAI, nor were they interested in hearing about it. The policy for for MAPs testing is 95% or better in two areas. She only missed the the second test by 1%. Does any one know of an IQ test that doesn't relye on so much processing? I am thinking about out side testing.

I don't know how much it relies on processing speed, but you could try the SB5. Maybe that test would suit her better.

My DS's WISC fsiq was also <130 with a GAI >145. When he later took the SB5, his FSIQ was >140. There is definitely a processing component to the SB5, but the tasks are very different from the WISC and were definitely more engaging for our DS who did much better on them than on the WISC tasks.

So I guess I can give you some hope that the score could go up if she took the SB5. You never know unless you try.

We were fortunate in that the IQ number never made a difference for GT programs. We would have been in your position if it had since his first FSIQ would not have made the cut. I feel for you.