I would like to use my DD8’s fall 2017 MAP scores as one data point in support of a request for single subject acceleration in language arts. Would it be appropriate to rely on Table C.1.4 in this document (pp. 73-74) to compare her achievement with test takers in higher grades: http://www.sowashco.org/files/department/rea/2015NormsReport_Reading.pdf? It is not information I’ve ever seen our school use.

DD (3rd grade) scored a 235 in reading. Would that place her at roughly the 91st percentile among 7th graders? Or am I misunderstanding something? I know that percentile rank would be different for our local district. Is there anything to be made of the fact that she took the 2-5 version of the test whereas students in grades 6 and 7 were taking the 6+ version?

I’ve been reading old posts on the subject and take to heart the advice that MAP is not a good tool for determining instructional level, particularly in language arts (thank you, aeh!). My main point to the school is that DD’s MAP scores, along with her WISC and WIAT results, provide strong evidence of readiness for advanced work. Curriculum-based assessment would be a reasonable next step.

Thanks very much in advance for any thoughts!

If she had taken the 6+ version, you might be able to reasonably use that norms document for a statement about secondary students, but since she took the 2-5 version, higher-level items (of the kind an advanced 7th grader might complete successfully) were not present on the test. The most you can say is that, on this instrument, she performed at a level comparable to that of the 97+ percentile of grade five students. Keep in mind, though, that SSA in reading really means SSA in writing, often. If you do not have data on her skills in written expression (especially for longer, more complex formal writing tasks), the school may be reluctant to entertain the idea (and, in fact, it may not be in her best interest). The CBA may be a good source of some additional data in this area.

I was always told that it meant she would score higher than 91% of the 7th grader taking this version of the tests. What it doesn't mean is she can handle 7th grade work. She may be able to. But MAP doesn't test that.

I don't understand what info this gives either. DS was given the 2-5 version and scored almost 260 on math but my understanding is 260 is the ceiling and 246 is the 99th percentile for his grade so I don't know what that means about how high above grade level he is, or how high above the 99th percentile. Pretty useless, IMO, other than it telling us he is advanced which we already knew.

Its function is to gauge growth for the grades it's geared toward, not determine advanced instruction levels. It's useful for gauging being advanced, just not for true mastery, due to limited number of questions. One option is to request the winter and spring testing be on the 6+ version, due to being at that high level, close to the ceiling. It is likely there will be a drop in RIT initially when switching (the higher the RIT, the wider the margin of error, and the larger the point variance, like 12+ points).

You may want to show the school this document about transitioning test versions.
https://www.nwea.org/content/upload...ath-6-plus-Transition-Guidance-MAY15.pdf

Thanks longcut, they only give it once per year so hopefully next fall it will be the 6+ version.

Thanks everyone. That is very helpful.

Sounds like the most that might be said based on MAP is that she is advanced. By how much … don’t know. There’s still value in providing what data we have related to advanced achievement as a starting point for further discussion and assessment, especially where we’re having this conversation with a new teacher.

DD is 2E with variability in her cognitive profile. Wherever she lands in terms of grade level, it’s unlikely to be uniform across all components of the language arts curriculum. Right now, we're thinking that our ideal scenario would be some mix of accelerated and enriched learning opportunities in her current classroom, among same-age peers.

Again, thank you.

While I've done the analysis suggested, the reasons provided above make it a tenuous comparison. I prefer to use the data on page 55 and, with a fair assumption of a normal distribution, project a percentile more granular than just "higher than 99" that's available in the tables.

235 Reading in 3rd grade would be 2.95 SD over mean, or 99.8th percentile among 3rd graders. This comparison against others in-grade seems a bit easier to grasp than some percentile against another grade level.

The new NWEA recommendations are no 6+ before 6th. So while the grade is only 2-5 there is certainly content above grade 5. The upper level questions will involve greek / latin roots. I'd really like to know how say a 250 on the 2-5 compares to a 250 6+.

We saw 252 Reading and 265 Math on the 2-5. That article that is posted frequently on here about the ceilings is outdated.

Here's a calculator that converts RIT scores to percentiles:

NWEA Unofficial RIT To Percentile Calculator